DCT
6:24-cv-00626
Alexander v. Corning Glass, Inc.
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jerry D. Alexander (Tennessee)
- Defendant: Corning Incorporated (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
- Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00626, W.D. Tex., 12/30/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Corning has manufacturing and servicing locations, a regular and established place of business, and employees within the district, and has sold or offered for sale the accused products in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Living Hinge" products, which incorporate high-strength transparent materials like Gorilla Glass with display capabilities, infringe a patent related to damage-resistant transparent articles with integrated display arrays.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves replacing conventional, breakable display materials (like glass or plastic) in consumer electronics and automotive applications with novel, high-strength transparent materials combined with light-emitting films to create more durable screens.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit issued "without any fundamental or art-based claim amendments," a point that a plaintiff may use during claim construction to argue against a narrow interpretation of the claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-05-22 | ’489 Patent Priority Date |
| 2021-06-15 | ’489 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-12-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,037,489 - “High Strength Transparent Articles With Digital Display Arrays And Capabilities”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the limitations of conventional transparent materials like glass and plastic used in display devices, such as car windshields, smartphones, and televisions. These materials are susceptible to damage from being dropped or struck, and protective measures can compromise their viewability (’489 Patent, col. 1:45-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "hard, resilient display article" that combines a base structure made from one of several specified high-strength transparent materials (e.g., transparent ceramic spinel, "exotic material") with a transparent film containing light-emitting components like OLEDs or LEDs. This composite structure is controlled by a wireless unit, allowing it to display images and text while being highly resistant to damage (’489 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-24). Figure 13 provides a system-level block diagram illustrating the relationship between the display, various controllers, and input devices (’489 Patent, Fig. 13).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide "super-tough screens and displays" that are stronger, harder, and more scratch-resistant than standard glass or plastic articles, reducing breakage and enhancing durability for consumer and industrial applications (’489 Patent, col. 2:50-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. The following analysis focuses on Claim 1, the first independent claim of the ’489 Patent.
- Independent Claim 1: A transparent display device comprising:
- A base structure made of a transparent material selected from a specific group (transparent aluminum alloy, transparent exotic material, transparent wood, transparent ceramic spinel, and transparent invisible metal).
- A transparent film that emits light via OLEDs and LED sensors to display letters, numbers, messages, or graphic images.
- The transparent film is coupled to the base structure (e.g., embedded within, laminated to, attached to).
- A wireless portable unit with an image display is "attached directly to said transparent film" and is configured to display input commands.
- The unit includes a power console with a smart digital controller for sending data to the display.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "Living Hinge" products and "other infringing consumer products that include similar functionality" (Compl. ¶7, ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused products include "high-strength transparent materials (exotic materials such as Gorilla® Glass technology) with embedded OLED films therein and processors connected thereto for displays to be externally viewed" (Compl. ¶7). These products are allegedly sold for applications such as vehicle dashboards and mobile telephones (Compl. ¶8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory for Claim 1 based on the complaint's narrative allegations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'489 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| i) a base structure of a transparent material selected from the group of transparent aluminum alloy, transparent exotic material... | Defendant's products allegedly include "high-strength transparent materials (exotic materials such as Gorilla® Glass technology)." | ¶7 | col. 5:48-55 |
| ii) a transparent film emits organic light emitting diodes... | The accused products allegedly include "embedded OLED films therein." | ¶7 | col. 5:50-55 |
| wherein said transparent film is coupled to said base structure, said coupling including embedding within... | The complaint alleges "embedded OLED films therein." | ¶7 | col. 6:1-3 |
| and iii) a wireless portable unit with image display is attached directly to said transparent film... wherein said unit includes a power console with a smart digital controller... | The accused products allegedly have "processors connected thereto for displays to be externally viewed." | ¶7 | col. 6:4-10 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether Corning’s "Gorilla Glass technology" falls within the patent’s Markush group of materials, specifically as a "transparent exotic material." The patent specification provides limited definition for this term, which may lead to a significant claim construction dispute (Compl. ¶7; ’489 Patent, col. 2:35-39).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused products have "processors connected thereto," but Claim 1 requires a "wireless portable unit with image display... attached directly to said transparent film" (Compl. ¶7; ’489 Patent, col. 6:4-6). A key factual question will be whether the architecture of the accused products meets this specific structural limitation, which appears to describe a distinct, attachable controller rather than a fully integrated processor.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "transparent exotic material"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint’s infringement theory relies on classifying Corning’s "Gorilla Glass technology" under this category (Compl. ¶7). The patent lists this term in a Markush group, and its definition will determine whether the primary accused material is within the scope of the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists "exotic material" alongside other advanced materials like transparent aluminum alloy and transparent ceramic spinel, suggesting it is a general category for novel, high-performance transparent materials (’489 Patent, col. 2:11-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of "exotic materials widely referred to as topological insulators as ultra-thin sheets," which a defendant could argue limits the term to materials with those specific properties (’489 Patent, col. 2:35-39).
The Term: "a wireless portable unit with image display is attached directly to said transparent film"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific structural and functional relationship between the controller and the display film. The complaint’s allegation of a "processor connected thereto" may not meet this limitation if the term is construed narrowly, raising a potential non-infringement defense.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that "attached directly" could mean a direct electrical or data connection, and that a "portable unit" could refer to the mobile device itself (e.g., a smartphone) rather than a separate component.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a "unit" that is "attached," suggesting a physically distinct component. The patent’s Figure 13 depicts the "Wireless Portable Unit" as a separate block from the "Glass Display," which may support an interpretation requiring two distinct, joined components rather than an integrated system (’489 Patent, Fig. 13).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Corning provides instructions to customers who then operate the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶9). It also pleads willful blindness to its customers' infringement (Compl. ¶10).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Corning having "actual knowledge of its infringement of the '489 Patent since no later than June 15, 2021," the date the patent issued (Compl. ¶22). The complaint does not allege specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge, such as a notice letter.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "transparent exotic material," which the patent links to "topological insulators," be construed broadly enough to encompass Defendant's widely used Gorilla Glass technology?
- A second key issue will be a potential structural mismatch: does the accused product's integrated "processor" satisfy the claim limitation requiring a distinct "wireless portable unit... attached directly to said transparent film," or does this language impose a structural requirement absent from the accused products?
- Finally, a central evidentiary question will be what facts emerge in discovery to substantiate the complaint's high-level allegations, particularly regarding the specific architecture of the accused products' controller systems and their relationship to the display film.