DCT

2:22-cv-00384

Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Innolux Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00384, E.D. Tex., 10/03/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper under the alien venue rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), on the basis that Defendant is a foreign entity not resident in any U.S. judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s thin-film transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels and modules infringe six patents related to the structure, manufacturing, and operation of liquid crystal displays.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on fundamental technologies for TFT-LCDs, which are critical components in a vast range of consumer and industrial electronics, including televisions, monitors, laptops, and mobile devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents and their infringement based on multiple notices received from a former patent owner, Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, on various dates beginning in February 2017. This history is presented as a basis for claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-10-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,801,293
1999-10-21 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,525,798
2000-04-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,787,829
2000-07-24 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,816,208
2000-08-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,906,769
2000-09-27 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,850,303
2003-02-25 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,525,798
2004-09-07 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,787,829
2004-10-05 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,801,293
2004-11-09 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,816,208
2005-02-01 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,850,303
2005-06-14 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,906,769
2017-02-08 Alleged notice of infringement from former patent owner
2017-04-18 Alleged notice of infringement from former patent owner
2020-07-29 Alleged notice of infringement from former patent owner
2022-10-03 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,525,798 - "Liquid Crystal Display Unit"

  • Issued: February 25, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues in prior art In-Plane Switching (IPS) liquid crystal displays, including "coloring," where the perceived color tone changes depending on the viewing angle, and low light-use efficiency, which requires brighter, more power-intensive backlights (’798 Patent, col. 1:48–2:24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using multiple "electrode pairs," each consisting of a common electrode and a pixel electrode, that have different geometrical shapes within the same pixel. Specifically, at least one electrode pair differs from others in the thickness of its electrodes (’798 Patent, col. 2:45–55; Abstract). By varying electrode thickness, the electric field distribution is altered, which changes the wavelength dispersion characteristics of the liquid crystal layer, allowing for cancellation of coloring effects and optimization of light transmittance for different color pixels (e.g., red, green, blue) (’798 Patent, col. 4:35–51).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for improving the color fidelity, viewing angle performance, and power efficiency of IPS-LCDs, which were increasingly favored for high-performance displays (’798 Patent, col. 2:25–29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A liquid crystal display unit comprising a plurality of pixels, each with common and pixel electrodes, between two substrates with a liquid crystal layer.
    • Each pixel includes a plurality of electrode pairs, with each pair comprising one common electrode and an adjacent pixel electrode.
    • The point of novelty: "at least one of the electrode pairs differs from other electrode pairs in a thickness of its common electrode or a thickness of its pixel electrode."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,787,829 - "LCD Panel"

  • Issued: September 7, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a source of image quality degradation in IPS displays: an unintended electric field forms between the image signal line and the adjacent common electrode. This creates an "uncontrollable region" of the liquid crystal that does not contribute properly to the image, reducing the pixel's effective aperture ratio and potentially causing brightness variations (’829 Patent, col. 1:56–2:9).
  • The Patented Solution: To solve this, the invention specifies the material properties of the electrodes. The electrode adjacent to the signal line (where the adverse electric field occurs) is made of an "opaque conductor" to shield the undesirable light from this region. Concurrently, at least one of the other electrodes, which form the primary electric field for displaying the image, is made of a "transparent conductor" to maximize the light-transmitting area and maintain a high aperture ratio (’829 Patent, col. 3:5–13; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provided a structural solution to improve the brightness and visual quality of high-resolution IPS displays, where shrinking pixel sizes make aperture ratio a critical performance metric (’829 Patent, col. 2:39–47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A liquid crystal display panel with an array substrate, counter substrate, liquid crystal layer, image and scanning signal lines, pixel and common electrodes, and a switching element.
    • The point of novelty: "of the pixel electrode and the common electrode, the electrode that is located adjacent to and parallel to one of the image signal lines or one of the scanning signal lines comprises an opaque conductor, and at least one of the other electrodes comprises a transparent conductor."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,801,293 - "Method for Manufacturing an In-Plane Electric Field Mode Liquid Crystal Element"

  • Issued: October 5, 2004

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’293 patent addresses the problem of "black dot non-uniformities" that can degrade display quality in in-plane switching (IPS) LCDs (’293 Patent, col. 1:26–29). The patented solution is a manufacturing method that includes forming orientation films on the display substrates and then performing a "stripping step of stripping, by rubbing, a predetermined portion of the orientation film" on the electrodes or lines (’293 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).

  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶70).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that products such as the Innolux TFT-LCD model N133HCE-GP1 (used in the Acer Swift 7 laptop) were made using the patented method, including the rubbing and stripping step (Compl. ¶71, ¶74).

U.S. Patent No. 6,816,208 - "Liquid Crystal Display Device"

  • Issued: November 9, 2004

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’208 patent describes a structure for an active matrix LCD that aims to maintain a constant aperture ratio while allowing the storage capacity of pixels to be varied. The invention achieves this by creating a "capacitive accumulation portion" where the storage capacity of one pixel differs from an adjacent pixel "by varying an aperture in the common electrode of the adjacent pixel with respect to the aperture of the one pixel" (’208 Patent, Abstract). This allows for tuning of pixel electronics without sacrificing display brightness.

  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶88).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Innolux's TFT-LCD model V236BJ1-D03 infringes by having a capacitive accumulation portion where storage capacity is varied between adjacent pixels by altering an aperture in the common electrode (Compl. ¶89–90).

U.S. Patent No. 6,850,303 - "Liquid Crystal Display Device Having Additional Storage Capacitance"

  • Issued: February 1, 2005

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’303 patent discloses a specific layered structure for creating storage capacitance in an LCD pixel. The invention describes a pixel electrode and a storage capacity electrode that are layered "so as to hold at least some part of the common wiring in between through an insulating layer" (’303 Patent, Abstract). This configuration is designed to enhance storage capacity, which improves image stability, within the compact geometry of a pixel.

  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶103).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Innolux's TFT-LCD model V236BJ1-D03 infringes by having the claimed layered structure of a pixel electrode, storage capacity electrode, common wiring, and insulating layer (Compl. ¶109–110).

U.S. Patent No. 6,906,769 - "Liquid Crystal Screen Display"

  • Issued: June 14, 2005

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’769 patent addresses display unevenness caused by unwanted ion generation and uneven ion distribution within the liquid crystal layer. The patented solution involves a "first conductive member" (such as a gate signal line) that is placed between a substrate and its corresponding alignment layer, is in "partial contact with the alignment layer," and to which a "negative voltage is applied" (’769 Patent, Abstract). This structure is intended to control the electrical environment at the substrate surface to prevent or remediate ion-related display defects.

  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶123).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Innolux's TFT-LCD model V236BJ1-D03 infringes by including a first conductive member (gate signal lines) positioned between the substrate and alignment layer, in partial contact with the alignment layer, and to which a negative voltage is applied (Compl. ¶127).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are TFT-LCD panels and modules manufactured, used, sold, or imported by Innolux (Compl. ¶4). Specific examples cited include Innolux's model V236BJ1-D03, identified as a component in the Vizio TV model D24h–J09, and model N133HCE-GP1, identified as a component in the Acer Swift 7 SF713-51 laptop (Compl. ¶35, ¶71).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are fundamental components that generate images in a wide variety of electronic devices, such as televisions, monitors, notebooks, tablets, and smartphones (Compl. ¶22). The complaint alleges that Innolux is a "leader in the global TFT-LCD market" and that the accused products incorporate technologies covered by the Asserted Patents (Compl. ¶22, ¶34). An image of the LCM label for the V236BJ1-D03 model is provided as evidence of the product's identity (Compl. p. 13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’798 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a liquid crystal display unit comprising: a plurality of pixels each including a plurality of common electrodes, a plurality of pixel electrodes, and a semiconductor switching element... The accused Innolux TFT-LCD model V236BJ1-D03 is a liquid crystal display unit comprising pixels with common electrodes, pixel electrodes, and semiconductor switching elements. ¶35-38 col. 2:30-34
wherein each of the pixels includes a plurality of electrode pairs, each electrode pair comprising one of the common electrodes and an adjacent one of the pixel electrodes... Each pixel in the accused product allegedly includes multiple pairs of common and adjacent pixel electrodes. The complaint includes a micrograph identifying these structures. ¶40 col. 2:37-40
and at least one of the electrode pairs differs from other electrode pairs in a thickness of its common electrode or a thickness of its pixel electrode. The complaint alleges that an examination of the accused product demonstrates that at least one electrode pair differs from others in the thickness of its common or pixel electrode. A micrograph pointing to different electrode pairs is provided to support this allegation. ¶40 col. 2:40-44
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: The central point of contention will likely be factual and evidentiary. While the complaint alleges a difference in electrode thickness based on an "examination" (Compl. ¶40), the provided top-down micrograph does not directly visualize thickness. The dispute may turn on whether Plaintiff can produce more definitive evidence, such as scanning electron microscope (SEM) cross-sections, to prove a physical difference in electrode thickness between pairs within a single pixel.

’829 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a liquid crystal display panel comprising... an array substrate... image signal lines... scanning signal lines... a line-shaped pixel electrode... a common electrode... The accused Innolux TFT-LCD model V236BJ1-D03 is a liquid crystal display panel with the claimed substrate, signal line, and electrode structures. ¶53-56 col. 11:27-51
wherein, of the pixel electrode and the common electrode, the electrode that is located adjacent to and parallel to one of the image signal lines or one of the scanning signal lines comprises an opaque conductor... An examination of the accused product allegedly demonstrates that the common electrode, which is adjacent to the image signal lines, is comprised of an opaque conductor. ¶58 col. 12:55-61
and at least one of the other electrodes comprises a transparent conductor. The same examination allegedly demonstrates that the pixel electrode, which is one of the other electrodes, comprises a transparent conductor. An annotated micrograph is provided to illustrate this distinction. ¶58 col. 12:61-63
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Definitional and Technical Question: The dispute will likely focus on the terms "opaque conductor" and "transparent conductor." The case may require construction of these terms to establish a threshold for opacity and transparency. The subsequent factual question will be whether the materials used in the accused product for the respective electrodes meet the construed definitions. The complaint's visual evidence labels the electrodes accordingly, but this assertion will likely be contested based on the actual material composition and optical properties of the conductors used in the accused panels (Compl. p. 24).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Patent: ’798 Patent

  • The Term: "differs... in a thickness"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase is the central limitation of Claim 1 and the point of novelty. The infringement case hinges on proving a measurable physical difference in the vertical dimension (thickness) of either the common or pixel electrodes between different electrode pairs within a pixel. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's evidence is a top-down view, making proof of thickness variation a key challenge for the plaintiff.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not quantify the required difference, suggesting any measurable variation could suffice. The specification discusses using electrodes of "different width and thickness" to achieve a technical effect, implying thickness is a design parameter to be varied (’798 Patent, col. 3:1-2).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links different electrode geometries (including thickness) to achieving different "wavelength dispersion characteristics" (’798 Patent, col. 4:45-48). A defendant may argue that "differs... in a thickness" should be limited to a difference that is technologically significant enough to produce the optical effects described in the patent, not just any incidental manufacturing variation.

Patent: ’829 Patent

  • The Term: "opaque conductor" / "transparent conductor"
  • Context and Importance: The distinction between the materials of the electrode adjacent to the signal line and the other electrodes is the core of the invention. The definition of these terms will determine whether the materials used in the accused product satisfy the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide explicit numerical definitions for "opaque" or "transparent." A party could argue for their plain and ordinary meaning, where a material like Indium Tin Oxide (ITO), commonly used for transparent electrodes, would qualify as "transparent," and a typical metal used for signal lines would qualify as "opaque." (’829 Patent, col. 6:2 mentions ITO).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the terms should be defined functionally in the context of the patent's stated goal: the "opaque" conductor must sufficiently block light from the "uncontrollable region" to prevent image degradation, while the "transparent" conductor must allow sufficient light transmission to maintain a high aperture ratio. This could invite a more nuanced, quantitative definition beyond a simple material category.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each of the six asserted patents, the complaint alleges active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations state that Innolux, with knowledge of the patents, intended to cause infringement by its distributors, customers, and subsidiaries by, among other things, "creating advertisements that promote the infringing use," establishing distribution channels, and "distributing or making available instructions or manuals" for the accused products (Compl. ¶42, ¶60, ¶77, ¶92, ¶112, ¶129).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been and continues to be willful. This allegation is primarily based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents from multiple notices of infringement allegedly sent by a former patent owner starting on February 8, 2017, April 18, 2017, and July 29, 2020 (Compl. ¶41, ¶59, ¶76, ¶91, ¶111, ¶128). The complaint also asserts knowledge based on Defendant's prosecution of its own patents that cited the asserted patents (Compl. ¶41, ¶76).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A central issue for several patents will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can Plaintiff produce sufficient, non-conclusory technical evidence, such as material composition analysis and microscopy cross-sections, to demonstrate that the accused products' microscopic structures—specifically, the variation in electrode thickness (’798 patent), the material opacity of conductors (’829 patent), and the layering of storage capacity electrodes (’303 patent)—meet the precise limitations of the asserted claims?
  • For the asserted method patent (’293 patent), a key question will be one of process inference: Can Plaintiff establish that the accused LCD panels, which are imported as finished goods, were necessarily manufactured abroad using the patented "stripping step of stripping, by rubbing," a specific process detail that is within Defendant's exclusive knowledge and control?
  • Given the complaint’s specific allegations of multiple pre-suit notices from a prior patent owner dating back several years, a crucial question for damages will be objective recklessness: Did Defendant's continued alleged infringement after receiving these notices constitute conduct that disregarded an objectively high likelihood of infringement, potentially justifying an award of enhanced damages for willfulness?