DCT

5:24-cv-00088

Maxell Ltd v. Coretronic Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:24-cv-00088, E.D. Tex., 07/09/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are foreign corporations and thus may be sued in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges substantial business conducted in the district through sales of the accused products via retailers and distributors.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ digital projectors, including ultra-short-throw, solid-state light source, and 4K models, infringe seven patents related to projector optical systems, light sources, and image processing technologies.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to high-performance digital projectors, a market where innovations in compact design, light source efficiency, and image quality are critical competitive differentiators.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details pre-suit communications beginning with a notice letter from Plaintiff to Defendants on April 27, 2023, which identified the asserted patents and accused products. The parties held a face-to-face meeting on December 12, 2023, to discuss a potential license, but negotiations were ultimately unsuccessful.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-11-28 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,159,988
2006-06-15 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,850,313
2007-01-09 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,159,988
2010-02-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,593,580
2011-09-26 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,322,530
2012-11-01 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,547,226
2013-04-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,565,388
2013-11-26 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,593,580
2014-07-04 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,900,569
2015-03-17 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,850,313
2016-04-26 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,322,530
2017-01-17 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,547,226
2017-02-17 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,565,388
2018-02-20 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,900,569
2023-04-27 Defendants allegedly became aware of Asserted Patents via notice letter
2023-12-12 Plaintiff and Defendants held face-to-face licensing meeting
2024-07-09 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,159,988 - "Projection Optical Unit and Projection Image Display Apparatus"

  • Patent Identification: 7159988, "Projection Optical Unit and Projection Image Display Apparatus," issued January 9, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of achieving wide-angle imaging required for compact, short-throw projectors without introducing significant image distortion or manufacturing complexity (’988 Patent, col. 1:13-21, 2:36-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-stage optical system. A first projection optical unit, positioned closest to the image display element (e.g., a light valve), creates a "first enlarged image" at an intermediate point within the optical path. A second projection optical unit then takes this intermediate image and further enlarges it for projection onto the final screen (’988 Patent, col. 2:40-52; Fig. 1). A critical aspect of this design is that the first enlarged image is formed on the "image display element side" of the optical path, not at the second projection unit, which enables specific F-value relationships to achieve wide-angle performance (’988 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This optical architecture provided a pathway for designing projectors with very short throw distances, allowing large images to be projected from a unit placed close to the screen, a key feature for classroom and home theater applications.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶134).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A first projection optical unit for forming a first enlarged image, having positive refractive power.
    • A second projection optical unit positioned at an enlarged image side of the first unit, for forming a second enlarged image by further enlarging the first enlarged image, also having positive refractive power.
    • The first enlarged image is formed at the image display element side, rather than at the second projection optical unit.
    • A magnification M1 of the first enlarged image is smaller than a magnification M2 of the second enlarged image.
    • The first projection optical unit includes an aperture stop that defines an F-value of the entire projection optical unit.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,850,313 - "Projection Type Image Display Apparatus"

  • Patent Identification: 7850313, "Projection Type Image Display Apparatus," issued March 17, 2015.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses challenges in manufacturing and aligning complex optical systems for short-throw projectors, particularly those that project an image obliquely onto a screen, which can introduce distortion (’313 Patent, col. 1:15-32). Maintaining precise alignment of multiple lens groups is critical for image quality.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a mechanical mounting system within a chassis. It comprises a "first mounting base" for a first lens group that is "fixed at a bottom of said chassis," and a separate "second mounting base" for a second lens group that is "moveable." This allows for adjustment of the second lens group relative to the fixed first group, enabling focus or distortion correction while maintaining a stable optical foundation (’313 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:23-31).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a mechanical framework for precisely aligning and adjusting complex optical paths in compact projectors, facilitating manufacturing and potentially enabling features like focus adjustment in short-throw designs.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶168).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • An image display element, a first lens group, and a second lens group.
    • A reflection mirror configured to project light obliquely upon a screen.
    • A first mounting base, on which the first lens group is mounted.
    • A second mounting base, on which the second lens group is mounted.
    • A chassis configured to store the lens groups, mirror, and mounting bases.
    • The first mounting base is fixed at a bottom of the chassis.
    • The second mounting base is moveable.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,593,580 - "Projection-type Display Apparatus"

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to solid-state light sources for projectors. It describes a system using a solid-state light emitting element (e.g., a laser) to produce an excitation light, which then strikes a fluorescent substance (e.g., on a phosphor wheel) to generate white light for projection (’580 Patent, Abstract). The claims also cover a separation mirror disposed between the light emitting element and the fluorescent substance.
    • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 10 (Compl. ¶212).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' solid-state projectors, such as the CinemaX D2, which use laser diodes and a phosphor wheel to generate light, infringe this patent (Compl. ¶¶214-235).

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,322,530 - "Light Source Device"

    • Technology Synopsis: This invention details a light source for a projector that uses a plurality of excitation light sources (e.g., laser diodes). The key inventive concept is arranging these sources so that their light enters a condensing lens "asymmetrically," which is described as a way to manage unconverted excitation light and improve the output and life of the light source (’530 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶252).
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' laser and LED projectors, such as the ZU500USTe, which allegedly use an array of laser diodes arranged asymmetrically relative to a condensing lens (Compl. ¶¶256-272).

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,547,226 - "Light Source Device and Projection-type Image Display Device"

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a light source device where an optical member (e.g., a combination of convex and concave lenses) has a specific curvature. This curvature is set to position the "light-condensing position" of excitation light on the "emission side" of the fluorescent material, a design intended to improve efficiency (’226 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 8 (Compl. ¶292).
    • Accused Features: The complaint targets Defendants' projectors, exemplified by the ZU500USTe, alleging they contain an optical member with the claimed curvature and positioning relative to the fluorescent material (Compl. ¶¶317-319).

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,565,388 - "Video Display Device"

    • Technology Synopsis: This invention relates to video image processing based on Retinex theory. It claims a device with two different Retinex processing units that operate on different scales (e.g., one for large-scale components like moving objects, another for small-scale fine details). A video composing unit then blends the outputs of these two processes based on features of the input video, such as motion or luminance, to improve image quality (’388 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 4 (Compl. ¶348).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "PureMotion" (frame interpolation) and "PureDetail/UltraDetail" (edge enhancement) features in Defendants' 4K projectors function as the two claimed Retinex processes operating on different scales (Compl. ¶¶355-378).

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,900,569 - "Projection-type Display Device"

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for lamp-based projectors that compensates for the age-related dimming of the discharge lamp. A lamp voltage detection unit measures the lamp's voltage, which correlates with its age and declining brightness. A control unit then automatically adjusts an image correction parameter based on the detected voltage to maintain consistent image quality (’569 Patent, Abstract). The system also allows a user to select between this automatic correction and a setting not based on the lamp voltage.
    • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶395).
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' lamp-based projectors, such as the GT1080HDRx, which offer user-selectable "Brightness Modes" (e.g., "Dynamic," "Bright"). The "Dynamic" mode is alleged to control image correction based on lamp voltage, while other modes provide correction not based on lamp voltage (Compl. ¶¶399-425).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses a wide range of Optoma-branded digital projectors, grouped by the technology they employ. Exemplary models cited for infringement analysis include the CinemaX D2 (ultra-short-throw laser projector), the ZU500USTe (solid-state laser projector), the UHZ65LV (4K laser projector), and the GT1080HDRx (lamp-based projector) (Compl. ¶¶134, 168, 212, 252, 292, 348, 395).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are digital projectors for consumer and professional markets. The complaint alleges these products incorporate specific technical features corresponding to the asserted patents. For instance, the CinemaX D2 is alleged to use a two-stage optical system and a specific mechanical mounting structure (Compl. ¶¶140-148, 173-194). The complaint provides an annotated photograph from a disassembly of the CinemaX D2 projector, identifying what it alleges to be the first and second projection optical units (Compl. p. 33). The complaint alleges that Defendants' "PureMotion" and "PureDetail" software features in 4K projectors perform sophisticated frame-interpolation and edge enhancement, which are central to the infringement allegations for the '388 patent (Compl. ¶¶356-361). These features are marketed to improve video performance, particularly for high-speed action sequences in modern 4K UHD video (Compl. ¶357).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

7,159,988 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first projection optical unit for forming a first enlarged image...having positive refractive power The accused projectors contain a first projection optical unit that forms a first enlarged image and has positive refractive power. ¶140, 142 col. 2:42-45
a second projection optical unit positioned at an enlarged image side of said first projection optical unit...for forming a second enlarged image...having positive refractive power The accused projectors contain a second projection optical unit positioned after the first, which further enlarges the first image. ¶143-144, 146 col. 2:45-49
wherein the first enlarged image is formed at the image display element side, rather than at said second projection optical unit The first enlarged image is allegedly formed at the DMD side of the optical path, not at the second projection unit. ¶147-148 col. 2:49-52
a magnification M1 of the first enlarged image is smaller than a magnification M2 of the second enlarged image The magnification of the first image is alleged to be smaller than that of the second image. ¶149 col. 2:56-58
said first projection optical unit includes an aperture stop that defines an F-value of said entire projection optical unit The first projection optical unit in the accused projector allegedly includes an aperture stop defining the F-value for the entire projector. ¶150-151 col. 2:60-62
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central factual question will be the location of the "first enlarged image." The complaint alleges, based on teardown photos, that this image is formed on the DMD-side of the optical path (Compl. p. 35). The defense may argue that the accused optical system operates on a different principle and does not form an intermediate image in the manner or location required by the claim.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definitions of "first projection optical unit" and "second projection optical unit." The defense could argue that the lens assembly in the accused products constitutes a single, integrated optical unit rather than the two distinct units required by the claim.

7,850,313 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first lens group...configured to include a plural number of lenses The accused projectors contain a first lens group with multiple lenses. ¶173-174 col. 6:24-25
a second lens group...configured to include a plural number of lenses The accused projectors contain a second lens group with multiple lenses. ¶176-178 col. 6:26-27
a reflection mirror, which is configured to reflect lights emitted from at least one of said first and second lens groups, so as to project upon said screen obliquely The accused projectors contain a reflection mirror for oblique, short-throw projection. ¶180-181 col. 6:28-31
a chassis, which is configured to store said first and second lens group, said reflection mirror, and said first and second mounting bases The projector's housing allegedly acts as a chassis that stores the claimed optical components. An annotated photograph shows the alleged chassis outlined in yellow (Compl. p. 48). ¶189-190 col. 6:35-38
said first mounting base is fixed at a bottom of said chassis The first mounting base is allegedly fixed at the bottom of the projector chassis. ¶192-193 col. 6:39-41
while said second mounting base is moveable The second mounting base is allegedly moveable via a motorized mechanism, enabling focus adjustment. ¶192, 194 col. 6:39-41
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The definitions of "chassis," "mounting base," "fixed," and "moveable" will be critical. The defense may argue that the internal structure of the accused projector does not map onto these specific claimed elements. For example, what constitutes being "fixed at a bottom" may be disputed if the component is attached via multiple points.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the component identified as the "second mounting base" is truly "moveable" in the manner contemplated by the patent for optical adjustment, or if its movement is for another purpose or incidental. The complaint points to a motorized mechanism as evidence of moveability (Compl. p. 49).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’988 Patent:

  • The Term: "first enlarged image is formed at the image display element side, rather than at said second projection optical unit"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation is the central technical concept of Claim 1. The infringement analysis depends entirely on where this intermediate image is formed within the accused device's optical path. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from conventional single-stage projection optics and sets up a clear factual test for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly states the configuration is one "wherein the first enlarged image is formed closer to the image display element than to the second projection optical unit" (’988 Patent, col. 2:49-52). This language could support a construction that does not require a specific, precise focal plane, but rather a general positioning.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and detailed description repeatedly emphasize this specific arrangement as the core of the invention, illustrated in Figure 1, which shows a distinct "PRIMARY IMAGE SURFACE" located between the two optical units. This could support a narrower construction requiring a discrete, well-defined intermediate image plane.

For the ’313 Patent:

  • The Term: "said first mounting base is fixed at a bottom of said chassis, while said second mounting base is moveable"
  • Context and Importance: This clause defines the core mechanical structure of the invention. The dispute will likely center on whether the components in the accused projector meet both the "fixed" and "moveable" requirements. The term "bottom of said chassis" provides a specific locational requirement that will also be at issue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's general description focuses on the functional aspect: achieving adjustment of the second lens group relative to the first. This could support a construction where any mounting scheme that achieves this relative movement infringes, regardless of the precise mechanical implementation of "fixed" or "moveable."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract is very specific: "The first mounting base is fixed at a bottom of the chassis, while the second mounting base is moveable." The patent figures, such as Fig. 23(b), depict a specific mechanical arrangement with a fixed base (210) and a base (220) that slides along guides (221, 222, 223) (’313 Patent, col. 6:23-31). This could support a narrower construction requiring a similar sliding or motorized adjustment mechanism for the "moveable" base and a specific bottom-mounted position for the "fixed" base.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendants encouraging affiliates and customers to make, use, and sell the Accused Products. It also references user manuals and advertising that allegedly instruct on the use of the infringing features (Compl. ¶¶155, 199).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the asserted patents since at least April 27, 2023, through a detailed notice letter from Plaintiff. The complaint alleges that Defendants continued their infringing activities despite this knowledge and despite engaging in unsuccessful licensing negotiations (Compl. ¶¶159-162, 203-206).

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

  • A core issue will be one of optical architecture: Does the lens system in the accused ultra-short-throw projectors create an intermediate "first enlarged image" at a location "at the image display element side" as required by the '988 patent, or does it function as a fundamentally different, integrated optical design that does not map onto the patent’s two-stage magnification claim?
  • A second central question is one of mechanical and functional equivalence: Do the internal mounting structures of the accused projectors meet the specific claim limitations of a "fixed" first base and a "moveable" second base as described in the '313 patent, and does the alleged movement of the second base serve the optical adjustment purpose contemplated by the invention?
  • A third key question will be one of algorithmic identity: Do the accused "PureMotion" and "PureDetail" video processing features in Defendants' 4K projectors perform two distinct, scale-differentiated "Retinex" processes as claimed by the '388 patent, or is this an attempt to read a patent on one image processing theory onto a product that uses a different, non-infringing set of algorithms for frame interpolation and edge enhancement?