DCT
2:24-cv-00087
Bishop Display Tech LLC v. Heesung Electronics Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bishop Display Tech LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Heesung Electronics Ltd. (Korea)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00087, E.D. Tex., 02/08/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper on the basis that Defendant is a foreign entity, which may be sued in any judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s liquid crystal display modules and their components infringe four patents related to the physical construction, electrode configuration, and light-management features of liquid crystal display devices.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to the design and manufacture of thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCDs), a foundational technology for a wide range of consumer and commercial electronics including televisions, monitors, and mobile devices.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s customer and/or supply chain partner, LG Display Co., Ltd. (“LGD”), received notice of infringement regarding the ’706 and ’682 patents from a prior patent owner on February 8, 2017. It further alleges LGD and/or LG Electronics Inc. (“LGE”) received notice regarding the ’347 and ’682 patents on July 29, 2020. Plaintiff bases its allegations of pre-suit knowledge for indirect and willful infringement on the assertion that Defendant would have been informed of these notices through its business and/or contractual relationships.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-05-23 | Priority Date for ’377 and ’706 Patents |
| 2000-07-31 | Priority Date for ’347 and ’682 Patents |
| 2004-11-16 | ’377 Patent Issue Date |
| 2004-11-23 | ’706 Patent Issue Date |
| 2008-08-19 | ’682 Patent Issue Date |
| 2009-09-01 | ’347 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-02-08 | LGD allegedly received notice of ’706 and ’682 patents |
| 2017-03-07 | LGD allegedly replied to notice letter for ’706 and ’682 patents |
| 2019-09-20 | Exemplar Accused Product Manufacture Date (Heesung LCM Model HC49EQH-SLXA1-211X) |
| 2020-07-29 | LGD and/or LGE allegedly received notice of ’347 and ’682 patents |
| 2024-02-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,819,377 - "Liquid Crystal Display Device", Issued November 16, 2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge that as electronic devices become thinner, the use of "bare chip" liquid crystal drivers (e.g., Chip-on-Glass) becomes more common; however, these bare chips are susceptible to interference from ambient or reflected light, which can cause photoelectric effects and lead to "erroneous display" (’377 Patent, col. 1:21-38). Encasing the chip in a traditional package to shield it from light runs counter to the goal of miniaturization (’377 Patent, col. 1:39-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes to shield the bare-chip driver without a full package by using a "light shielding film" affixed to the top surface of the display's upper panel, in an area opposite the driver's mounting location, to block external light (’377 Patent, col. 2:50-59). The solution also involves mounting the driver using a "light shielding resin" that covers part of the connecting film carrier and a side surface of the driver, providing further protection (’377 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:29-37).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method to protect light-sensitive, low-profile driver chips from operational errors without resorting to bulky packaging, thereby supporting the industry trend toward thinner and more integrated display modules (’377 Patent, col. 1:39-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A liquid crystal panel with liquid crystal cells between a first (displaying side) and second (reverse side) plate.
- A liquid crystal driver connected to the panel via a circuit pattern.
- A light shielding material adjacent to the driver to prevent outer light incidence.
- A film carrier with the circuit pattern formed on a resin film.
- The driver is mounted on the panel by a light shielding resin, which covers one end of the film carrier and a side surface of the driver.
U.S. Patent No. 6,822,706 - "Liquid Crystal Display Device", Issued November 23, 2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like the ’377 Patent, this patent addresses the light-sensitivity of bare-chip liquid crystal drivers and the need for a shielding solution compatible with low-profile device designs (’706 Patent, col. 1:20-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a more comprehensive shielding system involving multiple components. It specifies a "first light shielding material" on one face of the driver and a "second light shielding material" on the opposite face to provide dual-sided protection from incident light (’706 Patent, col. 6:49-55). Additionally, it describes a "diffusion sheet" located adjacent to the display panel that includes a "light absorbing area" on its outer periphery, which serves to absorb extraneous light that could otherwise reach the driver from below or within the display assembly (’706 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-22).
- Technical Importance: By combining shielding on both faces of the driver with a peripheral light-absorbing area, the invention offered a multi-faceted approach to improve the operational reliability of bare-chip drivers in thin electronic devices (’706 Patent, col. 1:43-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A liquid crystal panel with cells between a first and second plate.
- A liquid crystal driver connected to the panel.
- A first light shielding material adjacent to a face of the driver.
- A second light shielding material adjacent to an opposite face of the driver.
- A diffusion sheet adjacent to the panel, comprising a light diffusing area and a peripheral light absorbing area that serves to absorb extraneous light incident on the driver.
U.S. Patent No. 7,583,347 - "Liquid Crystal Display Having Electrodes Constituted by a Transparent Electric Conductor", Issued September 1, 2009
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of reduced luminance in In-Plane Switching (IPS) mode LCDs, where opaque electrodes on the display substrate can block a portion of the backlight, decreasing brightness (’347 Patent, col. 1:10-23). The proposed solution involves constructing at least one of the electrodes from an "electrode portion" made of a transparent electric conductor and a "wiring portion," where the electrode portion is formed in a layer separated by an insulating layer from the signal lines, thereby increasing the light-transmitting area of a pixel while preventing electrical shorts (’347 Patent, col. 5:16-29).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶67).
- Accused Features: The infringement allegations target the construction of electrodes in the accused LCDs, specifically the use of a transparent electric conductor for the electrode portion, which is allegedly formed in a layer separated by an insulator from the layer containing the scanning signal line (Compl. ¶¶68-72).
U.S. Patent No. 7,414,682 - "Liquid Crystal Display Unit and Production Method Thereof", Issued August 19, 2008
- Technology Synopsis: This patent seeks to improve both luminance and contrast in transversal electric field type displays by addressing "disclination areas"—regions near electrodes where liquid crystals do not align properly, resulting in low-contrast artifacts that degrade image quality (’682 Patent, col. 2:1-20). The invention proposes a structure for electrodes or signal lines composed of both a "light-transmitting portion" and a "light-non-transmitting portion." By strategically placing the light-non-transmitting portion under the low-contrast disclination area, the structure effectively masks the artifact from view while allowing light to pass through the properly performing areas of the pixel (’682 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶85).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the electrodes and signal lines in the accused products are composed of both a light-transmitting conductive layer and a light-non-transmitting conductive layer, with the specific layered arrangement and relative widths allegedly corresponding to the patent's claims (Compl. ¶¶90-91).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are identified as "Heesung liquid crystal modules comprising thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays ('TFT-LCDs') (collectively, 'LCMs'); Heesung TFT-LCDs; and Products comprising Heesung TFT-LCDs or LCMs" (Compl. ¶3). The complaint identifies an LG television (Model No. 49SM8600PUA) containing a Heesung LCM (Model No. HC49EQH-SLXA1-211X) as a representative example (Compl. ¶34).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are core components used to display images in a wide variety of electronic devices (Compl. ¶¶3, 20). The complaint alleges that Defendant Heesung manufactures these components and supplies them to downstream product manufacturers, such as LGE, for integration into finished consumer goods sold in the United States (Compl. ¶¶22, 26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’377 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a liquid crystal panel comprising liquid crystal cells, a first plate disposed on a displaying side of the cells, and a second plate disposed on a reverse side of the cells | The accused products contain a liquid crystal panel with liquid crystal cells situated between a first and second plate. | ¶35 | col. 2:1-4 |
| a liquid crystal driver electrically connected with the liquid crystal panel through a circuit pattern | The accused products include a liquid crystal driver connected to the panel via a circuit pattern. | ¶36 | col. 2:5-7 |
| a light shielding material disposed adjacent said liquid crystal driver so as to prevent an outer light from being incident to said liquid crystal driver | The accused products comprise a light shielding material positioned next to the liquid crystal driver. | ¶37 | col. 2:8-11 |
| a film carrier comprising said circuit pattern formed on a resin film | The accused products utilize a film carrier where the circuit pattern is formed on a resin film. | ¶38 | col. 6:26-28 |
| said liquid crystal driver is mounted on the liquid crystal panel by a light shielding resin disposed on said liquid crystal panel so as to cover one end of the film carrier and a side surface of said liquid crystal driver | The accused products are configured such that the driver is mounted to the panel using a light shielding resin that covers an end of the film carrier and a side surface of the driver. | ¶39 | col. 7:48-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The claim recites both a "light shielding material" and a "light shielding resin." A potential issue is whether these are two distinct required elements or if the single resinous material shown in the complaint (Compl. ¶39) is alleged to satisfy both limitations. The defense may argue the claim requires two separate components.
- Technical Questions: Does the accused "light shielding resin" (Compl. ¶39) have a primary function of shielding light, or is it primarily an adhesive or encapsulant with incidental light-blocking properties? The infringement analysis may turn on evidence of the material's specified purpose and optical properties. The complaint provides a labeled photograph showing the alleged configuration of the driver, panel, film carrier, and light shielding resin (Compl. ¶39).
’706 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a liquid crystal panel comprising liquid crystal cells, a first plate disposed on a displaying side of the cells, and a second plate disposed on a reverse side of the cells | The accused products have a liquid crystal panel with cells between first and second plates. | ¶49 | col. 2:2-5 |
| a liquid crystal driver electrically connected with the liquid crystal panel through a circuit pattern | The accused products contain a liquid crystal driver connected to the panel. | ¶50 | col. 2:6-7 |
| a first light shielding material disposed adjacent a face of said liquid crystal driver so as to prevent an outer light from being incident to said liquid crystal driver | The accused products include a first light shielding material adjacent to one face of the driver. | ¶51 | col. 2:8-11 |
| a second light shielding material disposed adjacent an opposite face of said liquid crystal driver so as to prevent an outer light from being incident to said liquid crystal driver | The accused products include a second light shielding material adjacent to the opposite face of the driver. | ¶52 | col. 6:53-55 |
| a diffusion sheet located adjacent said liquid crystal display panel, wherein said diffusion sheet comprises a light diffusing area and a light absorbing area located on the outer periphery thereof...the light absorbing area serving to absorb the extraneous light incident on said liquid crystal driver | The accused products include a diffusion sheet with a light diffusing area and a peripheral light absorbing area, where the absorbing area allegedly serves to absorb extraneous light incident on the driver. | ¶¶53-54 | col. 2:12-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The claim requires a "light absorbing area" that performs a specific function: "serving to absorb the extraneous light incident on said liquid crystal driver." A question for the court will be whether the accused black border on the periphery of the diffusion sheet (Compl. ¶54) is designed and positioned to perform this specific function relative to the driver, or if its purpose is merely aesthetic or for general display contrast enhancement. The complaint provides a photograph that labels the alleged "Light absorbing area" on the outer periphery of the diffusion sheet (Compl. ¶54).
- Technical Questions: What is the composition and primary purpose of the materials identified as the "first" and "second" light shielding materials (Compl. ¶¶51-52)? A defendant may present evidence that these materials are standard adhesives or tapes whose primary function is not light shielding, which would raise a factual dispute over whether they meet the claim limitations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
U.S. Patent No. 6,819,377
- The Term: "light shielding resin"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the final limitation of asserted claim 1, which requires the driver to be "mounted...by" this material. The construction of this term will determine whether the accused product, which allegedly uses a resinous material in the mounting area (Compl. ¶39), infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links a structural function (mounting) with a functional property (light shielding).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to "Silicon resin as a light shielding resin 110" that is "applied to the bottom surface of the upper panel" for protection, suggesting any protective resin that shields light could meet the definition (’377 Patent, col. 6:31-34).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires the resin to be the means by which the driver is mounted, suggesting a primary structural or adhesive role. The specification also states the resin is "colored in black in order to enhance the light shielding effect," which could be argued to mean that its primary purpose is not shielding but is merely enhanced to do so (’377 Patent, col. 6:35-37).
U.S. Patent No. 6,822,706
- The Term: "light absorbing area serving to absorb the extraneous light incident on said liquid crystal driver"
- Context and Importance: This functional language in claim 1 is critical because it defines the required purpose of the "light absorbing area." The infringement case depends on proving that the black periphery on the accused diffusion sheet (Compl. ¶54) performs this specific, claimed function with respect to the driver.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the light absorbing area as simply being "located at the outer periphery of the light diffusion area" and "colored in black" (’706 Patent, col. 3:42-45), which might encompass any black border in that location.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself, along with the abstract, explicitly links the purpose of this area to the driver: it "serves to absorb the extraneous light incident on said liquid crystal driver" (’706 Patent, Abstract). This suggests the area must be more than a cosmetic border; it must be functionally related to protecting the driver from light.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: For the ’706, ’347, and ’682 patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations are based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents (as of specific dates) and subsequent actions, such as selling the accused components to customers and distributors for importation into and sale in the U.S. Specific acts alleged to encourage infringement include marking products with UL Solutions labels, which indicates suitability for the U.S. market (Compl. ¶¶56, 74, 93).
- Willful Infringement: For the ’706, ’347, and ’682 patents, the complaint alleges willful infringement. The basis for willfulness is the allegation that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and their infringement via notice letters sent to its business partner, LGD, on specific dates (e.g., February 8, 2017, for the ’706 patent) (Compl. ¶55). The complaint asserts that Defendant continued its allegedly infringing conduct despite an objectively high likelihood of infringement (Compl. ¶¶58, 76, 95).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue for the ’377 and ’706 patents will be one of functional scope: do materials used in the assembly of the accused display, such as a mounting resin or a peripheral black border, perform the specific light-shielding and light-absorbing functions for the driver as required by the claims, or are these alleged functions merely incidental to primary structural or aesthetic purposes?
- A key evidentiary question for the allegations of indirect and willful infringement will be one of imputed knowledge: can Plaintiff establish that Defendant Heesung possessed the requisite knowledge of infringement based on notice letters that were allegedly sent not to Heesung directly, but to its customer and supply chain partner, LGD?
- A core technical question for the ’347 and ’682 patents will be one of structural correspondence: does the specific multi-layer construction of the electrodes and signal lines in the accused products, which allegedly utilize both transparent and non-transparent conductive materials, map onto the precise structural arrangements, layers, and functional limitations recited in the asserted claims?