DCT

6:11-cv-00201

Eidos Display LLC v. Au Optronics Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:11-cv-00201, E.D. Tex., 04/25/2011
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants transacting business in the district, including directly or through intermediaries importing, offering to sell, and selling accused products to customers within the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) products are manufactured using a method that infringes a U.S. patent directed to an improved process for producing electro-optical devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to semiconductor manufacturing processes for thin-film transistor (TFT) arrays used in LCDs, seeking to reduce the number of complex photolithographic steps to improve manufacturing yield and decrease costs.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a division of an application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,726,077. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1994-06-03 ’958 Patent Priority Date
1999-03-09 ’958 Patent Issue Date
2011-04-25 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,879,958 - "Method of Producing an Electro-Optical Device"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes conventional methods for manufacturing active matrix liquid crystal displays as requiring a large number of photolithographic steps (e.g., seven), which increases production costs and reduces manufacturing yield (U.S. Patent No. 5,879,958, col. 3:30-37). Additionally, connecting certain conductive films (like aluminum) to transparent conductive oxide films (like ITO) can result in high contact resistance due to oxidation during processing, which limits material choices and can degrade performance (’958 Patent, col. 3:52–col. 4:16).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses manufacturing methods that reduce the number of photolithographic steps to as few as four or five, thereby simplifying the process (’958 Patent, col. 4:26-37). The sole claim of the patent recites a specific five-step photolithographic process (labeled G1-G10 in the specification) for forming a thin-film transistor array, including forming the gate electrode, source/drain electrodes, and a transparent pixel electrode in a particular sequence that improves efficiency (’958 Patent, col. 58:45-68). This process culminates in forming a transparent pixel electrode connected to the underlying transistor components (’958 Patent, Fig. 63).
  • Technical Importance: In high-volume semiconductor manufacturing, reducing the number of masking and etching steps is a primary driver for lowering per-unit costs and increasing the proportion of functional devices produced from a single wafer. (Compl. ¶4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim, Independent Claim 1, which is asserted against the Defendants.
  • The essential method steps of Claim 1 are:
    • (G1) forming a first metal film on a substrate.
    • (G2) a first photolithographic step to pattern the metal film into a gate electrode and gate wiring.
    • (G3) forming a first insulator film, a semiconductor film, and an ohmic contact film.
    • (G4) a second photolithographic step to pattern the semiconductor and ohmic contact films into a semiconductor portion.
    • (G5) forming a second metal film.
    • (G6) a third photolithographic step to pattern the second metal film and ohmic contact film into a source electrode, a drain electrode, and a channel portion.
    • (G7) forming a passivation film.
    • (G8) a fourth photolithographic step to pattern the passivation film to form contact holes reaching the gate wiring, drain electrode, and source wiring.
    • (G9) forming a transparent conductive film.
    • (G10) a fifth photolithographic step to pattern the transparent conductive film to form a transparent pixel electrode.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "LCDs and LCD products" that are incorporated into a wide range of consumer goods, including "cell phones, GPS devices, laptop computers, tablet computers, computer monitors, and televisions" (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentalities are the LCD panels manufactured abroad by the Defendants and subsequently imported into and sold in the United States (Compl. ¶7, ¶9, ¶11, ¶12). The infringement allegation is not directed at the function of the final LCD product itself, but rather at the manufacturing process used to create it. The complaint asserts that this process is covered by the '958 Patent's claims, and the importation and sale of these products in the U.S. constitutes infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) (Compl. ¶24, ¶32).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis. It makes general allegations that products sold by the Defendants are "made by a method that infringes a claim of the '958 Patent" and that these products "meet each and every limitation of a claim of the '958 Patent, either literally or equivalently" (Compl. ¶32, ¶33). No specific facts are alleged to show how the Defendants' manufacturing processes map to the specific steps of Claim 1.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Process Mapping Question: A primary point of contention will be factual and evidentiary: does the proprietary manufacturing process used by each Defendant in their overseas facilities practice every step of the method recited in Claim 1 of the ’958 Patent, and in the specified order? The complaint lacks any specific allegations on this point, placing the burden entirely on the Plaintiff to establish these facts through discovery.
  • Statutory Question (35 U.S.C. § 271(g)): The case appears to be grounded in infringement by importation of a product made by a patented process. The dispute will therefore turn on whether the accused LCDs are, in fact, "made by" the patented process. This raises questions about whether the process might have been "materially changed by subsequent processes" before importation or whether the resulting product has become a "trivial and nonessential component of another product," which are statutory exceptions to § 271(g).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of key claim terms. The dispute is less likely to center on the definition of individual terms within the claim (e.g., "passivation film", "ohmic contact film"), which are generally well-understood in the art, and more likely to focus on whether the sequence and substance of the Defendants' process steps align with the sequence required by Claim 1.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants "promote and encourage the import