DCT

2:25-cv-00886

Baker Laser Technology LLC v. Barco NV

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00886, E.D. Tex., 08/27/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s laser projectors infringe a patent related to a system for projecting images using semiconductor lasers and a rotating disk.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns compact and portable laser projection systems designed to overcome the size and weight limitations of earlier projector technologies.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement via a letter dated March 10, 2025, a fact which may be used to support allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-08-19 ’373 Patent Priority Date
2015-11-10 ’373 Patent Issue Date
2025-03-10 Plaintiff provides Defendant notice of infringement
2025-08-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,185,373, "Laser Projection System," issued November 10, 2015 (’373 Patent).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that prior art projectors, such as LCD projectors, were "heavy and bulky," creating a need for a "lighter and more portable solution" that could be easily carried in a pocket or briefcase (Compl. ¶7; ’373 Patent, col. 1:62-67, col. 2:1-4).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses two or more semiconductor lasers to generate pulses of light, which are then transmitted through a "rotating disk" containing a multitude of lenses (’373 Patent, Abstract). This rotating disk directs the light pulses to specific locations on a screen, with the disk's rotation being synchronized with the laser pulses to "form a visible representation of the image on the surface" (’373 Patent, col. 2:28-35). Figure 5 of the patent illustrates the core mechanical assembly, showing a motor (501) spinning a disk (502) populated with lenses (504) (’373 Patent, Fig. 5).
    • Technical Importance: This approach allows for a significant miniaturization of projection technology, enabling the creation of devices as small as a pen (’373 Patent, col. 2:37-43).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶12).
    • Essential elements of independent claim 8:
      • A method of delivering a beam of light across a surface comprising generating a beam of light using two or more semiconductor lasers,
      • said beam of light consisting of a stream of pulses of light to display on the surface,
      • transmitting said pulses of light through a rotating disk; and
      • synchronizing said rotating disk with the lasers such that the pulses of light are modified such that an image is formed on the surface.
    • The complaint also alleges indirect infringement of independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶15-16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's laser projectors, including at least the Barco I600-4K10 laser projector (Compl. ¶12).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as a laser projector but does not provide specific details about its internal components or method of operation beyond what is stated in an incorporated-by-reference claim chart that was not attached to the public filing (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the product's specific market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 8 of the ’373 Patent but relies on a preliminary claim chart (Exhibit B) that was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶12). The complaint states that Defendant’s laser projectors, including the Barco I600-4K10 model, perform the steps of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶12-13). Without access to the claim chart, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the architecture of the accused Barco projector includes a "rotating disk" for directing light as required by the claim. Modern high-resolution projectors often use alternative technologies, such as Digital Micromirror Devices (DMDs) or Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCoS) imagers, which may not meet the definition of the claimed element.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations hinge on the assertion that the accused projector performs the specific step of "synchronizing said rotating disk with the lasers" to form an image. A key factual dispute will likely concern the evidence demonstrating that the accused projector employs this specific mechanism, as opposed to other known methods for image formation in laser projection systems.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "rotating disk"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears to define the core light-steering mechanism of the invention. The infringement analysis will likely depend heavily on whether the component within the accused projector that directs light can be properly characterized as a "rotating disk."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the disk could have alternatives to lenses, stating it could have a "series of fins or mirrors that bend the light as the rotating disk spins" (’373 Patent, col. 5:46-50). This may support a broader functional definition covering any rotating element that steers light.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described is a physical disk containing a "multitude of lenses" (’373 Patent, col. 2:22-23) arranged in a circle or spiral to sweep light across a surface line-by-line (’373 Patent, col. 6:29-40). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed more narrowly to reflect this disclosed structure.

  • The Term: "synchronizing said rotating disk with the lasers"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the required functional relationship between the claimed mechanical and optical components. Proving infringement will require demonstrating that the accused product performs this specific type of synchronization.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, requiring synchronization "such that the pulses of light are modified such that an image is formed on the surface" (’373 Patent, col. 8:30-32). This could be argued to cover any timing relationship between laser pulses and disk position that results in a coherent image.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses a specific method for achieving synchronization, using a sensor that detects "laser light reflected from a small mirror 503 on the rotating disk 502" to establish a timing reference for each frame (’373 Patent, col. 4:49-53). A party could argue this disclosure limits the scope of the term to systems using a similar feedback mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement of claims 1 and 8. It asserts Defendant had knowledge of the ’373 Patent as of a March 10, 2025 notice letter, and that it encourages infringement through marketing, advertising, and distributing the accused projectors (Compl. ¶14-16). For contributory infringement, the complaint alleges the accused products are not staple articles and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶16).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving the March 10, 2025 notice letter from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶14, ¶18).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical architecture: Does the accused Barco I600-4K10 projector, a modern commercial product, employ a physical "rotating disk" with optical elements to steer laser pulses, as described in the ’373 Patent, or does it utilize a different, potentially non-infringing technology for image formation?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of factual basis: Given the complaint’s reliance on an un-provided claim chart, the case will likely turn on what evidence Plaintiff can produce during discovery to substantiate its claim that the internal components and operation of the accused projector map onto the specific elements of claim 8, particularly the "rotating disk" and its method of "synchronizing" with the lasers.