Imod Systems LLC v. Visitech Americas Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: iMod Systems LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Visitech Americas Incorporated (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-848, E.D. Tex., 08/22/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to flexibly connectable digital micromirror device (DMD) modules used in projection apparatuses.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the mechanical and electrical connection between a projector's main processing board and its core image-forming component, the DMD, aiming to improve assembly, reliability, and miniaturization.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-05-21	’149 Patent Priority Date
2011-05-13	’149 Patent Application Filing Date
2013-10-22	’149 Patent Issue Date
2025-08-22	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,562,149 - "Flexibly connectable digital micromirror device module and projecting apparatus employing same"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,562,149, "Flexibly connectable digital micromirror device module and projecting apparatus employing same," issued October 22, 2013 (’149 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art methods for connecting a DMD board to a projector's main board as being inflexible and problematic for manufacturing and miniaturization (’149 Patent, col. 2:44-50). Rigid board-to-board or edge-card connectors required high precision, were costly, and made it difficult for assemblers to visually confirm a secure connection, potentially leading to poor signal quality (’149 Patent, col. 1:52-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a module where the DMD unit is mounted directly onto a flexible connection device, such as a flexible flat cable (’149 Patent, col. 4:26-34). This flexible cable has a connecting interface at its other end for insertion into the main board, decoupling the rigid DMD unit from the main board connection point (’149 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:35-41). This design is intended to increase "assembling convenience and reliability" and provide "a better assembling tolerance" (’149 Patent, col. 2:56-59).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided an alternative to rigid connectors, potentially simplifying projector assembly, improving connection reliability, and facilitating more compact product designs.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referencing "Exemplary '149 Patent Claims" in a separate exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent claim of the patent.
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A flexible connection device with conducting wires and an external insulation layer.
  • A digital micromirror device (DMD) unit disposed on the external insulation layer of the flexible connection device and electrically connected with its conducting wires.
  • A supporting plate that both supports the DMD unit and fixes an edge part of the flexible connection device.
  • A connecting interface at a lateral end of the flexible connection device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any accused products by name, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts incorporated as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11). This exhibit was not publicly filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include claim charts that allegedly compare the asserted claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶¶16-17). In place of a chart summary, the infringement theory is summarized below. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’149 Patent (Compl. ¶16). It asserts direct infringement through the Defendant's acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing these products, as well as through internal testing by employees (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The allegations are conclusory and do not explain in the body of the complaint how any specific product meets the limitations of any asserted claim.

Identified Points of Contention

• Given the general nature of the allegations, the central dispute will likely involve fundamental questions of evidence and claim scope.
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products, once identified, contain the specific structural combination recited in the claims. For example, what evidence will show that the accused products contain a distinct "supporting plate" that performs the dual functions of supporting the DMD unit and fixing the edge of the flexible connector?
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the components in the accused products fall within the scope of the patent's claims. For instance, a question may arise as to whether an integrated chassis or heat sink structure in an accused product constitutes the claimed "supporting plate," or if that term is limited to a separate component as depicted in the patent's figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a supporting plate for supporting said digital micromirror device unit and fixing an edge part of said flexible connection device" (from Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This term appears central to defining the invention's physical structure. The claim requires a single component—the "supporting plate"—to perform two distinct functions. The definition of this term will be critical to determining infringement, as the dispute may focus on whether the accused products contain a single structure that meets both of these claimed functional requirements.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the supporting plate as potentially being "a printed circuit board or a flat plate," suggesting the term is not limited to a specific material or form beyond being generally plate-like (’149 Patent, col. 4:62-63).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s preferred embodiments consistently depict the supporting plate (34) as a distinct component to which the DMD unit (31) and flexible connection device (32) are attached (’149 Patent, Figs. 4A, 4B, 5). Language describing the plate as being "configured to support the DMD unit 31 and fixing a portion of the flexible connection device 32" could be argued to require a structure specifically designed for these purposes, rather than a multi-purpose component like a general chassis (’149 Patent, col. 4:50-52).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that service of the complaint provides "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's subsequent activities constitute ongoing infringement (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is consistent with an intent to seek enhanced damages or attorney's fees based on post-filing conduct (Compl. p. 5).

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

Based on the complaint and the patent-in-suit, the litigation will likely center on the following key questions:

1. An Evidentiary Question of Structure: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate, once specific products are accused, that they contain the precise structural arrangement of the asserted claims? The focus will likely be on whether the accused products possess a single, discrete "supporting plate" that performs the dual functions of supporting the DMD unit and fixing the flexible connector's edge.
2. A Definitional Question of Scope: How broadly will the term "supporting plate" be construed? The case may turn on whether this term can read on modern, highly integrated mounting solutions found in compact electronics, or if it is limited by the patent's specification and figures to a more distinct, purpose-built component.