DCT
6:19-cv-00294
Lone Star Technological Innovations LLC v. Qingdao Hisense Electronics Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lone Star Technological Innovations, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: QINGDAO HISENSE ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. (China/Hong Kong)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Carter Arnett, PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00294, E.D. Tex., 07/01/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are foreign entities that have committed acts of infringement within the district, including selling the accused products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s televisions, projectors, and other video displays infringe two patents related to methods for selectively controlling the hue and saturation of individual colors in digital video images.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses digital image processing, enabling fine-grained adjustment of specific colors in a video stream without affecting the other colors, a feature relevant for accurate color reproduction and special effects on modern displays.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Eastern District of Texas has presided over several other lawsuits involving the patents-in-suit. It further alleges that Defendant learned of the patents-in-suit as early as December 2016, when Sharp Corporation, with whom Defendant had a branding agreement, entered into a license agreement with Plaintiff for the same patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-03-03 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,122,012 |
| 2000-09-19 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,122,012 |
| 2001-08-06 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,724,435 |
| 2004-04-20 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,724,435 |
| 2015-01-01 | Hisense enters branding deal with Sharp (approximate date) |
| 2016-12-01 | Defendant's alleged first knowledge of patents-in-suit |
| 2017-01-01 | Launch of accused 2017 model televisions (approximate date) |
| 2020-07-01 | First Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,724,435 - "Method For Independently Controlling Hue or Saturation of Individual Colors in a Real Time Digital Video Image"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,724,435, issued April 20, 2004.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in conventional video display controls where adjusting hue or saturation affects all colors in the image simultaneously, making it impossible to adjust a single color without altering the entire image (ʼ435 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method to independently control either the hue or the saturation of a single, user-selected color. The method involves identifying the pixels of the selected color and then applying a specific mathematical "control function" using a "delta value" that quantifies the desired amount of change. This process generates an output image where only the selected color's properties are altered, leaving other colors unaffected (ʼ435 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:7-49).
- Technical Importance: This capability allows for precise color correction to match real-world subjects or for the creation of special effects, which the patent notes is critically important for the television and movie industries (ʼ435 Patent, col. 2:30-40).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- (a) receiving and characterizing a digital video input image.
- (b) selecting to independently change the hue or the saturation of an individual color by selecting a corresponding "delta value."
- (c) identifying the plurality of input image pixels that have the selected individual color.
- (d) determining new output pixel values by evaluating "independent color hue control functions" or "independent color saturation control functions" using the input pixel values and the selected delta value.
- (e) displaying the resulting output image, where the selected individual color has been changed "without affecting the hue or the saturation of any other individual color."
U.S. Patent No. 6,122,012 - "Method of Selective Control of Digital Video Images"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,122,012, issued September 19, 2000.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a method to selectively control the intensity (saturation) of a single color in a digital video image "without affecting the intensities of other colors of the same image" (ʼ012 Patent, col. 1:5-10).
- The Patented Solution: The patented method uses Look-Up-Tables (LUTs) to digitally alter the saturation of one specific color. The system uses "color control functions" to calculate values that populate these LUTs. The chromatic value of an input pixel is then used as an address to find its corresponding modified value in the LUT, producing an output pixel with the desired saturation. This technique is designed to be efficient, precluding the need to convert video signals between different color space formats (e.g., YCrCb to RGB) for processing (ʼ012 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The invention is described as enabling users to more accurately set or adjust individual colors to match the "actual colors of the subject of the image" or to create "desired special effects," capabilities noted as immediately applicable to the television and movie industries (ʼ012 Patent, col. 2:15-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- (a) receiving a digital video input image.
- (c) selecting an individual color to be controlled.
- (d) defining a set of individual color look-up-tables.
- (e) defining a set of "individual color control functions" to calculate values for the look-up-tables.
- (h) determining new values in the look-up-tables.
- (i) determining output pixel values from the new values in the look-up-tables.
- (j) displaying the output image where the change affects only the selected color and "all other colors of the digital video input image remain unchanged."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- A wide range of Hisense- and Sharp-branded televisions, projectors, and other video displays (Compl. ¶28, ¶¶ at pp. 7-13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused products contain hardware (processors, display screens) and software (firmware, on-screen display or OSD) that "specifically provide the ability to change the hue and/or saturation of an individual color in the output image" (Compl. ¶29).
- It is further alleged that user manuals and the OSD instruct customers on how to use this functionality (Compl. ¶38). The complaint characterizes this color adjustment feature as material to practicing the patents and alleges it has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶39).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'435 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (b) selecting to independently change the hue or the saturation of an individual color... by selecting an independent color hue control delta value or... saturation control delta value | The user selects a specific color (e.g., "red") and a parameter (e.g., "hue") to adjust via the on-screen display (OSD) menu. | ¶29, ¶38 | col. 3:11-20 |
| (d) determining corresponding output image pixel values... by separately evaluating independent color hue control functions or independent color saturation control functions | The device's internal processor executes firmware instructions to apply the selected adjustment to pixels of the chosen color. | ¶29 | col. 3:30-41 |
| (e) displaying a real time digital video output image... whereby the hue or the saturation of said selected individual color... has been changed without affecting... any other individual color | The television screen displays the resulting image where the targeted color is altered, while other colors are not. | ¶29 | col. 3:41-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: What evidence demonstrates that the accused devices' processors "separately evaluat[e] independent color hue control functions or independent color saturation control functions" as required by the claim, rather than using a different, more integrated color-mapping algorithm?
- Scope Question: How will the negative limitation "without affecting... any other individual color" be interpreted? The defense may argue that any measurable "cross-talk" or impact on other colors, however small, avoids infringement, while the plaintiff may argue it means without a perceptible or substantial change.
'012 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (d) defining a set of individual color look-up-tables according to an individual color | The accused devices' firmware allegedly contains or implements Look-Up-Tables (LUTs) for processing adjustments to individual colors. | ¶26, ¶29 | col. 4:64-65 |
| (e) defining a set of individual color control functions... for calculating values in said... look-up-tables | The device's processor executes algorithms ("control functions") that calculate new values for the LUTs based on the user's adjustments. | ¶29 | col. 5:26-34 |
| (j) displaying said target output image... whereby all other colors of the digital video input image remain unchanged | The television screen displays the final image where only the saturation of the selected color is modified. | ¶29 | col. 18:6-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: Does the accused software operate using the specific LUT-based architecture described in the patent, where pixel values are used as addresses into tables, or does it achieve a similar outcome through a different computational method?
- Scope Question: As with the '435 Patent, the interpretation of the phrase "all other colors... remain unchanged" will be critical. The degree of precision required to meet this limitation raises a central question for infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "without affecting... any other individual color" ('435 Patent, Claim 1(e)) and "all other colors... remain unchanged" ('012 Patent, Claim 1(j)).
Context and Importance: This negative limitation is fundamental to the infringement case for both patents. Its interpretation will determine the standard of proof for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused devices' color adjustments result in any measurable change to non-selected colors, the defense could argue non-infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents' background sections frame the problem as avoiding the global color shifts of prior art systems (ʼ435 Patent, col. 2:1-10). This context may support an interpretation that the term means without a substantial or perceptible effect on other colors, consistent with the overall purpose of the invention.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claims is absolute. Terms like "without affecting" and "remain unchanged" suggest a strict, zero-impact standard. The abstract of the '012 Patent states the method changes a single color "without affecting saturations of the remaining colors," which could be read as a definitive and limiting statement of the invention's function ('012 Patent, Abstract).
The Term: "independent color hue control functions" / "independent color saturation control functions" ('435 Patent, Claim 1(d)).
Context and Importance: This term defines the core mechanism of the invention. The dispute may turn on whether the accused software contains distinct, "independent" functions as taught, or a different type of algorithm.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides extensive mathematical formulas as examples of these functions ('435 Patent, cols. 13-24). A party may argue that any algorithm performing an equivalent input-output transformation meets this limitation, regardless of its specific implementation, as the "function" is the mathematical relationship itself.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent details specific embodiments of these functions with defined inputs like a "delta value" (
Hclr) and pixel component values (Vclr1in) ('435 Patent, col. 13:5-25). A party may argue that this term is limited to the specific types of mathematical structures disclosed and does not read on fundamentally different algorithms.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant provides user manuals, on-screen displays, and customer support that actively instruct users to operate the devices in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶38). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the accused devices are "especially made or adapted for infringing" and that the specific color-control functionality has "no substantially non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶39).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The complaint claims Defendant had knowledge "as early as December 2016" because its business partner, Sharp Corporation, had taken a license to the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶34). Knowledge is also alleged from Sharp's public announcement of royalty payments (Compl. ¶35) and from the service of the original complaint in the litigation (Compl. ¶36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional implementation: Do the accused televisions practice the specific methods claimed—using distinct "look-up-tables" ('012 Patent) or separate "hue/saturation control functions" ('435 Patent)—or do they employ a different, more generalized color processing algorithm that achieves a similar result through a non-infringing method?
- A central issue of claim construction will be the scope of the negative limitation "without affecting... any other individual color." The case may turn on whether this requires a mathematically absolute, zero-impact change on other colors, or whether it can be construed more broadly to mean without a commercially or perceptibly significant change.
- Given the specific allegations that Defendant knew of the patents via its business partner, a critical question will be the quality and timing of that knowledge. The evidence supporting pre-suit knowledge will be determinative for the willfulness claim and the potential for enhanced damages.