DCT

2:25-cv-00245

Paneltouch Tech LLC v. BOE Technology Group Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00245, E.D. Tex., 02/28/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation that does not reside in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges Defendant has placed its products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge they would be sold in the United States and specifically in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s display panels, incorporated into consumer electronics such as the Valve Steam Deck and Amazon Fire HD10 tablet, infringe five patents related to the structure, manufacture, and inspection of touch-enabled display devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for constructing and testing touch panels, including adding dedicated interconnects for defect inspection and specific layering techniques to improve the user's tactile experience.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant has been a party to prior patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas and has not moved to transfer those cases.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-01-13 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,250,758
2009-12-30 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,803,836
2010-06-02 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,704,762 and 9,507,477
2014-04-22 U.S. Patent No. 8,704,762 Issues
2014-08-12 U.S. Patent No. 8,803,836 Issues
2016-02-02 U.S. Patent No. 9,250,758 Issues
2016-11-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,507,477 Issues
2019-02-28 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,126,025
2021-09-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,126,025 Issues
2025-02-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,704,762 - “Display device,” Issued April 22, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of performing visual inspection for manufacturing defects, such as substrate chipping or cracking, on signal interconnects in a display assembly, particularly after a touch panel with a light-shielding film is bonded to the display panel, which obscures the view of the interconnect region (ʼ762 Patent, col. 2:6-19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a dedicated "second signal interconnect" formed on the transparent substrate, separate from the primary signal interconnects used for device operation. This second interconnect is disposed along the peripheral edge of the substrate and is connected to dedicated terminals for inspection purposes. A break in this inspection line, which would occur if the substrate cracks or chips, can be easily detected electrically, thus providing a simple method to confirm the structural integrity of the panel without visual access (ʼ762 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:53-64).
  • Technical Importance: This solution provides a reliable and simple electrical test method for detecting critical physical manufacturing defects that are otherwise difficult or impossible to find after final assembly of the display stack (ʼ762 Patent, col. 2:24-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A coordinate input device with a transparent substrate and detection electrodes.
    • A "first signal interconnect" connecting the detection electrodes to a first electrode terminal.
    • A "second signal interconnect" disposed outside the first signal interconnect near the peripheral edge of the substrate.
    • The second signal interconnect surrounds the area where the detection region and first signal interconnect are formed.
    • The second signal interconnect is "opened at opposite ends thereof and being connected to respective electrode terminals for inspection at the open ends."
    • The second signal interconnect is disposed along the peripheral edge of "three sides" of the transparent substrate.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶11).

U.S. Patent No. 8,803,836 - “Display device with touch panel,” Issued August 12, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies drawbacks with conventional touch panels. Using transparent electrodes (e.g., ITO) can lead to high resistance and limited transmissivity. Alternatively, using opaque metal lines can create an uneven surface that a user can feel with a finger or stylus, degrading the tactile experience (ʼ836 Patent, col. 1:19-24, col. 2:56-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a touch panel structure that includes a first substrate with a plurality of metal lines (a first electrode) on its inner surface. A "resin film" is adhered to the outer surface of this first substrate (the side opposite the second substrate). This external resin film absorbs the physical unevenness of the underlying metal lines, providing a smooth surface for the user while allowing the use of electrically superior opaque metal conductors within the panel (ʼ836 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:10-19).
  • Technical Importance: This design allows for the use of low-resistance metal lines, which improves electrical performance and enables larger touch panels, without compromising the smooth tactile feel expected by users of modern electronic devices (ʼ836 Patent, col. 1:56-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Essential elements of claim 8 include:
    • A touch panel with a first substrate having a detection area.
    • A plurality of "first lines" and "second lines" to detect coordinates, where each of the first lines traverses each of the second lines.
    • An organic luminescence electric device panel adhered to the touch panel.
    • A circular polarizing plate adhered to the touch panel on the side opposite the organic luminescence panel.
    • Each of the plurality of first and second lines is made of metal, and each of the first lines is black in color.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶19).

U.S. Patent No. 9,250,758 - “Display device with touch panel,” Issued February 2, 2016

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,250,758, “Display device with touch panel,” Issued February 2, 2016 (Compl. ¶26).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the integration of a touch panel with an organic emitting display panel. The invention specifies a particular arrangement where the organic emitting display panel, the touch panel, and a circular polarizing plate are arranged "in this order" to achieve desired display quality and user experience (’758 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint indicates assertion of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The BOE OLED panel supplied to Valve and included in the Steam Deck (Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. 9,507,477 - “Display device,” Issued November 29, 2016

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,507,477, “Display device,” Issued November 29, 2016 (Compl. ¶34).
  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ʼ762 Patent, this invention is directed to facilitating the inspection of display devices for manufacturing defects. It describes a "second signal interconnect" disposed along the periphery of a transparent substrate, separate from the operational interconnects, which can be electrically tested to detect substrate chipping or cracking (’477 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint indicates assertion of at least independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶38).
  • Accused Features: The BOE OLED panel supplied to Valve and included in the Steam Deck (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 11,126,025 - “In-cell touch panel,” Issued September 21, 2021

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,126,025, “In-cell touch panel,” Issued September 21, 2021 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses image quality degradation in "in-cell" touch panels caused by electromagnetic interference and coupling capacitance. The solution involves a specific electrode structure where common electrodes are divided into "segment electrodes" separated by an area over the gate line, and a "dummy touch line" is placed in the gap between adjacent electrodes to act as a shield, thereby preventing display unevenness (’025 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-32).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint indicates assertion of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
  • Accused Features: The BOE display/touch panel supplied to Amazon and included in the Amazon Fire HD10 tablet (Compl. ¶43).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies two sets of accused instrumentalities:
    1. The "BOE OLED panel supplied to Valve and included in the Steam Deck," accused of infringing the '762, '836, '758, and '477 patents (Compl. ¶¶11, 19, 27, 35).
    2. The "BOE display/touch panel supplied to Amazon and included in the Amazon Fire HD10 tablet," accused of infringing the '025 patent (Compl. ¶43).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused instrumentalities as display components that Defendant manufactures and supplies for incorporation into finished consumer electronics (Compl. ¶¶5, 11, 43). The complaint alleges that Defendant is a major global supplier of display products, stating that "one out of four display products in the world comes from BOE," and that these products are placed into the stream of commerce with the expectation of sale in the United States (Compl. ¶¶5-6).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 22, 30, 38, 46). The pleading does not contain a narrative infringement theory or specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements, precluding the creation of a detailed claim chart analysis. The complaint makes general allegations that the accused products meet all limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 22).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • ’762 and ’477 Patents: A central dispute may concern whether any conductive structure within the accused BOE OLED panels performs the function of the claimed "second signal interconnect... for inspection." Defendant may argue that any peripheral wiring serves a different operational purpose (e.g., grounding, power) and does not meet the claim's requirement of being a dedicated structure for detecting physical substrate defects. The analysis will raise the question of functional identity: does any structure in the accused panels meet both the structural and express functional limitations recited in the claims for an inspection interconnect?
    • ’836 and ’758 Patents: The infringement analysis for these patents may turn on the material composition and layered arrangement of the accused panels. A key question could be whether the conductive elements in the BOE OLED panels constitute "metal lines" as understood in the patent, which distinguishes them from prior art transparent electrodes. A related point of contention may be whether the outermost layer of the accused panels qualifies as the claimed "resin film" or "circular polarizing plate" intended to provide a smooth tactile feel and specific optical properties.
    • ’025 Patent: For this patent, the dispute will likely be highly technical, focusing on the micro-architecture of the accused BOE panel in the Amazon Fire HD10. The analysis will raise questions of structural equivalence: does the accused in-cell panel contain structures that meet the specific claim limitations of "segment electrodes" divided by an area on a "gate line," and does it include a "dummy touch line" in the separation area between electrodes as claimed?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’762 Patent

  • The Term: "second signal interconnect ... for inspection" (from claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central feature of the invention. The scope of this term will be critical to determining infringement. If construed broadly to cover any peripheral conductive path that could hypothetically be used for inspection, infringement may be easier to establish. If construed narrowly to require a structure specifically designed and exclusively purposed for defect inspection, the burden on the plaintiff may be higher.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the material or exact form of the interconnect, focusing on its location ("outside the first signal interconnect," "along the peripheral edge") and its connection to "electrode terminals for inspection" ('762 Patent, col. 2:56-61).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the purpose of this interconnect as detecting "substrate chipping or cracking" ('762 Patent, col. 2:17-19, col. 4:30-32). The abstract and summary emphasize this specific utility, suggesting the term implies a structure designed for this purpose rather than a general-purpose conductor that could be opportunistically tested.

For the ’836 Patent

  • The Term: "metal lines" (from claim 8)
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's background explicitly contrasts the invention with prior art using "transparent electrode[s]" made of materials like ITO ('836 Patent, col. 1:19-22). The definition of "metal lines" will be pivotal. If it is construed to mean traditional opaque metals (e.g., copper, aluminum) and to exclude transparent conductive oxides, then the material composition of the accused panel's traces will be a dispositive fact.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "metal" is chemically broad and could be argued to include metallic compounds like ITO.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frames the invention as a solution to the "high resistance" and optical problems of transparent electrodes ('836 Patent, col. 1:19-24). This context suggests that "metal lines" should be interpreted as the alternative—opaque, low-resistance conductors—which create the "unevenness" problem that the claimed "resin film" is designed to solve ('836 Patent, col. 2:56-63).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating on information and belief that Defendant "instructs" its customers, such as Valve and Amazon, to "make, use, sell, offer for sale, and import devices" that incorporate the accused panels and thereby practice the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 20, 28, 36, 44). It is also alleged that Defendant contributorily infringes by providing components that are a material part of the invention and not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 21, 29, 37, 45).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has knowledge of the asserted patents "through the filing and service of this Complaint," which would support a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 20, 28, 36, 44). The complaint also asserts that Defendant "knew or was willfully blind" to its infringement pre-suit, but provides no specific factual basis for this allegation beyond general assertions (e.g., Compl. ¶12).

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

  1. A central issue for four of the five patents will be one of structural and functional identity: do the accused BOE OLED panels contain peripheral conductive paths and outer film layers that can be properly characterized as the claimed "interconnect for inspection" and "resin film," respectively, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their structure, material, and purpose?
  2. A key evidentiary question for the '025 patent will be one of micro-architectural correspondence: does the accused BOE panel in the Amazon Fire HD10 tablet incorporate the specific in-cell touch architecture recited in claim 1, including "segment electrodes" divided over a gate line and a "dummy touch line" for shielding, or does it employ a different, non-infringing design?
  3. A significant procedural question is the relationship between the infringement theories: the case combines two distinct technological assertions—one concerning external inspection interconnects and surface films against an OLED panel in a gaming device, and another concerning in-cell electrode structures against a different panel in a tablet. The court will need to determine how these separate infringement narratives, targeting different products with different patents, proceed within a single action.