DCT
4:23-cv-00480
Zeppelin Corp v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Zeppelin Corporation (Samoa and Taiwan)
- Defendant: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (Taiwan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BUDO LAW P.C.
- Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00480, E.D. Tex., 05/25/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation, which may be sued in any judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3). The complaint also asserts that Defendant has previously consented to jurisdiction and venue in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile phones, including its ROG Phone and ZenFone series, infringe a patent related to self-illuminating display technology and antenna placement designed to reduce device thickness and improve signal reception.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the fundamental architecture of smartphone displays and antennas, specifically concerning the transition from backlit liquid crystal displays (LCD) to self-emissive technologies like organic light-emitting diodes (OLED) and methods to mitigate electromagnetic shielding of antennas.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history involving the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-12-13 | '630 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-06-04 | '630 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-05-25 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,313,630 - "Mobile phone with fluorescent substances"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,313,630, "Mobile phone with fluorescent substances", issued June 4, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies several problems with mobile devices at the time of the invention. Conventional LCD displays required a backlight module, which increased device thickness and was not transparent ('630 Patent, col. 1:45-48). Furthermore, antennas were typically embedded within the device, where they were shielded by internal components, leading to poor signal reception ('630 Patent, col. 1:52-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a mobile phone with a display that eliminates the need for a separate backlight. It describes a structure with "fluorescent substances" situated between two transparent substrates; a bias is applied across the substrates to excite the substances, causing them to emit visible light directly ('630 Patent, Abstract). To address the signal reception problem, the invention discloses placing an "antenna... at side of the... transparent substrate" to reduce electromagnetic shielding effects ('630 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:64-67).
- Technical Importance: This design purports to enable thinner, more power-efficient mobile devices with improved wireless performance by integrating a self-emissive display and relocating the antenna away from shielding components ('630 Patent, col. 1:59-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- a control unit;
- a first wireless module coupled to the control unit;
- a second wireless module coupled to the control unit;
- a display structure comprising a front and rear transparent substrate with "fluorescent substances" in between, which emit light when a bias is applied, "thereby removing backlight"; and
- an antenna "disposed at side of said rear transparent substrate" to improve reception or transmission.
- The complaint states that infringement is ongoing and reserves the right to assert other claims from the '630 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 27).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "ROG Phone 5 series, ROG Phone 6 Pro, ROG Phone 6, ZenFone 8, and ZenFone 9" as the Accused Products (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are mobile phones that incorporate technology infringing the '630 Patent (Compl. ¶19).
- It specifically notes that the ROG Phone 6 is equipped with an AMOLED (Active-Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode) display, which is a self-emissive display technology that does not use a traditional backlight (Compl. ¶20).
- The complaint also identifies the presence of multiple wireless technologies, "Wi-Fi 6E... and 5G cellular connectivity," which require corresponding wireless modules and antennas (Compl. ¶20).
- The complaint does not provide specific technical details or diagrams concerning the internal structure of the accused displays or the precise physical location of the antennas within the devices.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint references an exemplary claim chart attached as Exhibit B, which was not included in the filing. The following chart summarizes the infringement allegations for Claim 1 based on the narrative assertions in the complaint.
'630 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a control unit | The accused phones contain a central processor, such as the "Qualcomm Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1 Mobile Platform." | ¶20 | col. 3:61-62 |
| a first wireless module coupled to said control unit; a second wireless module coupled to said control unit | The accused phones are equipped with "Wi-Fi 6E... and 5G cellular connectivity," which constitute at least two wireless modules. | ¶20 | col. 7:13-18 |
| a front transparent substrate having a first conductive line and a rear transparent substrate having a second conductive line, fluorescent substances are formed between... wherein a bias is applied to excite said fluorescent substances... to emit visible light, thereby removing backlight | The accused phones utilize an AMOLED display, which is a self-emissive technology that removes the need for a backlight. The complaint alleges this display comprises the claimed structure of substrates with excitable substances. | ¶¶18, 20 | col. 11:62-65 |
| an antenna disposed at side of said rear transparent substrate to improve receiving or transmission | The complaint alleges the accused phones feature an antenna disposed at the side of the rear transparent substrate to reduce interference, rather than being embedded within the device. | ¶18 | col. 12:1-3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "fluorescent substances," as defined and used in the '630 Patent, can be construed to read on the distinct materials and layered architecture of a modern commercial AMOLED display. The defense may argue the patent describes a different technology, such as field emission or a specific electroluminescent polymer display.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation for the antenna element hinges on its specific location "at side of said rear transparent substrate." The complaint makes this allegation in a conclusory manner (Compl. ¶18) but provides no specific evidence, such as a product teardown or schematic. A key factual dispute will be whether Plaintiff can prove this specific physical arrangement exists in the accused phones.
- Scope Questions: A question may arise as to whether a single, integrated chipset that handles multiple wireless protocols (e.g., Wi-Fi and 5G) meets the limitation of a "first wireless module" and a "second wireless module," or if the claim requires physically distinct modules as arguably depicted in the patent's figures (e.g., Fig. 7).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "fluorescent substances"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement case, as Plaintiff's theory appears to equate the materials in Defendant's AMOLED screens with the "fluorescent substances" of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine whether the patent's claims can cover modern OLED technology or are limited to the specific display types described in the specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the substances functionally as being "excite[d]... by combination of an electron and a hole to emit visible light, thereby removing backlight." Plaintiff may argue this functional definition is broad enough to encompass the operating principle of OLEDs.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes particular embodiments, including a field emission device array (col. 5:31-40) and an ELP (electroluminescent polymer) structure (col. 7:1-10). A defendant could argue these specific examples limit the term to those technologies, distinguishing it from the materials used in the accused AMOLED displays.
The Term: "an antenna disposed at side of said rear transparent substrate"
- Context and Importance: The novelty of the antenna placement is a key feature of the invention. The infringement case depends on demonstrating that the accused products have this specific configuration.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff might argue that "at side of" should be interpreted broadly to mean adjacent to or alongside the plane of the display assembly, as opposed to being deeply embedded and shielded by other components, consistent with the patent's stated goal of reducing the "EM shielding effect" (col. 1:55-58).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue for a more literal interpretation, requiring the antenna to be physically located on the lateral edge of the substrate itself. The lack of a clear, detailed figure showing this exact arrangement in the patent may lead to arguments that the term's meaning is confined to the limited textual description.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant encourages infringement by advertising the accused products and providing user instructions on how to use them (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 34). The basis for this allegation appears to be general advertising and user manuals for the phones.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement or allege pre-suit knowledge. It alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the '630 Patent as of the filing of the lawsuit, which could form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 37).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope and technological evolution: Can the term "fluorescent substances," as described in a 2004-priority-date patent, be construed to cover the materials and layered structure of a modern commercial AMOLED display, or does it describe a distinct, older technology?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual proof: Can the Plaintiff produce technical evidence, such as product teardowns or schematics, to demonstrate that the antennas in the accused phones are physically "disposed at side of said rear transparent substrate" as required by the claim language?
- The viability of the indirect infringement claim will raise a question of causation and intent: Can Plaintiff show that Defendant's general advertising and user manuals actively induced end-users to infringe the specific combination of technical elements in the patent claims, particularly the internal display and antenna structure, which are not user-configurable?