Litebook Co Ltd v. OnePlus Technology Shenzhen Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: The Litebook Company Ltd. (Canada)
  • Defendant: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: CONNOR LEE AND SHUMAKER PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00371, W.D. Tex., 04/13/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant, a foreign corporation, markets, sells, and delivers accused products within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the "Night Mode" feature in Defendant’s mobile phones infringes a patent related to methods of regulating human biological systems by controlling exposure to specific wavelengths of light.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the use of specific light spectra from electronic displays to influence human neuroendocrine and circadian systems, particularly by managing the blue light that affects melatonin production.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff, The Litebook Company Ltd., identifies itself as the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit with the right to sue for infringement. The complaint alleges Defendant had notice of the patent, at the latest, upon service of the complaint, which may be relevant to any future claims for enhanced damages.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,678,140 - Photoreceptor system for melatonin regulation and phototherapy

Issued March 16, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the uncertainty in the scientific community regarding which specific ocular photoreceptors and wavelengths of light are responsible for regulating human circadian rhythms, seasonal cycles, and neuroendocrine responses, separate from the known mechanisms of vision (’140 Patent, col. 1:47-55). It notes that while light therapy was known to be effective, the precise biological mechanisms were not fully understood, particularly how light impacts melatonin (’140 Patent, col. 2:45-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims to be based on the discovery of a novel photoreceptor system in the human eye that is maximally sensitive to light in the blue-violet spectrum (specifically 425-505 nm) for regulating melatonin and other biological systems (’140 Patent, Abstract). The patent describes methods for treating "light responsive disorders" by exposing a person to light having a "pre-established spectral composition" with a peak in this potent range, distinguishing it from the primary peak sensitivity for human vision (photopic vision) at 555 nm (’140 Patent, col. 4:10-21, 4:52-64). Figure 11 graphically depicts this peak sensitivity for melatonin suppression at 464 nm (’140 Patent, Fig. 11).
• Technical Importance: This claimed discovery provided a scientific framework for optimizing light therapy and display technology to either promote alertness or minimize sleep cycle disruption by targeting the specific light wavelengths that regulate the human circadian system, rather than just the wavelengths most efficient for vision (’140 Patent, col. 4:22-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent Claim 2 (’Compl. ¶35).
• Independent Claim 1 recites:
  • A method of at least treating or preventing at least one light responsive disorder in a mammal.
  • The method comprises utilizing a light source that emits optical radiation.
  • This radiation is made "therapeutically effective" by employing a "pre-established spectral composition" identified as "maximally potent" for regulating circadian, photoneural, or neuroendocrine systems.
  • The spectral composition comprises an "enhanced spectral region" with a peak of emitted light within the 435-488 nm range.
  • The method requires exposing a mammal's retina to this radiation from a light source that is "not mounted on the body."
  • This exposure stimulates the mammal's photoreceptor system for the circadian, photoneural, or neuroendocrine systems.
  • The method enables the treatment or prevention of a light responsive disorder.
• The complaint notes that Plaintiff may assert additional claims of the ’140 Patent (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Various OnePlus mobile phones that include the "Night Mode" feature, such as the OnePlus 10 Pro 5G, 9 Pro, and Nord series, among others (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused "Night Mode" is a software feature that "selectively reduces blue light" by adjusting the display's color temperature (Compl. ¶13). It is designed to change the spectral output of the screen to "reduce the amount of blue light output" and thereby lessen the light's effect on user sleep patterns (Compl. ¶14, 31). The complaint alleges that the feature works by attenuating wavelengths in the 435-488 nm range (Compl. ¶30). The complaint includes a graph purporting to show the spectral output of a OnePlus 8 phone, indicating a significant reduction in the light intensity around the 450 nm wavelength when Night Mode is activated (Compl. p. 6). OnePlus allegedly markets this feature as a way to "read at night without straining your eyes" and for "minimizing eye fatigue" (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 18, p. 5). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows a user interface for adjusting "Colour temperature" within the Night Mode settings (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’140 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether a feature marketed for "eye comfort" and "minimizing eye fatigue" (Compl. p. 5) performs the claimed method of "treating or preventing at least one light responsive disorder." The defendant may argue its feature does not have a therapeutic purpose, while the plaintiff may point to the patent’s broad definition of such disorders, which includes "circadian disruption" and "sleep disorders" (’140 Patent, col. 7:45-50).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused method involves "employing a... spectral composition... comprising at least one enhanced spectral region comprising at least one peak" in the 435-488 nm range. However, the complaint's own evidence and allegations state that Night Mode functions by reducing or attenuating the light in this very range (Compl. ¶30; p. 6). This raises the question of whether a feature that suppresses a spectral peak can be found to "employ" a composition that "comprises" that peak as recited in the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "treating or preventing at least one light responsive disorder"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical, as it frames the entire purpose of the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant will likely argue that its "Night Mode" is intended for subjective user comfort, not for addressing a medical "disorder" in a therapeutic capacity.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification provides a broad list of what constitutes a "light responsive disorder," including "sleep disorders, circadian disruption, ... [and] non-specific alerting or performance deficits," which could be argued to encompass the common reasons users activate a night mode (’140 Patent, col. 7:45-50).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The repeated use of "therapeutically effective" and "phototherapy" throughout the patent may support a more stringent, clinical definition that requires more than just improving eye comfort or modestly affecting a user's sleep schedule (’140 Patent, Title; col. 26:12).

• The Term: "employing a pre-established spectral composition... comprising at least one enhanced spectral region comprising at least one peak"

  • Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the technical infringement analysis. The interpretation will determine whether a feature that suppresses a light peak can infringe a claim that requires employing a composition comprising that peak.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the term "employing" refers to the overall system's operation, which relies on the display's inherent ability to produce a blue peak and the software's ability to modulate it. In this view, the system "employs" the full spectral potential, even when attenuating parts of it.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the composition itself to "comprise" an "enhanced spectral region" with a "peak." A party could argue that when Night Mode is active, the resulting light emitted to the user is specifically engineered to lack such an enhanced peak, as demonstrated by the plaintiff's own graph (Compl. p. 6), and therefore the condition is not met.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a count for induced infringement, alleging that OnePlus knowingly encourages and instructs its customers to use the accused Night Mode feature in an infringing manner through advertisements, user manuals, and instructional videos (Compl. ¶¶ 49-50, 53).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the term "willful." It alleges knowledge of the ’140 Patent as of the date of service of the complaint, which could form the basis for alleging post-suit willful infringement or seeking enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 50). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope and intended use: can the accused "Night Mode" feature, which is marketed for user comfort benefits like reducing "eye strain," be found to perform the claimed method of "treating or preventing" a "light responsive disorder" under the patent's more therapeutic framework?
• A key question of claim interpretation and technical infringement will be central to the dispute: does a feature that functions by attenuating a spectral peak in the 435-488 nm range meet the claim requirement of "employing" a "spectral composition comprising" a "peak" in that same range, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claim language and the accused functionality?