DCT

6:24-cv-00538

SVV Technology Innovations Inc v. Acer Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00538, W.D. Tex., 02/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a foreign corporation, and thus may be sued in any judicial district, with the Western District of Texas being appropriate due to infringing acts allegedly occurring within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s computer monitors, laptops, and tablets infringe eight patents related to LED backlighting systems, light guide panels, and quantum dot-based light conversion technologies for displays.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for improving the optical efficiency, light distribution, and color performance of edge-lit and direct-lit LED backlights used in modern liquid crystal displays (LCDs).
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes this action is related to several prior lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant and other technology companies in the same court. It states that claims of several of the asserted patents have already been construed by the court in those related actions, and that a jury in one case found Acer to have willfully infringed a related patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-07-13 Earliest Priority Date ('342, '999, '089, '191, '795 Patents)
2012-02-14 Earliest Priority Date ('197, '340, '2562 Patents)
2018-01-30 '342 Patent Issued
2019-04-23 '999 Patent Issued
2019-10-08 '089 Patent Issued
2020-10-06 '191 Patent Issued
2021-01-29 Acer allegedly received notice letter from SVVTI
2021-03-30 '197 Patent Issued
2021-10-26 '340 Patent Issued
2022-03-15 '795 Patent Issued
2022-06-21 Prior infringement lawsuits filed by SVVTI against Acer
2022-08-02 '2562 Patent Issued
2025-02-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,880,342 - "Collimating Illumination Systems Employing Planar Waveguide," Issued January 30, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with conventional backlights, including inefficient light extraction and the need for multiple, separate optical films (like diffusers and brightness enhancement films) which add to complexity and cost (’342 Patent, col. 2:20-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a single, monolithic illumination apparatus using a planar waveguide. This waveguide has a specially textured front surface with "elongated cylindrical lenses" and a back surface with a pattern of "light-deflecting elements." Light from edge-mounted LEDs enters the waveguide, is redirected by the back-surface elements, and is then collimated as it exits through the front-surface lenses, creating a uniform, bright output without the need for multiple separate films (’342 Patent, col. 3:5-25; Fig. 4A).
  • Technical Importance: This approach integrates the functions of light guiding, diffusion, and collimation into a single component, suggesting a path toward thinner, more efficient, and potentially less expensive backlights for LCDs.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, 18, and 28 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An illumination apparatus comprising a light source and a planar waveguide.
    • The planar waveguide having a front surface, a back surface, and at least one light input edge.
    • The front surface having a "planar array of elongated cylindrical lenses."
    • The back surface having a "plurality of light-deflecting elements."
    • At least one of the light-deflecting elements having a curved surface and being in a "predetermined alignment" with the cylindrical lenses on the front surface.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 10,269,999 - "Light Trapping Optical Structures Employing Light Converting and Light Guiding Layers," Issued April 23, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of efficiently converting light using materials like quantum dots. A key problem is ensuring that light from a source (like a blue LED) has a high probability of interacting with the conversion material without being lost or inefficiently recycled (’999 Patent, col. 2:4-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an optical system that traps light to enhance conversion. It combines a monochromatic light source (e.g., blue LEDs), a light guiding layer with a lens array, a thin "photoresponsive layer" containing quantum dots, and a broad-area reflective surface. Light that passes through the quantum dot layer without being absorbed is reflected back, giving it multiple opportunities for conversion, thereby increasing overall efficiency (’999 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-17).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a method to maximize the color-conversion efficiency of quantum dot films in display backlights, leading to brighter colors and better energy usage.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 13 (Compl. ¶58).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A light converting optical system with a monochromatic light source.
    • A plurality of linear cylindrical microlenses arranged into a planar lenticular lens array.
    • A planar light guiding layer.
    • A broad-area reflective surface spaced from the lens array.
    • A "generally planar photoresponsive layer" located between the lens array and the reflective surface, comprising quantum dots.
    • The photoresponsive layer is configured at a "sufficiently low thickness to transmit at least a portion of incident light without absorption in a single pass."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶58).

U.S. Patent No. 10,439,089 - "Light Converting System Employing Planar Light Trapping and Light Absorbing Structures," Issued October 8, 2019

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a light converting system designed for efficient light trapping and absorption. It employs a structure with first and second photoresponsive layers (one of which contains quantum dots) disposed between an optically transmissive surface and a reflective surface, along with a planar lens array to inject light into the structure (’089 Patent, col. 21:51-col. 22:2). This configuration aims to ensure that light makes multiple passes through the light-converting layers, enhancing absorption and conversion efficiency.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 14-19 and 20 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶64-65). Independent claims 14 and 20 are asserted.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the backlighting assembly in the Acer XV273K monitor infringes by incorporating a Quantum Dot Enhancement Film (QDEF) and a phosphor layer between a brightness enhancement film and a back reflector (Compl. ¶67).

U.S. Patent No. 10,797,191 - "Light Trapping Optical Structure," Issued October 6, 2020

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent details an optical article for redistributing light, such as a backlight for an LCD. The structure includes an optically transmissive sheet (e.g., a light guide plate) with cylindrical lenses on its first surface and discrete cavities on its second surface. A light converting layer (such as a QDEF) is positioned parallel to this sheet to absorb and convert light emitted by an artificial light source, such as edge-mounted LEDs (’191 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10-19 are asserted (Compl. ¶70). Independent claims 1 and 10 are asserted.
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegation targets the LCD display in the Acer XV273K monitor, which is alleged to have a light guide plate with cylindrical lenses on the front and microstructures on the back, used in conjunction with a Quantum Dot Enhancement Film (QDEF) (Compl. ¶73).

U.S. Patent No. 11,276,795 - "Light Converting Systems Employing Thin Light Trapping Structures with Lens Array," Issued March 15, 2022

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on a light converting system that uses a microstructured front surface (like a brightness enhancement film) and a reflective back surface to create a "light trapping structure." A thin, continuous photoabsorptive film layer, containing at least two types of semiconductor materials with different bandgaps (e.g., red and green quantum dots), is placed between these surfaces. This structure is designed to cause multiple transverse passes of light through the film, enhancing absorption and color conversion (’795 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 9-13, 15, 16, 17, and 20 are asserted (Compl. ¶76). Independent claims 1 and 20 are asserted.
  • Accused Features: The backlighting assembly of the Acer XV273K monitor is accused, specifically its use of brightness enhancement films (BEFs), a QDEF layer containing red and green quantum dots, and a back reflector, which allegedly form the claimed light trapping structure (Compl. ¶¶79, 32).

U.S. Patent No. 11,156,340 - "Light Guide Illumination Systems with Enhanced Light Coupling," Issued October 26, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a light guide system with an optically transmissive sheet and a strip of heat-conducting printed circuit located near an edge. A linear array of side-emitting LED packages is mounted on the circuit strip and optically coupled to the sheet's edge. The system is characterized by light extraction features whose density increases with distance from the light source to ensure uniform illumination (’340 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶82).
  • Accused Features: The Acer Iconia Tab M10 is accused of infringing. The complaint alleges its LCD display uses a light guide plate, a strip of flexible printed circuit with side-emitting LEDs mounted on it, and a pattern of microstructures on the light guide's back surface whose density increases with distance from the LEDs (Compl. ¶¶85, 37-39).

U.S. Patent No. 11,402,562 - "Method of Making Illumination Systems Employing Thin and Flexible Waveguides with Enhanced Light Coupling," Issued August 2, 2022

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of making an illumination system. The method involves providing a thin, flexible optical waveguide and a flexible side-emitting LED strip. A key step is positioning the major surface of the LED strip's flexible printed circuit in direct or indirect contact with one of the broad-area surfaces of the waveguide, rather than coupling to its edge. The method also includes positioning a reflective layer on a light-emitting side of the waveguide (’2562 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 18 is asserted (Compl. ¶88).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Acer Iconia Tab M10 of being made by the patented process. It alleges the product contains an LCD display made with a thin, flexible waveguide and a flexible side-emitting LED strip that is placed in contact with the back surface of the waveguide (Compl. ¶¶92, 44).

U.S. Patent No. 10,962,197 - "Light Guide Illumination Systems with Enhanced Light Coupling," Issued March 30, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a light guide system structurally similar to the one in the '340 Patent. It comprises a planar sheet of optically transmissive material, a planar strip of heat-conducting printed circuit, and a plurality of side-emitting LEDs mounted on the circuit and coupled to the sheet. The system also includes light coupling elements made of a dielectric material to facilitate the transfer of light from the LEDs into the sheet (’197 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶95).
  • Accused Features: The Acer Iconia Tab M10 is accused. The complaint alleges its display includes a light guide, a flexible printed circuit with side-emitting LEDs, and optical structures on the light input edge of the guide that act as the claimed light coupling elements (Compl. ¶98).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are various Acer-branded electronic devices, including computer monitors (e.g., Acer XV273K Pbmiipprzx), laptops (e.g., Acer A315-24P-R7VH), and tablets (e.g., Acer Iconia Tab M10) (Compl. ¶¶51, 57, 81).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as devices containing LCD displays that utilize LED-based backlighting systems (Compl. ¶46). The relevant functionality involves the internal optical components of these displays. Specifically, the complaint alleges the products incorporate planar waveguides (light guide plates or LGPs), edge-mounted LEDs, and various optical films to manage light distribution and color (Compl. ¶55). Certain high-performance monitors, such as the Acer XV273K, are alleged to use Quantum Dot Enhancement Film (QDEF) technology to achieve a wider color gamut, and are marketed to the gaming community (Compl. ¶¶47-48, 61). Tablets like the Iconia Tab M10 are alleged to use thin, flexible waveguides with side-emitting LEDs mounted on flexible printed circuits (Compl. ¶¶85, 92). The products are sold in the U.S. through major retail channels such as Best Buy, Walmart, and Amazon (Compl. ¶14).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

  • '342 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an illumination apparatus, comprising: a light source; and a planar waveguide... The accused products use an LCD display which is an illumination apparatus, backlit by LEDs (the light source) and incorporating a planar waveguide (LGP). ¶55 col. 4:1-5
wherein said planar waveguide is formed by a thin layer of an optically transmissive material... The LGP is formed by a thin layer of an optically transmissive material. ¶55 col. 4:5-10
said planar waveguide having a front surface, a back surface, and at least one light input edge... The LGP has a front surface, a back surface, and a light input edge lit by LEDs. ¶55 col. 4:11-17
said front surface having a three-dimensionally textured surface, said back surface being substantially planar... The LGP's front surface is a three-dimensionally textured surface and its back surface is a planar surface. ¶55 col. 4:18-21
said front surface having a planar array of elongated cylindrical lenses... The front surface contains a planar array of elongated cylindrical lenses extending between opposing edges. ¶55 col. 4:22-26
said back surface having a plurality of light-deflecting elements... The back surface contains a large number of light-deflecting elements (microstructures). ¶55 col. 4:40-42
wherein at least one of said light-deflecting elements has a curved surface... At least one of the light-deflecting elements residing on the back surface has a curved surface, such as curved sidewalls. ¶55 col. 5:28-30
wherein at least one of said light-deflecting elements is in a predetermined alignment with said elongated cylindrical lenses... At least one of the light-deflecting elements on the back surface is in a predetermined alignment with the cylindrical lenses on the front surface. ¶55 col. 5:31-35

  • Identified Points of Contention ('342 Patent):

    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "three-dimensionally textured surface" with a "planar array of elongated cylindrical lenses" as claimed reads on the types of prismatic or brightness enhancement films commonly used in commercial displays. The defense may argue for a narrower construction limited to the specific lens structures depicted in the patent.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges a "predetermined alignment" between the front lenses and back microstructures. A key factual dispute may be whether the accused Acer products, which allegedly do not follow a "fixed geometric positioning pattern," actually possess the specific alignment required by the claim, or if their structures are arranged in a more generic or randomized fashion that falls outside the claim's scope.

  • '999 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a monochromatic light source configured to emit light in a preselected spectral range; The backlight uses LEDs that emit blue light in a preselected spectral range. ¶61 col. 3:56-61
a plurality of linear cylindrical microlenses arranged into a planar lenticular lens array... The LCD/backlighting assembly incorporates a plurality of linear cylindrical microlenses arranged into a planar lenticular lens array on the front surface of the LGP. ¶61 col. 4:2-10
a planar light guiding layer of an optically transmissive material... The LGP includes a planar light guiding layer formed from an optically transmissive material. ¶61 col. 4:11-13
a broad-area reflective surface spaced by a distance from said lens array... The backlight contains a broad-area reflective surface spaced from the lens array. ¶61 col. 4:30-33
a generally planar photoresponsive layer located between said lens array and said broad-area reflective surface... A generally planar photoresponsive layer (the QDEF) is located between the lens array and the reflective surface. ¶61 col. 4:34-40
said photoresponsive layer comprising a plurality of quantum dots... The photoresponsive layer comprises a plurality of quantum dots embedded into an optically transmissive material. ¶61 col. 4:44-47
wherein said photoresponsive layer is configured at a sufficiently low thickness to transmit at least a portion of incident light without absorption in a single pass... The QDEF is alleged to be thin enough to transmit at least some light without absorption in a single pass. ¶61 col. 4:50-54
  • Identified Points of Contention ('999 Patent):
    • Scope Questions: The definition of a "planar lenticular lens array" may be contested. The analysis will question whether standard optical films in the accused products meet the specific structural requirements of "linear cylindrical microlenses" as described and claimed in the patent.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused Quantum Dot Enhancement Film (QDEF) is in fact "configured at a sufficiently low thickness to transmit at least a portion of incident light without absorption in a single pass." This requires evidence regarding the optical properties and operational characteristics of the specific QDEF used in Acer's products, raising the question of whether it is designed for the multi-pass light trapping scheme claimed by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • '342 Patent

    • The Term: "predetermined alignment" (Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it describes the specific relationship between the optical features on the front and back surfaces of the waveguide. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the random or pseudo-random patterns often found in commercial diffusers meet this requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific, deliberate design correlation between the two surfaces, which may not be present in a standard component designed for general diffusion.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition that limits the term to a one-to-one or periodic alignment. A party might argue that any non-random, engineered relationship that achieves the goal of collimation qualifies as "predetermined."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly discusses the goal of directing light from a back-surface element toward a front-surface lens (’342 Patent, col. 5:19-25). A party could argue this implies a direct, functionally coupled alignment, potentially limited to the embodiments shown where features appear to be correlated.

  • '999 Patent

    • The Term: "a generally planar photoresponsive layer" (Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core light-converting component of the invention. The dispute will likely center on whether a standard, off-the-shelf QDEF meets the functional and structural limitations implied by the patent's description of this layer. The patent describes a system where this layer is intentionally thin to allow for multi-pass light trapping, a specific functional goal.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, describing the layer as "generally planar" and comprising quantum dots. A party could argue this plainly reads on the structure of a typical QDEF film used in the industry (’999 Patent, col. 4:34-47).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this layer as being "configured at a sufficiently low thickness to transmit at least a portion of incident light without absorption in a single pass" to enable a light-trapping structure (’999 Patent, col. 4:50-61). A party could argue that this functional requirement limits the claim to photoresponsive layers specifically designed for such a multi-pass system, potentially excluding standard QDEF films designed for maximum single-pass absorption.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The factual basis for this allegation includes Defendant’s alleged creation of advertisements, establishment of distribution channels for the accused products, and provision of instructions or manuals that encourage infringing use by consumers (Compl. ¶¶54, 60, 101).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful. This allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, stemming from a notice letter dated January 22, 2021, and three prior infringement lawsuits filed against Acer on June 21, 2022, involving several of the same patents (Compl. ¶¶36-37). The complaint further supports this allegation by citing a jury verdict in a related case that found Acer's infringement of a related patent to be willful (Compl. ¶103).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe key technical limitations, such as the "predetermined alignment" of optical features in the ’342 Patent and the "photoresponsive layer" functionally defined by its "sufficiently low thickness" in the ’999 Patent? The outcome may depend on whether these terms are interpreted broadly to cover industry-standard components like brightness enhancement and QDEF films, or narrowly limited to the specific light-manipulating systems described in the patents.
  • A second central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: The case will likely require detailed technical evidence to determine if the microstructures and optical films within Acer’s commercial displays actually operate in the manner required by the claims. This raises the factual question of whether the accused products embody the specific light-collimating and light-trapping mechanisms that are presented as the novel contributions of the asserted patents.
  • Given the extensive history of litigation between the parties alleged in the complaint, a critical legal question will be willfulness: Does the alleged pre-suit notice, combined with prior court rulings and a jury verdict on related patents, establish that Acer acted with the knowledge or reckless disregard required for a finding of willful infringement, which could expose the company to enhanced damages?