DCT

2:23-cv-00515

Longitude Licensing Ltd v. BOE Technology Group Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00515, E.D. Tex., 05/23/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant does not reside in the United States and may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s liquid crystal display (LCD) panels and modules infringe six U.S. patents related to foundational LCD technologies, including pixel layouts, electrode structures, panel sealing methods, and protective circuitry.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on core technologies for manufacturing LCDs, which are ubiquitous components in a vast range of consumer and industrial electronics, from monitors and televisions to smartphones and automotive displays.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties engaged in licensing negotiations for over three years, from approximately January 2020 to July 2023. During these negotiations, Plaintiffs assert they provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement for the patents-in-suit on a rolling basis, which forms the basis of the willful infringement allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-01-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,502,079 Priority Date
2004-07-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,184,157 Priority Date
2004-07-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,181,462 Priority Date
2004-12-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,557,606 Priority Date
2006-10-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,705,948 Priority Date
2008-10-03 U.S. Patent No. 8,223,093 Priority Date
2009-03-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,502,079 Issues
2010-04-27 U.S. Patent No. 7,705,948 Issues
2012-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,223,093 Issues
2015-11-10 U.S. Patent No. 9,184,157 Issues
2017-01-31 U.S. Patent No. 9,557,606 Issues
2019-01-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,181,462 Issues
2020-01-02 Alleged actual notice of ’948 Patent provided to Defendant
2021-04-08 Alleged actual notice of ’606 and ’462 Patents provided to Defendant
2023-09-28 Alleged actual notice of ’079 and ’093 Patents provided to Defendant
2023-11-06 Alleged actual notice of ’157 Patent provided to Defendant
2024-05-23 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,502,079, “Electro-Optical Device and Electronic Apparatus,” issued March 10, 2009 (’079 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of precisely driving thin-film transistors (TFTs) in an active matrix display while simultaneously meeting demands for miniaturization and preventing light leakage currents that can degrade image quality (Compl. ¶16; ’079 Patent, col. 2:6-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a specific pixel architecture where data lines and scanning lines have varied widths. The data line features a "broad portion" that overlaps the TFT to act as a light shield and a "non-broad portion" to conserve space, while the scanning line has a "broad-width portion" facing the TFT's channel area to serve as the gate electrode and a "narrow width portion" elsewhere to enable a more compact layout (Compl. ¶16; ’079 Patent, col. 2:26-36, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a dual benefit of improving transistor performance by shielding it from stray light while allowing for overall panel miniaturization and higher pixel density (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 2 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Essential elements of Claim 2 include:
    • A thin-film transistor with a channel area.
    • A pixel electrode.
    • A data line with a broad portion overlapping the transistor and a non-broad portion that does not, where the broad portion is wider than the non-broad portion.
    • A scanning line with a broad-width portion facing the channel area and a narrow-width portion elsewhere.
    • A storage capacitor with pixel-potential and fixed-potential electrodes.
    • A capacitive line serving as the fixed-potential electrode, with portions extending along both the scanning and data lines and having specified relative widths.

U.S. Patent No. 7,705,948, “Liquid Crystal Display Device,” issued April 27, 2010 (’948 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In certain types of LCDs (e.g., In-Plane Switching or Fringe-Field Switching), imperfections called "disclinations" can form at the ends of electrode slits, which reduces light transmission and degrades image quality (Compl. ¶17; ’948 Patent, col. 2:27-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention specifies a precise geometry for the edge portions of the slits to control the alignment and rotation of liquid crystal molecules when an electric field is applied. This geometry is defined by first and second curved portions having specific tangential directions relative to the liquid crystal "rubbing direction," with the second curved portion being smaller than the first and including a "projecting portion" at its end (’948 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This slit geometry is intended to reduce disclination defects, thereby improving light transmission, overall image quality, and manufacturing yield (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶75).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A liquid crystal display device with an upper and lower electrode layer on the same substrate.
    • The upper electrode layer has slits for applying voltage to drive liquid crystal molecules.
    • Edge portions of the slits each include a first curved portion and a second curved portion with specific tangential directions (0° to +90° and 0° to −90°, respectively) relative to a rubbing direction.
    • The second curved portion is smaller than the first curved portion.
    • The second curved portion includes a projecting portion located at its distal end.

U.S. Patent No. 8,223,093, “Electro-Optical Device, Electronic Apparatus, and Projection Display,” issued July 17, 2012 (’093 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a pixel and transistor configuration that enables reduced pixel size, and thus higher pixel density and resolution, without needing to reduce the size of the transistor for each pixel (Compl. ¶18). The invention involves the relative positioning and orientation of two adjacent pixel electrodes and their corresponding transistors (Compl. ¶¶113-117).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶105).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the pixel layout in BOE panels, such as that used in the LG 55-inch 55UP7670PUC TV, infringes by having adjacent pixel electrodes connected to transistors with semiconductor layers displaced from each other in a specific arrangement (Compl. ¶¶108, 116-117).

U.S. Patent No. 9,184,157, “Semiconductor Device, Display Device, and Electronic Apparatus,” issued November 10, 2015 (’157 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to protecting driving circuitry on a display substrate from electrostatic discharge (ESD) damage (Compl. ¶19). The invention involves placing protective circuits connected to a power supply line on both sides of a driving circuit built into the display substrate (Compl. ¶¶19, 137).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 4 is asserted (Compl. ¶129).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that BOE panels, such as that in the HP 21kd monitor, infringe by placing first and second protection circuits connected to a power supply line such that the scanning line driving circuit is located between them (Compl. ¶¶132, 137, 142).

U.S. Patent No. 9,557,606, “Liquid Crystal Display Device Having Rectangular Close-shape Seal Members,” issued January 31, 2017 (’606 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to an LCD panel manufacturing process using a "one-drop" fill method, which requires a continuous seal between the display substrates (Compl. ¶20). The invention involves a specific arrangement of a rectangular seal, conductive particles, and wiring lines that extend across the seal to a protruding region of the substrate (Compl. ¶¶160, 168, 171).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 7 is asserted (Compl. ¶157).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that BOE panels in monitors like the HP 21kd infringe by using a continuous rectangular seal member where conductive particles on one side provide an electrical connection to the common electrode, while wiring lines on another side cross the seal to connect to active elements (Compl. ¶¶160, 165, 171).

U.S. Patent No. 10,181,462, “Semiconductor Device, Display Device, and Electronic Apparatus,” issued January 15, 2019 (’462 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent, related to the ’157 Patent, also concerns protecting on-panel driving circuitry from ESD damage (Compl. ¶21). The invention involves placing two sets of protective circuits at opposing corners of the substrate, with the driving circuit positioned between them, and connecting them to signal and power lines to protect against ESD (Compl. ¶¶21, 190, 195, 197).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶185).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that BOE panels, such as that in the HP 21kd monitor, infringe by arranging a driving circuit along one side of the substrate between a first corner and a second corner, with a first protective circuit at the first corner connected to a signal line and a second protective circuit at the second corner connected to a power line (Compl. ¶¶190, 195, 197, 199).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Instrumentalities are LCD panels and modules manufactured and sold by Defendant BOE (Compl. ¶32). The complaint identifies specific end-products incorporating these panels, including the LG 27-inch 27UK600 monitor, the LG 55-inch 55UP7670PUC TV, and the HP 21kd monitor (Compl. ¶¶55, 76, 106, 130, 158, 186).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused panels and modules are components that perform the core image-display function in electronic devices (Compl. ¶33). The complaint provides teardown photographs identifying BOE's branding on the internal panel components of these commercially available monitors and televisions (Compl. p. 19, fig. captioned "Front view"; Compl. p. 55, fig. showing "BOE" logo). These visuals are presented as evidence that Defendant's components are integrated into the specified end-products.
  • The complaint alleges that BOE is a "world leader in the global semiconductor display industry," ranking first in shipment volume for LCD panels across five major application categories (smartphones, tablets, laptops, monitors, and TVs) (Compl. ¶26). Defendant is alleged to supply these components to "brand customers" such as HP and LG Electronics for incorporation into finished devices sold in the United States (Compl. ¶¶14, 27, 45).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’079 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a thin-film transistor having a channel area that extends in a direction and that intersects a predetermined direction that intersects the direction The accused panel includes a thin-film transistor with a U-shaped channel area that extends in a first direction and intersects a second, predetermined direction. ¶58 col. 2:26-31
a data line extending in the direction in which the channel area extends, the data line having a broad portion that overlaps the thin-film transistor and a non-broad portion that does not overlap the thin-film transistor, the broad portion being wider than the non-broad portion A data line in the accused panel runs parallel to the channel area's extending direction and has a widened portion that overlaps the transistor for light-shielding and a narrower portion elsewhere. ¶60 col. 2:37-43
a scanning line extending in the predetermined direction and intersecting the data line and the channel area of the thin-film transistor, the scanning line having a broad-width portion in a portion facing the channel area of the thin-film transistor and a narrow width portion in another portion A scanning line in the accused panel intersects the data line and has a broad portion that serves as the transistor's gate electrode and a narrower portion in other areas. The complaint includes a micrograph identifying the scanning line and its intersection with the data line and transistor channel area (Compl. p. 26, top fig.). ¶61 col. 2:29-36
a capacitive line having a portion that serves as the fixed-potential capacitor electrode..., the portion extending along the data line having a width that is narrower than the broad portion of the data line and that is wider than the non-broad portion of the data line The accused panel includes a capacitive line with portions running along the data and scanning lines, where the portion along the data line has a width between that of the broad and non-broad portions of the data line. ¶63 col. 2:54-62

Identified Points of Contention (’079 Patent)

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of relative terms like "broad," "narrow," and "wider than." For instance, "Does the accused data line's geometry consistently meet the limitation that the "broad portion" is "wider than the non-broad portion" across all manufactured devices, or could process variations create instances where this is not the case?"
  • Technical Questions: "What evidence establishes that the accused "capacitive line" functions as the "fixed-potential capacitor electrode" of the claimed "storage capacitor" and possesses the specific relative width limitations recited in the claim?" (Compl. ¶¶62-63).

’948 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a liquid crystal display device, comprising: an upper electrode layer and a lower electrode layer formed on a same substrate via an insulating layer; The accused panel is a fringe-field switching (FFS) LCD, which has upper (common) and lower (pixel) electrodes formed on the same substrate, separated by an insulating layer. ¶¶80, 82, 84 col. 3:56-62
the upper electrode layer having slits formed thereon for applying a voltage between the upper electrode layer and the lower electrode layer and for driving liquid crystal molecules; The upper electrode layer in the accused panel has multiple slits to allow an electric field to form between the upper and lower electrodes, which drives the liquid crystal molecules. ¶¶80, 83, 85 col. 4:1-5
edge portions of the slits each including a first curved portion the tangential direction of which at the edge portions with respect to a rubbing direction falls within a range from 0° to +90° and a second curved portion the tangential direction of which at the edge portions with respect to the rubbing direction falls within a range from 0° to −90°... The complaint provides a magnified micrograph purporting to show that the slit ends in the accused panel have first and second curved portions with tangential directions that fall within the claimed positive and negative angular ranges relative to the alleged rubbing direction (Compl. p. 51, bottom fig.). ¶92 col. 4:26-34
the second curved portion being smaller than the first curved portion, wherein the second curved portion includes a projecting portion, the projecting portion being located at a distal end of the second curved portion The complaint alleges that the second curved portion of the slit edge is smaller than the first and includes a distinct projecting feature at its end, as required by the claim. ¶92 col. 4:37-41

Identified Points of Contention (’948 Patent)

  • Scope Questions: "A primary issue for construction will be the term "rubbing direction." Does this term, as used in the patent, encompass not only physical rubbing but also equivalent "photoalignment" processes as the complaint alleges?" (Compl. ¶91).
  • Technical Questions: "Can Plaintiff's reverse engineering and optical analysis definitively establish that the "rubbing direction" in the accused panel is as alleged, and that the microscopic geometries of the slit edges consistently meet the claim's precise angular, size, and positional requirements for the first and second curved portions and the "projecting portion"?" (Compl. ¶¶86-93).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’079 Patent

  • The Term: "broad portion... wider than the non-broad portion"
  • Context and Importance: This relative sizing of different sections of the data line is a core element of the asserted claim, linking the dual goals of light-shielding and miniaturization. Infringement requires a direct dimensional comparison. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation—whether it requires a significant difference in width or if any measurable difference suffices—could be outcome-determinative.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a required ratio or degree of difference, suggesting any state where one portion is measurably wider than the other could meet the limitation (’079 Patent, col. 26:40-43).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract and description frame the "broad portion" in the functional context of providing "light-shielding benefits" (’079 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶16). A defendant may argue this functional context requires the "broad portion" to be wide enough to effectively perform this shielding function, not just marginally wider than the "non-broad portion."

For the ’948 Patent

  • The Term: "projecting portion"
  • Context and Importance: This is a specific structural feature required to be present at the "distal end of the second curved portion" of the slit. Its presence, size, and location are factual questions central to the infringement analysis. The claim requires not just a specific curvature but this additional distinct feature.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define a minimum size or specific shape for the "projecting portion," which could support construing the term to cover any protrusion or extension at the end of the curve, however small. The patent specification refers to it as a "projecting portion 76" without further geometric constraints (’948 Patent, col. 5:64-67).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 11 of the patent depicts the "projecting portion 76" as a distinct, somewhat pointed feature extending from the end of the curve. A defendant may argue that this depiction limits the scope of the term to structures that resemble this embodiment, rather than any minor irregularity at the slit's terminus.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement across all patents, stating that BOE sells the accused panels to customers like LG and HP with the knowledge and specific intent that they will be incorporated into infringing end-products sold in the U.S. (Compl. ¶¶45-48). It further alleges contributory infringement for the ’606 and ’462 patents, asserting the accused panels are a material part of the patented inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶49, 178, 205).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all six patents. The claim is based on alleged actual notice provided to BOE during licensing negotiations that began on or around January 2, 2020. The complaint provides a specific timeline of notice for each patent or patent group, starting with the ’948 Patent in January 2020 and concluding with the ’157 Patent in November 2023, and alleges that BOE's infringement continued despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶36-44, 71, 101).

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

  • A core issue will be one of geometric and structural compliance: can the highly specific, multi-part dimensional and positional limitations recited in the asserted claims—from the relative widths of conductor lines in the ’079 patent to the precise curvature and features of slit ends in the ’948 patent and the layout of protective circuits in the ’157 and ’462 patents—be demonstrably and consistently met by the physical structures of mass-produced accused display panels?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of intent: does the detailed timeline of alleged notice during multi-year licensing negotiations provide sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant's continued alleged infringement was willful, potentially justifying an award of enhanced damages?
  • A central question for claim scope will be one of functional definition: will terms like "rubbing direction" (’948 Patent) be construed narrowly to their literal process meaning, or more broadly to encompass functionally equivalent modern techniques like "photoalignment", as alleged by the Plaintiff? The answer may determine whether the patent's geometric constraints can be applied to the accused products.