DCT
2:25-cv-00309
Bishop Display Tech LLC v. BOE Technology Group Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bishop Display Tech LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00309, E.D. Tex., 08/26/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign entity that may be sued in any U.S. judicial district. The complaint further alleges that Defendant purposefully directs products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge they will be sold in Texas, including through its U.S. subsidiary which has an office in Houston.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCDs) and liquid crystal modules (LCMs) infringe six patents related to the structural design and manufacturing methods of liquid crystal display panels.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the micro-architecture of TFT-LCDs, the dominant technology for displays in consumer and industrial electronics such as notebooks, monitors, and tablets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that a prior owner of the asserted patents, Parkside IP LLC, provided Defendant with notice of infringement for all six patents-in-suit on or about July 29, 2020. This alleged pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for Plaintiff's claims of willful infringement.
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) |
| 2001-09-27 | 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) |
| 2020-07-29 | Prior patent owner allegedly provided notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2025-08-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,525,798 - "Liquid Crystal Display Unit"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes challenges with In-Plane Switching (IPS) type liquid crystal displays, including color shifting when viewed from different angles (“coloring”) and inefficient light usage (’798 Patent, col. 1:44-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes creating pixels that contain multiple sets of electrode pairs (each pair comprising a common electrode and a pixel electrode), where at least one pair has a different physical dimension—specifically, a different electrode thickness—from the others (’798 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:39-44). By creating varied electric field distributions within a single pixel, undesirable optical effects like coloring can be mitigated, leading to improved viewing angle performance and image quality (’798 Patent, col. 3:6-14).
- Technical Importance: This technique of intra-pixel structural variation provided a method for fine-tuning the optical properties of an LCD at a granular level to improve color fidelity across different viewing angles.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
- The essential elements of claim 1 are:
- A liquid crystal display unit with an array substrate, a counter substrate, and a liquid crystal layer between them.
- The array substrate includes pixels, scanning signal lines, and video signal lines.
- Each pixel includes a plurality of common electrodes and a plurality of pixel electrodes.
- Each pixel includes a plurality of electrode pairs, each pair comprising one common electrode and an adjacent pixel electrode.
- Crucially, at least one of these electrode pairs differs from other pairs in the thickness of its common electrode or the thickness of its pixel electrode.
U.S. Patent No. 6,787,829 - "Liquid Crystal Display Panel"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes image quality degradation caused by the unintended electric field that forms between a signal line (e.g., an image or scanning line) and an adjacent electrode within a pixel (’829 Patent, col. 2:1-13). Shielding this interaction with opaque materials can reduce the display's aperture ratio (brightness), while using only transparent materials can exacerbate the visual artifacts (’829 Patent, col. 2:21-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention specifies a hybrid electrode structure to resolve this trade-off. The electrode located directly adjacent to a signal line is made of an "opaque conductor" to act as a shield. Concurrently, at least one of the other electrodes within the same pixel is made of a "transparent conductor" to maximize the light-transmitting area (’829 Patent, Abstract). This design aims to block unwanted electrical interference while preserving the pixel's overall brightness.
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a structural solution to balance the competing design goals of electrical shielding and high light throughput, a fundamental challenge in maximizing the performance of TFT-LCDs.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
- The essential elements of claim 1 are:
- A liquid crystal display panel with array and counter substrates and a liquid crystal layer.
- The array substrate has perpendicular image and scanning signal lines defining pixel regions.
- Each pixel region contains a line-shaped pixel electrode parallel to the image signal lines and a parallel common electrode.
- A switching element connects the pixel electrode to an image signal line.
- Crucially, the electrode (pixel or common) that is adjacent and parallel to a signal line comprises an opaque conductor, while 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"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of "black dot nonunuformities" in LCDs, which are defects caused by the accumulation of ionic impurities that disrupt the alignment of liquid crystals ('293 Patent, col. 3:20-25). The invention is a manufacturing method that adds a specific step: after an orientation film is applied to the substrate, a "predetermined portion" of that film is stripped away by rubbing, which is intended to neutralize or remove the problematic ions ('293 Patent, Abstract; col. 51:26-31).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶78).
- Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s manufacturing process for its LCDs includes a "stripping step of stripping, by rubbing, a predetermined portion of the orientation film on the electrodes or lines" (Compl. ¶81). The complaint provides an image of an orientation film glowing under UV light, identifying the layer that is subject to the allegedly infringing process (Compl. p. 37).
U.S. Patent No. 6,816,208 - "Liquid Crystal Display Device"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses display non-uniformity caused by the degradation of the scanning voltage signal as it travels from the "feeding side" of the display to the "termination side" ('208 Patent, col. 1:11-25). The invention proposes a design where the storage capacity of each pixel's capacitor is intentionally varied across the display, with the capacity being larger on the feeding side than on the termination side, to compensate for this signal drop ('208 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶95).
- Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to have a capacitive accumulation portion where the storage capacity value is larger at a "signal feeding side" than at an "adjacent pixel at a termination side," accomplished by "varying an aperture in the common electrode" (Compl. ¶97). An annotated micrograph in the complaint purports to show these different apertures (Compl. p. 46).
U.S. Patent No. 6,850,303 - "Liquid Crystal Display Device Having Additional Storage Capacitance"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent seeks to increase the storage capacity of a pixel—which improves image stability—without reducing the pixel’s aperture ratio ('303 Patent, col. 2:49-54). The solution is a three-dimensional capacitor structure where a "storage capacity electrode" is layered with the common wiring and the pixel electrode, separated by insulating films. This layering creates capacitance vertically, adding storage capacity without consuming additional horizontal area on the substrate ('303 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶110).
- Accused Features: The accused products allegedly feature a layered structure where the "common wiring and the storage capacity electrode are layered so as to hold at least some part of the pixel electrode in between through an insulating layer" (Compl. ¶117).
U.S. Patent No. 6,906,769 - "Liquid Crystal Screen Display"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses display unevenness caused by localized ion generation, which can occur when signal lines are unintentionally exposed to the liquid crystal layer, for example, due to defects in an overcoat film ('769 Patent, col. 2:19-35). The invention proposes intentionally designing the display so that a conductive member, such as a gate signal line, is in "partial contact with the alignment layer" and is supplied with a negative voltage. This creates a controlled and uniform distribution of ions across the entire panel, preventing the localized, non-uniform ion concentrations that create visible defects ('769 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:40-52).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶130).
- Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to have a "first conductive member" (identified as gate signal lines) that is interposed between the substrate and the alignment layer, is in "partial contact with the alignment layer," and to which a negative voltage is applied (Compl. ¶134).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are BOE's thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCDs), liquid crystal modules (LCMs), and products incorporating them (Compl. ¶3). The complaint specifically identifies BOE model NV156FHM-N3D, found within a Dell laptop model P89F, as an exemplary accused product (Compl. ¶¶18, 44).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are the core visual components used in a wide range of electronic devices. They function by using an array of thin-film transistors to apply electric fields to liquid crystals, thereby controlling the passage of light for each pixel to form an image (Compl. ¶45). The complaint alleges BOE is a dominant global supplier of these components to major device manufacturers, including Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, and Asus, and that in 2022, "one out of four display products in the world comes from BOE" (Compl. ¶¶4, 18). An image of a label on an accused product shows a UL Solutions mark, which the complaint alleges indicates compliance with and intent for sale in the U.S. market (Compl. ¶18, p. 6).
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 liquid crystal display unit comprising... a plurality of pixels each including a plurality of common electrodes, a plurality of pixel electrodes... | The accused BOE model NV156FHM-N3D is a liquid crystal display unit containing pixels with multiple common and pixel electrodes. | ¶¶44-45 | col. 2:29-35 |
| each of the pixels includes a plurality of electrode pairs, each electrode pair comprising one of the common electrodes and an adjacent one of the pixel electrodes... | The accused product's pixels include electrode pairs, each formed by a common electrode and an adjacent pixel electrode. An annotated micrograph shows this structure. | ¶47 | col. 2:63-66 |
| and 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. | An examination of the accused product allegedly demonstrates that at least one electrode pair has a common electrode with a different thickness than other pairs. The complaint provides an annotated micrograph purporting to show this difference. | ¶47 | col. 2:39-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: A central factual question will be whether the accused products contain, by design, electrode pairs with different electrode thicknesses as required by claim 1. The dispute may focus on whether the variations shown in the complaint's micrograph (Compl. ¶47) are intentional design features or incidental manufacturing variances.
- Scope Question: The analysis may raise the question of how much of a "differ[ence]" in thickness is required to meet the claim limitation.
U.S. Patent No. 6,787,829 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A liquid crystal display panel comprising... a plurality of image signal lines... a plurality of scanning signal lines... perpendicular to the image signal lines | The accused BOE model NV156FHM-N3D is a liquid crystal display panel with a grid of perpendicular image and scanning signal lines. | ¶62 | col. 5:35-43 |
| a line-shaped pixel electrode located in each of pixel regions... located parallel to the image signal lines | The accused product contains line-shaped pixel electrodes arranged parallel to the image signal lines within the pixel regions. | ¶63 | col. 5:40-45 |
| 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 an image signal line, is alleged to be made of an opaque conductor. | ¶65 | col. 3:5-10 |
| and at least one of the other electrodes comprises a transparent conductor. | The pixel electrode, which is not adjacent to the signal line, is alleged to be made of a transparent conductor. An annotated micrograph illustrates the alleged opaque common electrode and transparent pixel electrode (Compl. p. 28). | ¶65 | col. 3:10-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: A key question will be whether the materials used for the respective electrodes in the accused product function as "opaque" and "transparent" conductors within the meaning of the patent.
- Scope Question: The construction of the term "adjacent" may be disputed, particularly regarding the required proximity between the "opaque conductor" electrode and the signal line to meet the claim limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from ’798 Patent, Claim 1: "differs... in a thickness"
- Context and Importance: The entirety of the infringement allegation for the ’798 patent rests on this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether any measurable variation in electrode thickness, including unintentional manufacturing tolerances, meets the claim limitation, or if a functionally significant, designed difference is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 does not quantify the required difference, which may suggest that any non-zero variation suffices. The specification describes the concept generally as using electrodes "different in the width or thickness" ('798 Patent, col. 2:60-62).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s stated purpose is to use these differences to alter the "wavelength dispersion characteristic" and cancel coloring effects ('798 Patent, col. 4:44-48). A defendant may argue that a trivial or incidental thickness variation that does not achieve this functional purpose does not meet the claim limitation.
Term from ’829 Patent, Claim 1: "opaque conductor"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical, as it defines the material property of the key shielding electrode. The case may turn on whether the material of the accused product’s common electrode, which is adjacent to a signal line, falls within the scope of an "opaque conductor" as understood in the art and taught by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, suggesting the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning: a material that is not transparent to light and conducts electricity. The specification’s discussion of the problem of "light transmitting through this region" suggests the primary function is to block light ('829 Patent, col. 2:9-11).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term should be interpreted functionally, requiring not only opacity to light but also sufficient conductive properties to effectively shield the electric field from the signal line, as described in the patent’s objective ('829 Patent, Abstract).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all six patents. The allegations are based on Defendant manufacturing the accused LCDs and selling them to downstream product makers (e.g., Dell, HP, Lenovo) with the knowledge and intent that they will be incorporated into finished products sold and used in the U.S. (Compl. ¶¶49, 67, 84, 99, 119, 136). Affirmative acts of inducement are alleged to include marking products with UL Solutions labels for the U.S. market, creating advertisements, and providing instructions and technical support (Compl. ¶¶49, 67).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all six patents. The primary basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge, stemming from a notice letter detailing the infringement sent to Defendant by a prior owner of the patents on July 29, 2020 (Compl. ¶¶48, 66, 83, 98, 118, 135). The complaint further alleges that Defendant was aware of the patents through their citation during the prosecution of Defendant's own U.S. and Chinese patent applications (Compl. ¶¶48, 66, 83).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can Plaintiff demonstrate through discovery and expert analysis that the microscopic structures within BOE’s mass-produced commercial display panels consistently embody the specific, and often subtle, design choices claimed in the patents, such as intentional variations in electrode thickness ('798 Patent) or storage capacitance ('208 Patent)?
- A key question for the '293 method patent will be one of process discovery: can Plaintiff obtain sufficient evidence from within Defendant's highly proprietary manufacturing operations to prove that its process incorporates the specific claimed step of "stripping, by rubbing, a predetermined portion of the orientation film"?
- The case will likely present a significant dispute over willfulness and damages: given the allegation that Defendant received explicit notice of infringement for all asserted patents nearly five years before the complaint was filed, a core legal battle will be whether Defendant’s conduct in the intervening period was objectively reckless, potentially justifying an award of enhanced damages.