DCT

2:24-cv-00084

Bishop Display Tech LLC v. LG Electronics Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00084, E.D. Tex., 02/08/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper for the foreign defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). For the domestic defendant, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., venue is alleged to be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) based on alleged acts of infringement and the presence of regular and established places of business, including distribution facilities, within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCDs) and the consumer electronics products that incorporate them infringe six patents related to the structure, composition, and manufacturing methods of liquid crystal display units.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to the fundamental architecture of modern liquid crystal displays, focusing on the arrangement of electrodes, insulating layers, and signal lines to improve viewing angles, color accuracy, and manufacturing efficiency.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that defendants LGE, LGEUS, and LGD had knowledge of the ’798 and ’829 patents at least as early as February 8, 2017, from a notice letter sent by a former patent owner, to which LGD allegedly replied on March 7, 2017. The complaint further alleges notice of all asserted patents as of July 29, 2020, and alleges defendant New Optics had notice of several patents as of April 27, 2021.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-10-05 Earliest Priority Date (’293 Patent)
1999-10-21 Earliest Priority Date (’798 Patent)
2000-04-05 Earliest Priority Date (’829 Patent)
2000-07-24 Earliest Priority Date (’208 Patent)
2000-08-30 Earliest Priority Date (’769 Patent)
2000-09-27 Earliest Priority Date (’303 Patent)
2003-02-25 Issue Date (’798 Patent)
2004-09-07 Issue Date (’829 Patent)
2004-10-05 Issue Date (’293 Patent)
2004-11-09 Issue Date (’208 Patent)
2005-02-01 Issue Date (’303 Patent)
2005-06-14 Issue Date (’769 Patent)
2017-02-08 LGD allegedly received notice of ’798 and ’829 patents
2017-03-07 LGD allegedly replied to notice letter
2020-07-29 LGD allegedly received notice of all asserted patents
2021-04-27 New Optics allegedly received notice of ’208, ’303, and ’769 patents
2024-02-08 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’s background section describes technical challenges in In-Plane Switching (IPS) type liquid crystal displays, specifically "coloring," where the perceived color shifts depending on the viewing angle, and low light-use efficiency that results from attempts to correct this color shifting ('798 Patent, col. 2:42-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes creating pixels where different pairs of electrodes have varied "geometrical shape[s]," such as different thicknesses, widths, or spacing ('798 Patent, col. 2:54-61; Fig. 1b). By generating multiple, slightly different electric field distributions within a single pixel, the resulting wavelength-dependent light transmissions are intended to average out, canceling the color-shifting effects and thereby improving viewing angle consistency ('798 Patent, col. 3:6-15).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve the visual fidelity of IPS displays by addressing an inherent optical artifact directly within the pixel's electrode architecture.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A liquid crystal display unit comprising an array substrate, a counter substrate, and a liquid crystal layer.
    • The array substrate includes a plurality of pixels, each having common electrodes, pixel electrodes, and a semiconductor switching element.
    • Each pixel includes a plurality of "electrode pairs," with each pair comprising a common electrode and an adjacent pixel electrode.
    • At least one of these electrode pairs "differs from other electrode pairs in a thickness of its common electrode or a thickness of its pixel electrode."

U.S. Patent No. 6,787,829 - "Liquid Crystal Display Panel"

  • Issued: September 7, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a source of image quality degradation in IPS displays: the unintended electric field created between a signal line (e.g., an image signal line) and an adjacent common electrode. This interference can alter the liquid crystal alignment in that region, causing light leakage or brightness variations that reduce display quality and effective pixel aperture ('829 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention specifies a pixel design where the electrode located adjacent to a signal line is made of an "opaque conductor," while at least one of the other electrodes within the pixel is made of a "transparent conductor" ('829 Patent, Abstract). This structure selectively blocks light in the problematic area near the signal line while maximizing light transmission through the main, functional area of the pixel, thereby improving both display uniformity and aperture ratio ('829 Patent, col. 1:49-56). Figure 1 illustrates this concept with an opaque common electrode (1a) and a transparent one (1b).
  • Technical Importance: The invention offers a targeted structural solution to mitigate electrical interference at the pixel level, aiming to enhance both brightness and image consistency.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶75).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A liquid crystal display panel comprising an array substrate, a counter substrate, and a liquid crystal layer.
    • The array substrate includes perpendicular image and scanning signal lines, a line-shaped pixel electrode, a parallel common electrode, and a switching element.
    • Of the pixel and common electrodes, the electrode "located adjacent to and parallel to" one of the signal lines comprises an "opaque conductor."
    • At least one of the other electrodes comprises a "transparent conductor."

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 patent describes a method for manufacturing an LCD element intended to reduce display defects. The invention focuses on the orientation film used to align liquid crystals, claiming a process that includes a specific step of "stripping, by rubbing, a predetermined portion of the orientation film" from electrodes or lines after the film has been formed.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶96).
  • Accused Features: The accused TFT-LCDs are alleged to be manufactured using a process that includes the claimed rubbing step to strip a portion of the orientation film (Compl. ¶99).

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

  • Issued: November 9, 2004
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses display non-uniformity caused by signal degradation across the panel. The patented solution is a pixel architecture where the storage capacity of a pixel's "capacitive accumulation portion" on the signal "feeding side" is intentionally designed to be larger than that of an adjacent pixel on the "termination side," which is accomplished by "varying an aperture in the common electrode" of the adjacent pixel.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶116).
  • Accused Features: The accused devices are alleged to have capacitive accumulation portions with different storage capacity values between adjacent pixels, accomplished by varying the aperture in the common electrode (Compl. ¶118).

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

  • Issued: February 1, 2005
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent aims to increase pixel storage capacitance to improve image stability without decreasing the pixel's light-transmitting area (aperture ratio). The invention describes a layered pixel structure where a "storage capacity electrode" is layered with the pixel electrode to hold a "common wiring in between through an insulating layer," creating additional capacitance vertically.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶135).
  • Accused Features: The accused displays are alleged to contain a layered structure including a pixel electrode, a storage capacity electrode, and a common wiring held between them by an insulating layer (Compl. ¶¶141-142).

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

  • Issued: June 14, 2005
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses display unevenness caused by localized ion generation, such as at repair sites or film defects. The solution involves intentionally forming a "first conductive member" (e.g., a gate signal line) to be in "partial contact with the alignment layer" and applying a negative voltage to it, thereby promoting a more uniform distribution of ions across the liquid crystal layer to prevent localized defects.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶159).
  • Accused Features: The accused displays are alleged to contain a conductive member, identified as gate signal lines, that is interposed between the substrate and alignment layer, is in partial contact with the alignment layer, and has a negative voltage applied to it (Compl. ¶163).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCDs) and liquid crystal modules (LCMs) manufactured by Defendants LGD and New Optics, as well as the end-user electronic products (e.g., televisions, monitors, laptops) manufactured by LGE and LGEUS that incorporate these components (Compl. ¶6). Specific examples cited include the LGD model LM270QQ1(SD)(D1) display used in the Apple iMac Pro and various LG-branded televisions (Compl. ¶56).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are active-matrix displays that create images by controlling light transmission through a grid of pixels. The complaint alleges these components and the resulting end-products are part of a global supply chain and are sold nationally within the U.S. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13). The complaint presents a micrograph of the accused LGD display, which shows an array substrate with common electrodes, pixel electrodes, and semiconductor switching elements for controlling individual pixels (Compl. ¶57). This micrograph depicts the fundamental components of an active-matrix LCD panel (Compl. ¶57).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,525,798 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...a plurality of pixels each including a plurality of common electrodes, a plurality of pixel electrodes, and a semiconductor switching element... The accused LGD display contains pixels with structures identified as common electrodes, pixel electrodes, and a semiconductor switching element. ¶57 col. 2:55-58
...an array substrate having the pixels, a plurality of scanning signal lines, and a plurality of video signal lines for outputting signals to the pixel electrodes... The accused LGD display is built on an array substrate containing pixels, scanning signal lines, and video signal lines. ¶57 col. 2:58-61
...a counter substrate arranged opposite the array substrate, and a liquid crystal layer sandwiched between the array substrate and the counter substrate... The accused display is constructed with a counter substrate opposing the array substrate, with a liquid crystal layer positioned between them. ¶58 col. 2:61-63
...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. In the accused display, the thickness of the common electrode in at least one electrode pair is alleged to differ from that of other pairs. The complaint provides a micrograph labeling areas where this difference allegedly exists. ¶59 col. 2:63-68
  • Identified Points of Contention (’798 Patent):
    • Technical Question: What objective evidence supports the allegation that the electrode thickness in one pair "differs from" another? The complaint presents a micrograph with a label asserting this difference (Compl. ¶59), but a potential point of contention may be whether this visual representation alone is sufficient to prove a material, functional difference in thickness as required by the claim, versus incidental variations from the manufacturing process.
    • Scope Question: Does the claim term "differs...in a thickness" require an intentional, designed difference meant to achieve the patent's stated purpose of canceling color variations, or could any measurable variation fall within the claim's scope? The patent specification's focus on combining electrodes with different "geometrical shape[s]" to create distinct electric field distributions may suggest the claim requires a functionally significant difference ('798 Patent, col. 3:6-15).

U.S. Patent No. 6,787,829 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...a line-shaped pixel electrode located in each of pixel regions... and... a common electrode... located parallel to the pixel electrode. The accused display contains line-shaped pixel and common electrodes arranged parallel to each other within each pixel region. ¶78 col. 4:12-20
...a switching element for electrically connecting the pixel electrode and one of the image signal lines... The accused display includes a switching element to electrically connect the pixel electrode to an image signal line based on signals from a scanning line. ¶79 col. 4:21-25
...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... The common electrode, which is adjacent to the image signal lines in the accused display, is alleged to be an opaque conductor. ¶80 col. 4:26-29
...and at least one of the other electrodes comprises a transparent conductor. The pixel electrode in the accused display is alleged to be a transparent conductor. The complaint provides a micrograph labeling the respective opaque and transparent conductors (Compl. ¶80). ¶80 col. 4:29-31
  • Identified Points of Contention (’829 Patent):
    • Technical Question: What are the quantitative thresholds for "opaque" and "transparent"? The infringement allegation rests on the material properties of the conductors. A dispute may arise over the specific light transmissivity values of the accused electrodes and whether they meet the functional requirements of being "opaque" (to block unwanted light near a signal line) and "transparent" (to maximize light output) as understood in the context of the patent.
    • Scope Question: How is the term "adjacent to" to be construed? The claim requires the opaque conductor to be "adjacent to and parallel to" a signal line. The analysis may focus on the precise physical layout of the pixel and whether the proximity and arrangement of the accused opaque electrode and signal line satisfy this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’798 Patent:

  • The Term: "differs from other electrode pairs in a thickness"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central novelty of claim 1. Its construction will determine whether infringement requires a deliberately engineered difference in thickness intended to produce an optical effect, or if any measurable variation, including manufacturing tolerances, meets the standard.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not specify a minimum degree of difference or require a specific purpose for the difference. One might argue that any measurable variation constitutes a "differ[ence] in a thickness."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links variations in "geometrical shape," which includes thickness, to the goal of solving the "coloring" problem by creating different electric field distributions ('798 Patent, col. 3:6-15). An argument for a narrower construction may be that the "difference" must be functionally significant and designed to achieve this stated technical benefit.

For the ’829 Patent:

  • The Term: "opaque conductor"
  • Context and Importance: The distinction between an "opaque conductor" and a "transparent conductor" is the core of the invention claimed in claim 1. The definition of "opaque" will be critical to determining if the material used for the electrode adjacent to the signal line infringes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Plaintiff's likely view): The patent's background explains that the purpose of the structure is to prevent adverse effects from the electric field near the signal line ('829 Patent, col. 2:1-10). This suggests a functional definition, where "opaque" means sufficiently light-blocking to mitigate this specific problem, not necessarily 100% opaque.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Defendant's likely view): The patent does not provide a specific light-transmittance value. A defendant may argue that "opaque" should be given its ordinary meaning of being impenetrable to light, and that a merely light-dimming or translucent conductor would not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that all Defendants actively induced infringement by distributors, retailers, and end-users (Compl. ¶¶ 61, 82, 102, 121, 145, 166). The alleged inducing acts include manufacturing and selling the accused products, creating advertisements and instructions that promote their use, and maintaining distribution channels. The complaint specifically alleges that marking components with UL Solutions labels encourages downstream manufacturers to incorporate the infringing components into their end products, thereby inducing infringement (Compl. ¶61).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents, seeking enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 84, 104, 123, 147, 168). The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents from notice letters sent to LGD in 2017 and 2020, with this knowledge allegedly imputed to other Defendants through their corporate and supplier relationships. The complaint also alleges LGD had knowledge of certain patents from its own patent prosecution activities (Compl. ¶60).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Across multiple patents, the dispute may turn on the construction of relative or functional terms. For the ’798 patent, can any manufacturing variance constitute a "difference in thickness," or must it be a designed, functional variation? For the ’829 patent, what are the technical boundaries of an "opaque" versus a "transparent" conductor in the context of the invention?
  • A second key question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Does the complaint's visual evidence, consisting of labeled micrographs, provide a sufficient factual basis to plausibly allege the highly specific and often microscopic physical structures required by the claims? For example, for the ’208 patent, does a visual depiction of different apertures suffice to plead a functional difference in storage capacity between the "signal feeding side" and "termination side"?
  • A third central question will concern imputed knowledge and intent: For the claims of willful and induced infringement, the case may depend on whether Plaintiff can prove that knowledge provided to one corporate entity (LGD) can be legally imputed to related corporate entities and downstream component purchasers, and whether actions like obtaining UL certification constitute the specific intent required to encourage another's infringement.