DCT

6:22-cv-00526

Epistar Corp v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00526, W.D. Tex., 05/24/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business, specifically citing a fulfillment center in Waco, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Amazon Fire TV products, which contain light-emitting diode (LED) components, infringe twelve patents related to the fundamental structure, fabrication, and performance of LED chips.
  • Technical Context: The patents concern micro-scale structural and material improvements in LEDs, technology critical for enhancing the efficiency, reliability, and light-extraction properties of components used in backlighting for consumer electronics like televisions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff notified Defendant of its infringing activities and relevant patents on at least two occasions, first on July 22, 2019, and again on February 28, 2022, prior to filing suit. These allegations form the basis for claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-12-24 Earliest Priority Date (’604, ’549, ’715 Patents)
2009-02-11 Earliest Priority Date (’780 Patent)
2012-11-02 Earliest Priority Date (’934, ’542, ’076, ’656, ’257, ’129 Patents)
2012-12-07 Earliest Priority Date (’123, ’362 Patents)
2013-07-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,492,780 Issues
2015-02-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,963,123 Issues
2016-02-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,257,604 Issues
2016-03-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,293,656 Issues
2016-08-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,425,362 Issues
2016-12-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,530,934 Issues
2018-02-13 U.S. Patent No. 9,893,257 Issues
2018-07-31 U.S. Patent No. 10,038,129 Issues
2019-01-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,181,549 Issues
2019-02-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,199,542 Issues
2019-07-22 Plaintiff first corresponds with Defendant regarding alleged infringement
2019-12-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,505,076 Issues
2019-12-31 U.S. Patent No. 10,522,715 Issues
2022-02-28 Plaintiff again corresponds with Defendant regarding alleged infringement
2022-05-24 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,492,780 - “Light-emitting device and manufacturing method thereof”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of reduced light extraction efficiency in conventional LEDs, where light can become trapped within the device due to total internal reflection at the flat interface between the LED substrate and the external environment (U.S. Patent 8,492,780, col. 1:53-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes creating a "discontinuous structure on the sidewall" of the LED's substrate. This sidewall is engineered to have at least two distinct areas: one that is "substantially flat" and another that is "substantially textured" (U.S. Patent 8,492,780, col. 2:5-13). This combination of surfaces on the sidewall is intended to disrupt total internal reflection and increase the probability of light escaping the device, thereby enhancing its overall efficiency (Compl. ¶23; ’780 Patent, col. 2:10-13).
  • Technical Importance: Engineering the microscopic surface geometry of an LED's substrate sidewall represents a method for improving light output without altering the fundamental semiconductor materials that generate the light (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('780 Patent, col. 6:33-42; Compl. ¶24, ¶70).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A light emitting device, comprising:
    • a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a side wall;
    • wherein the sidewall of the substrate comprises a first area and a second area;
    • wherein the morphology of the first area is substantially flat and the morphology of the second area is substantially textured; and
    • a light emitting stack layer formed on the substrate.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶73).

U.S. Patent No. 9,530,934 - “Light-emitting device”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the reliability of LEDs, particularly relating to potential damage or failure points in the electrode structures that supply current to the device (Compl. ¶27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an LED with a specific electrode geometry designed to improve reliability. It features a "finger electrode" extending from a main "pad electrode." A key aspect of the design is that the "first portion" of this finger electrode has a side with a "first arc having a first curvature radius" that is specified to be "larger than 10 µm" (Compl. ¶27; U.S. Patent 9,530,934, col. 1:25-34). This geometric constraint aims to reduce current crowding and stress at the junction between the finger and pad electrodes, which can be a point of failure.
  • Technical Importance: By defining specific, smooth geometric transitions in the electrode structure, the invention seeks to enhance the device's tolerance to electrical stress, thereby improving its operational lifetime and reliability (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('934 Patent, col. 11:3-14; Compl. ¶28, ¶77).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A light-emitting device, comprising:
    • a semiconductor stack;
    • a pad electrode comprising a periphery disposed on the semiconductor stack; and
    • a finger electrode connected to the pad electrode,
    • wherein the finger electrode comprises a first portion extended from the periphery of the pad electrode and a second portion away from the pad electrode,
    • the first portion comprises a first side and a second side, the first side is opposite to the second side,
    • the first side comprises a first arc having a first curvature radius, and the first curvature radius is larger than 10 µm.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶80).

U.S. Patent No. 10,199,542 - "Light-emitting device"

  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation-in-part of the '934 Patent, this patent also relates to electrode structure to improve LED reliability. It claims an LED where the shortest distance between the pad electrode and the edge of a semiconductor layer is larger than the shortest distance between the finger electrode and that same edge, a design intended to manage current flow and electrical fields (Compl. ¶30-32).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶32, ¶84).
  • Accused Features: The LED chips within the Accused Products are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶84).

U.S. Patent No. 10,505,076 - "Light-emitting device"

  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the '542 Patent, this patent further refines the electrode structure. It claims a finger electrode with a first portion that has a decreasing width and sides comprising arcs with specific curvature radii, a geometry intended to optimize current spreading and reliability (Compl. ¶34-36).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶36, ¶91).
  • Accused Features: The LED chips within the Accused Products are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶91).

U.S. Patent No. 9,257,604 - "Light-emitting device having a patterned surface"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses light extraction efficiency by creating a patterned surface on the LED substrate. The claims recite a "patterned unit" with a specific non-polygon base shape and a cross-section having a vertex formed by two inclined line segments, designed to scatter light out of the device (Compl. ¶38-40).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶40, ¶98).
  • Accused Features: The LED chips within the Accused Products are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶98).

U.S. Patent No. 10,181,549 - "Light-emitting device having a patterned surface"

  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the '604 Patent, this patent also relates to patterned surfaces for light extraction. It claims a plurality of patterned units with a circular shape in top view and a cross-section comprising two curves with different curvatures (Compl. ¶42-44).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶44, ¶105).
  • Accused Features: The LED chips within the Accused Products are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶105).

U.S. Patent No. 10,522,715 - "Light-emitting device having a patterned surface"

  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the '549 and '604 patents, this patent also claims patterned units on a substrate for enhancing light extraction. The claimed units have a circular shape in top view and a cross-section where the depth is smaller than the width (Compl. ¶46-48).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶48, ¶112).
  • Accused Features: The LED chips within the Accused Products are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶112).

U.S. Patent No. 9,293,656 - "Light emitting device"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to an efficient electrode structure for improved reliability, focusing on reducing inter-layer diffusion. It claims a barrier layer between a bonding layer and a conductive layer, where the barrier layer comprises alternately stacked layers of two different metals with specific relative thicknesses (Compl. ¶50-52).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶52, ¶119).
  • Accused Features: The LED chips within the Accused Products are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶119).

U.S. Patent No. 9,893,257 - "Electrode structure of light emitting device"

  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the '656 Patent, this patent also claims an electrode structure with a barrier layer to improve reliability. The claim recites specific thickness relationships for the barrier layer in the center region versus the edge region of the electrode structure (Compl. ¶54-56).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 16 is asserted (Compl. ¶56, ¶125).
  • Accused Features: The LED chips within the Accused Products are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶125).

U.S. Patent No. 10,038,129 - "Light emitting device"

  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the '257 and '656 patents, this patent also relates to electrode structures. It claims a specific multi-layer barrier between a bonding layer and a conductive layer, with defined materials and relative thickness ratios between the conductive and bonding layers (Compl. ¶58-60).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶60, ¶132).
  • Accused Features: The LED chips within the Accused Products are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶132).

U.S. Patent No. 8,963,123 - "Light emitting diode with enhanced light extraction"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses an LED design to enhance illumination efficiency by using "light-guiding structures" disposed under the finger electrodes. The claims recite specific dimensional relationships between the light-guiding structures and the finger electrodes (Compl. ¶62-64).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 15 is asserted (Compl. ¶64, ¶138).
  • Accused Features: The LED chips within the Accused Products are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶138).

U.S. Patent No. 9,425,362 - "Light emitting device"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent aims to improve the uniformity of a transparent conductive layer. It claims an LED with a barrier layer having a sidewall inclined at a specific acute angle (10°-70°), which allows for a more uniform deposition of the conductive layer and limits the thickness variation to not larger than 10% (Compl. ¶66-68).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶68, ¶144).
  • Accused Features: The LED chips within the Accused Products are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶144).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Amazon devices containing LED chips, primarily identified as the 43" and 50" 4-Series and Omni Series Amazon Fire TVs (Compl. ¶5, ¶70). Amazon's Echo devices are also mentioned as containing accused LED chips (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint details a tear-down analysis of a 43" 4-Series 4K UHD Amazon Fire TV (Compl. ¶6, ¶9). This analysis reveals that the television's display is illuminated by three LED backlight strips located on the inside of the back cover (Compl. ¶9). The image provided in the complaint shows these strips with circular LEDs mounted on them (Compl. ¶10). A further diagram illustrates the tear-down process, which involves removing a cap lens and a yellow phosphor layer to expose the underlying "Light emitting devices," or LED chips, which are the core infringing components (Compl. ¶11, p. 5). The complaint alleges that these devices are distributed and sold by Amazon throughout the United States (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,492,780 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a side wall The complaint alleges the LED chips within the Accused Products contain this feature, based on a tear-down analysis. ¶9-11, ¶70 col. 6:35-36
wherein the sidewall of the substrate comprises a first area and a second area The complaint alleges the LED chips within the Accused Products contain this feature. ¶24, ¶70 col. 6:37-38
wherein the morphology of the first area is substantially flat The complaint alleges the LED chips within the Accused Products contain this feature. ¶24, ¶70 col. 6:39-40
and the morphology of the second area is substantially textured The complaint alleges the LED chips within the Accused Products contain this feature. ¶24, ¶70 col. 6:40-41
and a light emitting stack layer formed on the substrate. The complaint alleges the LED chips within the Accused Products contain this feature. ¶9-11, ¶70 col. 6:42

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's tear-down photographs show the LED chips at a macroscopic level but do not provide microscopic evidence of the substrate's sidewall morphology (Compl. ¶9-11, p. 5). A central evidentiary question will be whether discovery reveals that the accused LED chips actually possess the claimed "substantially flat" and "substantially textured" areas on their sidewalls.
  • Scope Questions: The meaning of "substantially flat" and "substantially textured" will be critical. The parties may dispute the degree of flatness or texture required to meet these limitations, and whether incidental surface roughness from manufacturing processes satisfies the "textured" requirement.

9,530,934 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a semiconductor stack; a pad electrode comprising a periphery disposed on the semiconductor stack; and a finger electrode connected to the pad electrode The complaint alleges the LED chips within the Accused Products contain this electrode structure. ¶9-11, ¶77 col. 11:4-7
wherein the finger electrode comprises a first portion extended from the periphery of the pad electrode and a second portion away from the pad electrode The complaint alleges the LED chips within the Accused Products contain this feature. ¶28, ¶77 col. 11:7-10
the first portion comprises a first side and a second side, the first side is opposite to the second side The complaint alleges the LED chips within the Accused Products contain this feature. ¶28, ¶77 col. 11:10-12
the first side comprises a first arc having a first curvature radius, and the first curvature radius is larger than 10 µm. The complaint alleges the LED chips within the Accused Products contain this specific geometric feature. ¶28, ¶77 col. 11:12-14

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on a precise geometric and dimensional limitation ("curvature radius is larger than 10 µm"). The complaint does not provide measurements or microscopic images to support this allegation. A key technical question will be whether the accused LED chips have an electrode structure with an arc meeting this specific dimensional requirement.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis will question whether the accused products' electrode structure, as revealed in discovery, performs the same function in the same way to achieve the same result as the claimed invention, particularly regarding the improvement of device reliability as described in the patent (Compl. ¶27).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’780 Patent

  • The Term: "substantially textured"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of claim 1. Its definition will determine whether incidental surface roughness resulting from a manufacturing process, versus an intentionally engineered pattern, falls within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint does not provide visual evidence demonstrating the specific nature of the texturing on the accused LEDs.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not limit the term to a specific pattern, stating only that the textured area enhances light extraction, which could support an argument that any non-flat surface achieving this result is covered ('780 Patent, col. 2:7-13).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and associated description detail a "convex-concave structure" created by a specific process of laser drilling and etching, which could suggest that "textured" requires a structure more complex than simple roughness ('780 Patent, FIG. 7; col. 4:1-4).

For the ’934 Patent

  • The Term: "a first arc having a first curvature radius"
  • Context and Importance: This term, combined with the "larger than 10 µm" limitation, defines the core technical feature of claim 1. The dispute will likely center on how "arc" and "curvature radius" are measured on a microscopic, potentially imperfectly manufactured electrode.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the benefit as avoiding "sharp corners," suggesting that any sufficiently smooth, curved transition from the pad to the finger electrode could be considered an "arc" ('934 Patent, col. 8:39-44).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 of the patent explicitly labels R1 and R2 as radii of distinct circular arcs that define the shape of the electrode junction. This may support a narrower construction requiring a shape that conforms to a segment of a true circle, rather than just a generally curved line ('934 Patent, FIG. 2; col. 7:22-29).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges active inducement for all asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is that Defendant promotes, advertises, and instructs customers on how to use the accused Amazon devices, allegedly knowing these actions will cause users to directly infringe (e.g., Compl. ¶73, ¶80).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful. This allegation is based on Defendant's alleged actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit prior to the lawsuit, stemming from correspondence sent by Plaintiff on July 22, 2019, and February 28, 2022 (e.g., Compl. ¶72, ¶79). This pre-suit notice is alleged for multiple, though not all, of the asserted patents.

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

This case presents a broad assertion of twelve fundamental LED technology patents against a major downstream manufacturer of consumer electronics. The litigation will likely focus on the following central questions:

  • A core issue will be one of microscopic evidence: Can Plaintiff, through discovery and expert analysis, demonstrate that the commodity LED chips sourced by Defendant for its Fire TV products possess the highly specific and varied microscopic geometries claimed across the twelve asserted patents, from textured sidewalls to electrode arcs with specific curvature radii? The complaint's current tear-down analysis does not provide this level of detail.
  • A second key question will be one of claim scope and interpretation: How will the court construe terms like "substantially textured" and quantitative limitations such as "larger than 10 µm"? The resolution of these terms will be critical in determining whether the structures found in the accused LEDs, which may have variations due to standard manufacturing processes, fall within the scope of the patents' claims.
  • Finally, a significant issue will be damages and willfulness: Given the pre-suit notice allegations, the questions of when Defendant became aware of the specific patents-in-suit and what actions it took in response will be central to the willfulness inquiry and potential enhancement of damages.