DCT
2:18-cv-00184
Visual Effect Innovations LLC v. Samsung Group
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Visual Effect Innovations, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York) and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: LAW OFFICES OF N.D. GALLI LLC; van Cleef Law Office
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00184, E.D. Tex., 05/04/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Samsung Electronics America, Inc. having a regular and established place of business in the district (the "Richardson Facility"), where a substantial part of the alleged infringement is said to occur.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s televisions, which utilize features such as "Backlight Scanning" and "Black Frame Insertion," infringe patents related to methods of improving perceived motion on a display by generating and inserting modified or solid-color frames between standard video frames.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses motion blur and judder in digital displays by manipulating the sequence of presented frames to enhance motion clarity, a key selling point in the competitive consumer television market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff, through counsel, provided Defendant with notice of U.S. Patent No. 9,781,408 and its alleged infringement on February 22, 2018, less than three months before filing suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-01-23 | Earliest Priority Date for '408 and '922 Patents |
| 2017-10-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,781,408 Issues |
| 2018-02-22 | Plaintiff allegedly notifies Samsung of '408 Patent |
| 2018-04-17 | U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 Issues |
| 2018-05-04 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,781,408 ("the '408 Patent"): Faster state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials, issued October 3, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent and complaint describe how conventional methods of displaying motion in film and on digital screens can produce an undesirable visual artifact known as "flicker" during the transition between frames (Compl. ¶6; '408 Patent, col. 50:47-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes turning this "negative into a positive" by deliberately inserting a "bridging picture" that is "substantially dissimilar" to the primary image frames (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8; '408 Patent, col. 8:50-56). This technique, which can be implemented via methods like "backlight scanning," is intended to harness the "effects of emphatic flicker on the human optical/nervous system" to create the appearance of smoother motion and other visual or depth effects (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9; '408 Patent, col. 50:58-64).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to leverage a perceptual phenomenon to improve motion clarity on displays, a field of significant development as television manufacturers pursued higher effective refresh rates (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 of the '408 Patent are an apparatus comprising a storage and a processor adapted to:
- obtain a first image frame from a video stream;
- expand the first image frame to generate a different, modified image frame;
- generate a first altered image frame with first and second non-overlapping portions, where the first portion comes from the modified frame and neither the first nor the modified frame includes the second portion; and
- generate a second altered image frame with third and fourth non-overlapping portions, where the third portion is a different part of the modified frame and neither the first nor the modified frame includes the fourth portion.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶21).
U.S. Patent No. 9,948,922 ("the '922 Patent"): Faster State Transitioning For Continuous Adjustable 3deeps Filter Spectacles Using Multi-Layered Variable Tint Materials, issued April 17, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like the '408 Patent, this patent addresses the challenge of portraying continuous motion on presentation devices, originating from efforts to solve problems in film and movie display technology (Compl. ¶¶ 5-6; '922 Patent, col. 2:18-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims an apparatus that generates and displays a "bridge frame" of a "solid color" in between a first and second modified image frame (Compl. ¶37.e; '922 Patent, col. 114:38-40). This is a specific implementation of the "bridging picture" concept, where the inserted frame is explicitly a solid color, such as a black frame, to create the desired visual effect (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 43).
- Technical Importance: This patented method provides a distinct technique—inserting a solid color frame—for achieving the goal of reducing motion blur, a widely adopted strategy in the television industry known as Black Frame Insertion (BFI) (Compl. ¶43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 of the '922 Patent are an apparatus comprising a storage and a processor adapted to:
- obtain a first and a second image frame from a video stream;
- generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame;
- generate a second modified image frame by expanding the second image frame;
- generate a bridge frame of a solid color different from the first and second image frames; and
- display the first modified image frame, then the bridge frame, then the second modified image frame.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶39).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses Samsung televisions ("Samsung TVs"), identifying the Samsung UNES8000 series and the Samsung 65" MU8000 as representative products (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 22, 39).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused TVs incorporate "Backlight Scanning" and "Black Frame Insertion (BFI)" technologies, which are marketed as features that improve motion clarity, such as "Motion Rate 960" or "Clear Motion Rate" (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 26, 43). The infringement allegations center on how these features operate. For example, the complaint alleges that BFI technology creates a solid black frame between image frames (Compl. ¶43). The complaint uses an annotated screenshot from a YouTube video to allege that backlight scanning technology generates "altered image frames" by sequentially illuminating different portions of a modified image frame (Compl. ¶27, Fig. 7). The complaint also asserts that the TVs contain the necessary processors and memory to perform video processing, including upscaling lower-resolution content to the screen's native resolution (Compl. ¶¶ 23-25, 41-42).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'408 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a storage adapted to store one or more image frames; and a processor adapted to: obtain a first image frame from a first video stream; | The accused Samsung TVs are alleged to contain memory (storage) and a dual-core processor capable of obtaining image frames from video inputs like HDMI (Compl. ¶23, Fig. 2). | ¶23, ¶24 | col. 113:1-5 |
| expand the first image frame to generate a modified image frame, wherein the modified image frame is different from the first image frame; | The TV's "Upscaler" is alleged to expand a received image frame (e.g., 720p) to the screen's higher native resolution (e.g., 1080p), thereby generating a modified frame of a different size (Compl. ¶25, Fig. 4). | ¶25 | col. 113:5-8 |
| generate a first altered image frame that includes first and second non-overlapping portions, wherein the first non-overlapping portion comprises a first portion of the modified image frame, wherein the first image frame does not include the second non-overlapping portion, wherein the modified image frame does not include the second non-overlapping portion; and | "Backlight Scanning" technology allegedly generates this frame by illuminating a portion of the screen displaying part of the modified image. The complaint provides a visual purporting to show this "First altered image frame" (Compl. ¶27, Fig. 7). | ¶26, ¶27 | col. 113:9-17 |
| generate a second altered image frame that includes third and fourth non-overlapping portions wherein the third non-overlapping portion comprises a second portion of the modified image frame, the second portion of the modified image frame being different from the first portion of the modified image frame, wherein the first image frame does not include the fourth non-overlapping portion, wherein the modified image frame does not include the fourth non-overlapping portion. | Backlight scanning is alleged to then generate a second altered frame by illuminating a different portion of the screen. The complaint provides a visual purporting to show this "Second altered image frame" (Compl. ¶28, Fig. 8). | ¶28 | col. 113:18-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether "backlight scanning"—a display illumination method—constitutes the "generation" of "altered image frames" by a "processor" as claimed. A dispute may arise over whether the claims require the creation of new data structures in a frame buffer, versus the physical modulation of a backlight illuminating a single, unmodified data frame.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's theory appears to depend on a darkened (un-illuminated) area of the screen qualifying as a "non-overlapping portion" of an "altered image frame." The question is whether an absence of light can meet this claim limitation, which will likely be a focus of claim construction.
'922 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an apparatus comprising: a storage adapted to store one or more image frames; a processor adapted to: obtain a first image frame and a second image frame from a first video stream; | The accused Samsung TVs are alleged to contain storage and a quad-core processor that obtains sequential image frames from video inputs (Compl. ¶40, Fig. 10). | ¶39, ¶40 | col. 114:26-32 |
| generate a first modified image frame by expanding the first image frame... generate a second modified image frame by expanding the second image frame... | The TV's "UHD Upscaling" feature is alleged to expand the first and second image frames from a lower resolution to the screen's native 3840 x 2160 resolution, creating modified frames different from the originals (Compl. ¶41, Fig. 11). | ¶41, ¶42 | col. 114:33-37 |
| generate a bridge frame, wherein the bridge frame is a solid color, wherein the bridge frame is different from the first image frame and different from the second image frame; | The "Black Frame Insertion (BFI)" feature allegedly generates a solid black frame between the first and second image frames. The complaint offers an oscilloscope trace as evidence of this feature's operation (Compl. ¶43, Fig. 15). | ¶43 | col. 114:38-42 |
| display the first modified image frame; display the bridge frame; and display the second modified image frame. | The processor is alleged to be adapted to display the sequence of the first upscaled image, the black frame from BFI, and the second upscaled image (Compl. ¶44). The complaint references an oscilloscope trace as evidence (Compl. ¶44, Fig. 17). | ¶44 | col. 114:43-46 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Similar to the '408 patent, a core question is whether "Black Frame Insertion," which involves turning off the backlight, meets the claim limitation of a processor "generating" a "bridge frame" that is a "solid color." The dispute will likely center on whether a "frame" must be a data object or if the resulting visual on screen is sufficient.
- Technical Questions: The complaint attributes the generation and display steps to the TV's main "processor." It may become a technical question whether the main processor performs these functions or if they are handled by a separate, and potentially unclaimed, display controller or timing controller (TCON) chip.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "generate a... frame" (appearing in both patents)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the plaintiff's infringement theories for both patents rely on display-level techniques (backlight scanning, BFI) meeting this limitation. The case may turn on whether "generate" requires creating a new data object in memory or if it can encompass controlling the display hardware to produce a visual output that corresponds to the claimed frame.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specifications discuss the invention's goal in perceptual terms, such as the "repetitive presentation to the viewer" of certain images to create an effect ('408 Patent, col. 8:50-52). This focus on the visual result could support an interpretation where the method of achieving that result is less important than the result itself.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims are directed to an apparatus with a "processor adapted to... generate" a frame, which suggests a computational act. Embodiments are described with system blocks like a "Bridge Frame Generator" module, which implies a distinct functional unit for creating frame data ('408 Patent, Fig. 31; '922 Patent, Fig. 31). This could support a narrower construction requiring the creation of a new data frame in a buffer prior to display.
Term: "non-overlapping portions" (from '408 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The plaintiff's infringement theory for the '408 patent relies on backlight scanning, where part of the screen is lit (the first "portion") and part is dark (the second "portion"). Practitioners may focus on this term because the viability of the infringement read depends on whether an absence of light can be considered a "portion" of an "altered image frame."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's purpose is to manipulate visual perception. From a viewer's perspective, a dark band on the screen is a distinct visual "portion" of what is being presented. The patent does not appear to explicitly define "portion" in a way that would exclude this interpretation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: In digital imaging, a "portion" of a frame typically refers to a set of pixels with color and luminance data. An argument could be made that an unlit area lacks such data and is therefore not a "portion" of the frame itself, but rather an artifact of the display method. The patent's discussion of blending and modifying frames often implies manipulation of pixel data ('408 Patent, col. 10:1-15), which could support a more data-centric definition.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes conclusory allegations of indirect infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) for both patents (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 46). However, it does not plead specific facts detailing any alleged inducement or contribution, such as citing user manuals that instruct users to infringe.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The claim regarding the '408 Patent is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from an electronic communication sent by Plaintiff's counsel to Samsung on February 22, 2018 (Compl. ¶¶ 30-32). For the '922 Patent, which issued just weeks before the suit was filed, the complaint does not allege a specific instance of pre-suit notice, suggesting the willfulness claim may be based on Samsung's alleged conduct after the complaint was filed.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute appears to center on the application of patent claims, drafted with language suggestive of digital data manipulation, to the physical-world operation of modern television display technologies. The key questions for the court will likely be:
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: Can claim terms like "generate a frame" be interpreted to cover physical display-level actions like modulating a backlight ("backlight scanning") or turning it off entirely ("black frame insertion"), or are they limited to the creation of new data structures in the device's memory?
- A second key question will be one of definitional interpretation for the '408 Patent: Can a darkened, un-illuminated area of a screen, resulting from backlight scanning, satisfy the claim requirement for a "non-overlapping portion" of an "altered image frame"?
- An underlying evidentiary question will be one of technical attribution: Can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused television's main "processor" is the component that performs the specific, claimed steps of generating and sequencing these frames, as opposed to a separate, unclaimed display controller?