DCT

2:24-cv-00544

Sinotechnix LLC v. Samsung Electronics America Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00544, E.D. Tex., 11/27/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Display Co., Ltd. as foreign entities that may be sued in any judicial district. Venue for Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is based on its alleged regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas, within the district, and its alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ televisions, monitors, laptops, and associated display components infringe six patents related to LED technology, including lens designs for light distribution, LED manufacturing processes, backlight panel configurations, and the physical structure of LED packages.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the design and manufacture of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and their integration into backlight units, which are essential components for illuminating the liquid crystal displays (LCDs) used in a wide range of consumer electronics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of several asserted patents. Specifically, it alleges that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,748,873 and 7,901,113 were identified to Samsung entities during the prosecution of their own patent applications as early as 2012. For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges knowledge based on a notice letter dated July 16, 2024.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-10-07 Priority Date for ’873 and ’113 Patents
2004-11-12 Priority Date for ’162 Patent
2005-03-31 Priority Date for ’952 Patent
2005-06-22 Priority Date for ’626 Patent
2007-12-03 Priority Date for ’913 Patent
2009-11-17 ’162 Patent Issued
2010-07-06 ’873 Patent Issued
2011-03-08 ’113 Patent Issued
2011-05-31 ’626 Patent Issued
2012-03-13 ’952 Patent Issued
2012-08-01 Alleged knowledge of ’113 Patent by Defendant SDC
2015-03-01 Alleged knowledge of ’113 Patent by Defendant SDC
2016-08-09 ’913 Patent Issued
2017-07-01 Alleged knowledge of ’873 Patent by Defendant SEC
2023-10-01 Manufacture date of accused UN75TU690TF TV
2023-11-01 Manufacture date of accused QN65Q80CAF TV
2024-01-01 Manufacture date of accused UN58CU7000F TV
2024-07-16 Plaintiff sent notice letter to Defendants
2024-11-27 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,618,162 - "Irradiance-Redistribution Lens and Its Applications to LED Downlights"

  • Issued: November 17, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem that illumination lenses often fail to produce uniform light on a target because light sources like LEDs have non-uniform intensity, and the lens itself receives this light non-uniformly across its surface area (’162 Patent, col. 1:11-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a thick aspheric lens designed to solve this problem in two steps. First, a specifically profiled entry surface receives the non-uniform light from a nearby LED and refractively deflects it in such a way that the light irradiance becomes predominantly uniform by the time it reaches the opposing exit surface. Second, the specifically shaped exit surface takes this now-uniform light and refracts it into a desired output beam that can uniformly illuminate a distant target (’162 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-64).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a method to create highly uniform and efficient illumination from compact, powerful, but inherently non-uniform light sources like high-brightness LEDs (’162 Patent, col. 1:20-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
  • Claim 1 of the ’162 patent requires:
    • An irradiance-redistribution illumination lens comprising a transparent dielectric solid of revolution.
    • An external surface area predominantly comprised of an entry surface and an opposing exit surface.
    • The entry surface receives light of nonuniform irradiance from a nearby compact light source.
    • The exit surface forms a pre-specified diverging output beam from the received light.
    • The entry surface has a specific profile that refractively deflects the received light into a different solid angle, spatially distributed such that the exit surface receives the deflected light with predominantly uniform irradiance.
    • The exit surface has a specific shape that refractively deflects the uniform irradiance into the output beam.
    • The entry surface has a first concavity facing the light source and a second concavity facing the entry surface, with the second concavity being substantially greater than the first.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,748,873 - "Side Illumination Lens and Luminescent Device Using the Same"

  • Issued: July 6, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that conventional LEDs primarily emit light forward, which is unsuitable for applications like LCD backlights that require wide, sideways illumination. Furthermore, fabricating lenses to achieve this side emission is described as complicated and costly (’873 Patent, col. 1:39-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a lens that redirects light to the side. It comprises a body with a central "total reflection surface" that has a specific slope relative to the lens's central axis. Extending away from the periphery of this surface is at least one "linear refractive surface" and/or "curved refractive surface," which further directs the light. This combination of reflective and refractive surfaces is designed to guide forward-emitted light from an LED chip to the side of the lens (’873 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-14).
  • Technical Importance: This lens design enables the creation of compact, efficient optical components for redirecting LED light sideways, a fundamental requirement for edge-lit backlight units used in thin-profile displays.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Claim 1 of the ’873 patent requires:
    • A lens comprising a body.
    • A total reflection surface with a total reflection slope with respect to a central axis of the body.
    • At least one of a linear refractive surface and a curved refractive surface.
    • This refractive surface is formed to extend away from the central axis and beyond a periphery of the total reflection surface.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,901,113 - "Side Illumination Lens and Luminescent Device Using the Same"

  • Issued: March 8, 2011
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’873 patent, claims a complete light-emitting device rather than just the lens. The claimed device includes a light-emitting diode (LED) and a lens arranged to receive light from it. The lens itself contains the key features of a "total reflection surface" and at least one "linear refractive surface" or "curved refractive surface" formed to extend away from the central axis, designed to produce side illumination (Compl. ¶¶63-66).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the display modules in various Samsung televisions (e.g., UN43TU7000F, UN58CU7000F) that incorporate LEDs with lenses allegedly having the claimed reflective and refractive surfaces (Compl. ¶61).

U.S. Patent No. 7,951,626 - "Light Emitting Device and Method of Manufacturing the Same"

  • Issued: May 31, 2011
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of manufacturing an LED. The core of the claimed process involves forming an etching mask pattern on a semiconductor layer where the side surface of the mask is "not perpendicular to but inclined at a slope from a horizontal plane." This sloped mask is then used to etch the underlying semiconductor layers, creating an LED structure with inclined side walls, which is asserted to improve light extraction efficiency (’626 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶81). The complaint provides an SEM image of an accused LED from a Samsung TV, asserting it shows the resulting inclined slope of the P-type semiconductor layer (Compl. ¶81; p. 29).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 9 (a method claim) (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses LEDs within various Samsung products (e.g., QN65Q80CAF television) of being made by the patented process, thereby infringing under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) through their importation, sale, or use (Compl. ¶¶78-79).

U.S. Patent No. 8,132,952 - "Backlight Panel Employing White Light Emitting Diode Having Red Phosphor and Green Phosphor"

  • Issued: March 13, 2012
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a backlight panel for a display. The invention is not in the panel's overall structure but in the specific composition of the light source. The claimed panel uses white light-emitting diodes that each comprise a "blue light emitting diode chip" along with both a "red phosphor and a green phosphor" arranged on the chip. This combination is intended to produce white light with distinct red, green, and blue wavelength peaks, enhancing color reproducibility (’952 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶99).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses backlight panels in Samsung televisions (e.g., QN65Q80CAF) that allegedly use white LEDs composed of a blue LED chip with both red and green phosphors (Compl. ¶¶94, 99). The complaint includes SEM and energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis purporting to show these elements (Compl. p. 36).

U.S. Patent No. 9,412,913 - "Slim LED Package"

  • Issued: August 9, 2016
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to the physical and mechanical structure of an LED package, aiming for a slim profile. The claimed package includes a first and second lead frame. A distinguishing feature is the presence of "resin-holding components" disposed along adjacent sides of the lead frames. These components are described as being "separated from each other at corners," a feature allegedly related to manufacturability and structural integrity (’913 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶116).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶111).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses LED packages found in Samsung televisions (e.g., UN75TU690TF) of having the claimed lead frame structure with resin-holding components separated at the corners (Compl. ¶¶111-112). An annotated X-ray image is provided to illustrate these alleged components (Compl. p. 43).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Samsung televisions, monitors, laptops, and the display modules, backlight panels, and individual LEDs contained within them (Compl. ¶4). The complaint identifies numerous specific television models as exemplary accused products, including the Samsung QN65Q80CAF, UN58CU7000F, and UN75TU690TF (Compl. ¶¶26, 44, 111).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are consumer electronics that rely on LCD technology, which requires a backlight unit to produce an image. The complaint alleges that the specific design and manufacturing of the LEDs and optical components within these backlight units are central to their performance. The complaint includes screenshots from Samsung's own technical descriptions, sourced from the Internet Archive, explaining that a backlight unit "illuminates light evenly in the entire panel area" and is comprised of components including a "Light Source - LED" (Compl. pp. 4-6). These allegations position the accused components as integral to the core function and commercial value of Samsung's display products. The complaint provides an annotated photograph from an accused television lens showing light rays emanating from an LED and forming a diverging output beam (Compl. ¶30; p. 12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’162 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An irradiance-redistribution illumination lens comprising a transparent dielectric solid of revolution... The accused products include an illumination lens made of a transparent dielectric material. An annotated photograph shows the lens from an accused QN65Q80CAF television. ¶¶28-29 col. 5:25-27
...with external surface area predominantly comprised of an entry surface that receives light...from a nearby compact light source and of an opposing exit surface... The accused lens has an entry surface that receives light from an LED and an opposing exit surface. A photograph with labels identifies these surfaces on the accused lens. ¶29; p. 11 col. 5:25-30
...said entry surface given a specific profile that refractively deflects said received light into a different solid angle, said entry surface spatially distributed such that said exit surface receives said deflected light with predominantly uniform irradiance... The entry surface of the accused lens allegedly deflects light such that it spreads and becomes uniform by the time it reaches the exit surface. A diagram overlays light rays on a photo of the accused lens to illustrate this function. ¶30; p. 12 col. 5:30-34
...said exit surface given a specific shape that refractively deflects said uniform irradiance into said output beam... The exit surface of the accused lens allegedly refracts the uniform light into a diverging output beam. The same diagram illustrates this alleged function. ¶30; p. 12 col. 5:34-36
...said entry surface having first concavity facing toward said light source, and second concavity facing toward the entry surface, said second concavity being substantially greater than said first concavity. The accused lens allegedly has an entry surface with two distinct concavities. A photograph with annotations purports to show a smaller "First concavity" and a substantially greater "Second concavity." ¶31; p. 13 col. 5:40-44

Identified Points of Contention

  • Functional Questions: A central question will be evidentiary: does the accused lens’s entry surface actually create "predominantly uniform irradiance" on the exit surface as claimed? This functional limitation may require complex optical analysis and testing to prove or disprove.
  • Scope Questions: The interpretation of "substantially greater" regarding the two concavities will be a point of contention. The parties will likely dispute the degree of difference required to meet this limitation, which may become a matter for claim construction.

’873 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A lens, comprising: a body; The accused products include lenses, each comprising a body. An annotated photograph shows the lens body from an accused UN58CU7000F television. ¶47; p. 18 col. 2:9
a total reflection surface with a total reflection slope with respect to a central axis of the body; The accused lens allegedly has an internal V-shaped surface that acts as a total reflection surface with a specific slope. An annotated photograph identifies this "Total reflective surface" and indicates an angle greater than 42 degrees. ¶48; p. 18 col. 2:10-12
and at least one of a linear refractive surface and a curved refractive surface formed to extend away from the central axis and beyond a periphery of the total reflection surface. The accused lens allegedly has both a linear and a curved refractive surface that extend outward from the periphery of the total reflection surface. The photograph identifies both a "Linear refractive surface" and a "Curved refractive surface" in the accused lens. ¶48; p. 18 col. 2:12-14

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A key technical dispute may be whether the surface identified as the "total reflection surface" actually operates primarily through total internal reflection, as the claim term implies, or through simple refraction. The analysis will depend on the refractive index of the lens material and the angles at which light from the LED strikes that surface.
  • Scope Questions: The meaning of "extend away from the central axis and beyond a periphery of the total reflection surface" will likely be contested. The dispute could focus on the precise geometric relationship required between the reflective and refractive surfaces.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'162 Patent (Claim 1)

  • The Term: "predominantly uniform irradiance"
  • Context and Importance: This term is functional and defines the required optical performance of the lens's entry surface. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the '162 patent may depend entirely on whether the light distribution on the accused lens's exit surface is deemed "predominantly uniform." Practitioners may focus on this term because terms of degree are frequently litigated.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "predominantly" suggests that absolute or perfect uniformity is not required. The specification contrasts the invention with "highly nonuniform" inputs, suggesting any significant improvement towards uniformity could fall within the claim (’162 Patent, col. 2:54).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s stated purpose is to solve the problem of nonuniform illumination (’162 Patent, col. 1:11-24). A defendant may argue that the term requires a specific, mathematically demonstrable level of uniformity sufficient to achieve the patent's objective of providing uniform light on a final target.

'873 Patent (Claim 1)

  • The Term: "total reflection surface"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears to name a component by its physical function—total internal reflection (TIR). Infringement will depend on whether the accused surface is designed to and actually does operate via TIR. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links a structural element to a specific optical phenomenon that can be tested.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that any internal surface that reflects the majority of incident light, regardless of the precise physical mechanism, could be considered a "total reflection surface" in the context of the claim's overall structure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background explicitly discusses "total internal reflection (TIR) property of light" (’873 Patent, col. 1:43-45). A defendant could argue this requires the surface to be configured such that light strikes it at an angle greater than the critical angle for TIR, and that this must be the intended and primary means of reflection.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. The theory is that SEC, SDC, and SEA act in concert, with SDC manufacturing infringing components (e.g., display modules, LEDs), SEC incorporating them into finished products (e.g., televisions), and SEA importing, selling, and promoting these products in the U.S. The complaint alleges Defendants provide marketing and user support, which allegedly encourages infringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶¶32-33, 49-50, 67-68, 83-84, 100-101, 117-118).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged for all six patents based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents prior to or upon the filing of the suit. For the ’873 and ’113 patents, the complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge dating back to 2017 and 2012, respectively, based on the patents being identified during the prosecution of Samsung's own patent applications (Compl. ¶¶42, 59). For all patents, knowledge is alleged based on a notice letter dated July 16, 2024, and the filing of the original complaint in the matter (Compl. ¶¶34, 51, 69, 85, 102, 119).

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

  • A central issue will be one of functional and operational proof: The case appears to heavily rely on allegations about how microscopic components function and how they were made. A key evidentiary question will be whether discovery and expert analysis can demonstrate that the accused products meet the specific functional requirements of the claims—for instance, does the '162 patent's accused lens create "predominantly uniform irradiance," and was the '626 patent's accused LED manufactured using the claimed sloped-etching process?
  • A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: The dispute will likely turn on the construction of key claim terms. Can the term "total reflection surface" (’873 patent) be construed to cover a structure that may operate through other optical principles, or must it be limited to surfaces relying on total internal reflection? The degree of precision required by terms like "predominantly uniform" (’162 patent) and the specific structural arrangement of "resin-holding components" (’913 patent) will be critical questions for the court.