DCT

6:25-cv-00025

SVV Technology Innovations Inc v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00025, W.D. Tex., 04/25/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation and conducts business, including selling the accused products, within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s computer monitors and displays infringe six patents related to optical films, backlighting systems, and light-converting structures for displays.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced optical systems designed to enhance the efficiency, brightness, and color performance of electronic displays, a critical area of innovation in the competitive consumer electronics market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the ’397, ’089, and ’135 patents have been previously asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant in the Western District of Texas, and that the court has already construed claims of those patents. The complaint also notes a jury verdict was rendered against Defendant on September 26, 2024, which found infringement of claim 19 of the ’089 Patent and that the infringement was willful.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-04-21 Earliest Priority Date (’135, ’085, ’794 Patents)
2010-07-13 Earliest Priority Date (’089, ’157 Patents)
2011-01-18 Earliest Priority Date (’397 Patent)
2014-06-03 ’397 Patent Issued
2019-10-08 ’089 Patent Issued
2020-01-01 Announcement of ROG Zephyrus G14 and ROG Swift monitors at CES 2020
2020-11-17 ’135 Patent Issued
2021-02-25 Plaintiff allegedly sent pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2021-12-07 ’085 Patent Issued
2022-03-24 Plaintiff filed prior patent infringement lawsuits against Defendant
2023-03-28 ’157 Patent Issued
2023-12-19 ’794 Patent Issued
2024-09-26 Jury verdict rendered against Defendant on ’089 Patent in prior case
2025-04-25 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,740,397 - Optical Cover Employing Microstructured Surfaces

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,740,397, titled “Optical Cover Employing Microstructured Surfaces,” issued on June 3, 2014.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of trapping and guiding light within a thin, transparent layer, a common requirement in displays and light harvesting devices (US 8,740,397, col. 1:40-45). Conventional light-emitting panels are often limited in the angles at which they can propagate light, and existing light-trapping methods can be inefficient or complex (US 8,740,397, col. 2:10-24).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an optical cover made of a transparent material with a specially designed "corrugated surface." This surface consists of tiny, parallel prismatic ridges that are configured to retroreflect light internally via total internal reflection (TIR). The surface also incorporates "optical windows"—smoother areas without the prismatic texture—that allow light to be efficiently coupled into or out of the transparent layer. Once light enters through a window, it is trapped and guided by the retroreflective corrugations (US 8,740,397, Abstract; Fig. 6).
    • Technical Importance: This design enables the creation of thin, efficient light guides and light-trapping films that can manipulate light without requiring bulky external optics or complex multi-layer structures (US 8,740,397, col. 2:3-10).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶93).
    • Claim 1 requires:
      • A generally planar layer of optically transparent material having at least one broad corrugated surface.
      • The corrugated surface includes highly transparent optical windows distributed according to a predetermined pattern, configured for communicating light to or from the layer.
      • The corrugations of the surface are aligned parallel to a reference line.
      • The corrugations are configured to retroreflect at least some light propagating in the layer by means of a total internal reflection.

U.S. Patent No. 10,439,089 - Light Converting System Employing Planar Light Trapping and Light Absorbing Structures

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,439,089, titled “Light Converting System Employing Planar Light Trapping and Light Absorbing Structures,” issued on October 8, 2019.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that conventional photovoltaic materials like silicon are poor absorbers of certain wavelengths of light, necessitating thick and costly active layers. While light-trapping techniques exist to increase the light path through the active layer, they are often inefficient and allow a substantial portion of incident light to escape before being absorbed (’089 Patent, col. 2:2-37).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an optical system that uses a thin "photoresponsive layer" containing light-absorbing materials like quantum dots. This layer is placed between an optically transmissive surface and a reflective surface. A key aspect of the solution is a "planar two-dimensional array of optical elements" designed to inject light into the space between these surfaces at a high angle. This high-angle injection ensures the light is trapped by total internal reflection and makes multiple passes through the thin photoresponsive layer, dramatically enhancing the probability of absorption (’089 Patent, Abstract; col. 24:27-35).
    • Technical Importance: This optical architecture allows for the use of much thinner, and therefore less expensive, photo-active layers in devices like QLED displays or solar cells by maximizing the efficiency of light absorption (’089 Patent, col. 3:1-7).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claims 14 and 20, and dependent claim 19 (Compl. ¶99, 100).
    • Claim 14 requires:
      • A broad-area optically transmissive surface with light-deflecting features configured for total internal reflection.
      • A broad-area reflective surface parallel to the transmissive surface, configured for scattering light.
      • A planar photoresponsive layer between the two surfaces, comprising quantum dots to absorb light in a specific spectral range.
      • A planar two-dimensional array of optical elements to inject light into the space between the surfaces at a high angle from the normal.
      • The photoresponsive layer is thinner than the minimum thickness required to absorb substantially all incident light in a single pass.
    • Claim 20 recites a method of making a light converting optical system by providing and embedding quantum dots with different bandgaps into a thin, planar light-absorbing layer and protecting it with buffer layers.

Additional Patents-in-Suit (Multi-Patent Capsules)

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,838,135

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,838,135, titled “Edge-Lit Waveguide Illumination Systems Employing Planar Arrays of Linear Cylindrical Lenses,” issued on November 17, 2020.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an illumination system for edge-lit displays. It uses a light guide plate (waveguide) with a front surface featuring a lenticular array of linear cylindrical lenses and a back surface with discrete light-extracting features to efficiently distribute and emit light received from LEDs positioned at an edge (’135 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1 and 19 are asserted (Compl. ¶107).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that various ASUSTeK monitors (e.g., VG259Q3A, XG259QN) use an edge-lit LCD display with a light guide plate (LGP) having features corresponding to the claims, such as a lenticular lens array on the front surface and discrete light-extracting features on the back (Compl. ¶106, 110).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,616,157

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,616,157, titled “Method of Making Light Converting Systems Using Thin Light Absorbing and Light Trapping Structures,” issued on March 28, 2023.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for making a light converting optical system, similar to the system described in the ’089 Patent. The method involves providing optical layers, a light source, and a thin, continuous "photoabsorptive film layer" containing at least two types of light-converting semiconductor materials (e.g., red and green quantum dots) with different bandgaps (’157 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least method claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶113).
    • Accused Features: The ASUSTeK PG32UQXR monitor is accused of being made by the claimed process, allegedly incorporating a backlight with Brightness Enhancement Films (BEFs), a reflector, and a Quantum Dot Enhancement Film (QDEF) containing different types of quantum dots (Compl. ¶112, 117).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,194,085

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,194,085, titled “Illumination Systems Employing Thin and Flexible Waveguides with Enhanced Light Coupling,” issued on December 7, 2021.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an illumination system using a thin, flexible waveguide and a flexible side-emitting LED strip. The LED strip is mounted in contact with a surface of the waveguide, and its light-emitting surface is oriented perpendicular to the waveguide's surface, with its dimension being greater than the waveguide's thickness to enhance light coupling (’085 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶120).
    • Accused Features: The ASUSTeK MB16ACV and MB16QHG portable monitors are accused of infringing. The complaint alleges these products use a thin, flexible light guide plate (LGP) with a side-emitting LED strip mounted in contact with its back surface, matching the claimed configuration (Compl. ¶119, 123).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,846,794

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,846,794, titled “Method of Making Backlight Units for LCD Displays Using Side-Emitting LEDs and Optical Waveguides,” issued on December 19, 2023.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of making a backlight unit similar to the system in the ’085 Patent. The method includes providing a thin flexible sheet, forming microstructures on it, providing a side-emitting LED strip, positioning the strip in contact with the sheet, and covering parts of the assembly with an opaque, heat-conductive housing (’794 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least method claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶126).
    • Accused Features: The ASUSTeK MB16QHG and MB16ACV monitors are accused of being made by the claimed process, allegedly involving the assembly of a thin LGP, a side-emitting LED strip, a reflector, and an opaque housing (Compl. ¶125, 130).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint names several ASUSTeK computer monitors. The lead products for the fully analyzed patents are the ASUSTeK XG259QN (accused of infringing the ’397 Patent) and the ASUSTeK PG32UQXR (accused of infringing the ’089 and ’157 Patents) (Compl. ¶92, 98, 112).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The accused products are described as LED-illuminated LCD monitors, some of which are specifically identified as QLED (quantum dot LED) monitors marketed to the gaming community (Compl. ¶80-82). The complaint provides an image of a product label for the ASUSTeK PG32UQXR LCD monitor, which identifies the model number and bears the ASUS trademark (Compl. p. 10, ¶28).
    • For the ’397 Patent, the relevant alleged functionality is a backlighting assembly that includes a prismatic film with a corrugated surface used to redistribute light from edge-mounted LEDs (Compl. ¶96).
    • For the ’089 Patent, the relevant alleged functionality is the use of QLED technology, which incorporates a Quantum Dot Enhancement Film (QDEF) layer. This layer contains quantum dots that convert light from a blue LED backlight into pure red and green light, which is alleged to improve the display’s color gamut and light throughput (Compl. ¶84, 104).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’397 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an optical cover, comprising: a generally planar layer of optically transparent material having at least one broad corrugated surface ... The backlighting/LCD panel assembly incorporates a generally planar layer of optically transparent material (prismatic film) which has at least one broad corrugated surface. ¶96 col. 5:1-5
said corrugated surface including highly transparent optical windows distributed according to a predetermined pattern and configured for communicating light to or from said layer; The corrugated surface includes highly transparent optical windows; for example, each prismatic ridge of the corrugated surface has a smooth horizontal surface at its tip which defines an optical window. ¶96 col. 5:6-10
wherein the corrugations of said corrugated surface are aligned parallel to a reference line and configured to retroreflect at least some light propagating in said layer by means of a total internal reflection. The surface corrugations (prismatic ridges and furrows) are aligned parallel to a reference line and are configured to retroreflect light propagating in the planar layer by means of total internal reflection. ¶96 col. 6:3-10
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for claim construction may be whether the "smooth horizontal surface at its tip" of a prismatic ridge, as alleged in the complaint, constitutes an "optical window" as contemplated by the patent. The patent specification describes windows as areas "free of the surface corrugations or where the corrugated relief is suppressed" (US 8,740,397, col. 2:63-65), raising the question of whether a feature that is part of the prism's tip meets this definition.

’089 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a broad-area optically transmissive surface comprising a plurality of light deflecting surface relief features and configured for reflecting light using a total internal reflection; The LCD/backlighting assembly contains a broad-area optically transmissive surface, such as the front surface of Brightness Enhancement Films (BEFs), which has a large number of grooves configured to deflect light. ¶104 col. 24:14-18
a broad-area reflective surface extending parallel to the optically transmissive surface and configured for scattering light; The assembly contains a broad-area reflective surface (reflector sheet) on its back side, extending parallel to the transmissive surface and configured for scattering light. ¶104 col. 24:19-22
a planar photoresponsive layer disposed between the optically transmissive and reflective surfaces and comprising quantum dots distributed within an optically transmissive material and configured to absorb light in a preselected spectral range; The assembly contains a planar Quantum Dot Enhancement Film (QDEF) disposed between the transmissive and reflective surfaces, which comprises quantum dots configured to absorb blue light. ¶104, 33 col. 24:23-26
a planar two-dimensional array of optical elements distributed over an area of the photoresponsive layer and configured for injecting light into the space between the optically transmissive and reflective surfaces at a high angle from a normal to the plane of the photoresponsive layer; The backlight contains a two-dimensional array of optical elements (e.g., rectangular blocks of transparent material) that redistributes light from an LED array and injects it at a high angle into the space containing the QDEF. ¶104, 33-34 col. 24:27-35
wherein the thickness of the photoresponsive layer is less than a minimum thickness sufficient for absorbing substantially all incident light in a single pass. The QDEF layer is thin enough that it transmits at least some light without absorption in a single pass. ¶104, 34 col. 24:36-39
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges a very specific structure for light injection: a "planar two-dimensional array of optical elements" such as "rectangular blocks of transparent material" that inject light at a high angle (Compl. ¶104, 33-34). A primary technical question will be whether the accused PG32UQXR monitor’s backlight contains this specific array performing this function, or if it utilizes a different, more conventional light-guiding and diffusion architecture.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’397 Patent

  • The Term: "optical window"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement of Claim 1 hinges on the accused prismatic film having these features in addition to its corrugations. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory identifies the flattened tips of the prismatic ridges as the "optical windows" (Compl. ¶96), and the viability of this theory depends on the term's construction.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language states the windows are "configured for communicating light to or from said layer" (US 8,740,397, col. 6:53-55). This functional language could support an interpretation where any part of the surface that allows light to pass through without being retroreflected, such as a flattened tip, qualifies as a "window."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes windows as "surface portions that are either free of the surface corrugations or where the corrugated relief is suppressed" (US 8,740,397, col. 2:63-65). This language suggests that a window is structurally distinct from a corrugation, potentially excluding a feature that is merely a modified part of a prismatic ridge.

For the ’089 Patent

  • The Term: "planar two-dimensional array of optical elements ... configured for injecting light ... at a high angle"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation describes the novel mechanism for coupling light into the trapping structure to enable the use of a thin active layer. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the components of the accused product's backlight meet this structural and functional definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "optical elements" is broad. Plaintiff may argue it covers various light-redirecting features, such as the "rectangular blocks of transparent material" alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶104), or potentially even patterned dots or textures on a light guide plate.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification lists examples of optical elements that can form the array, such as "imaging lenses, non-imaging lenses, ... TIR lenses, ... mirrors," and others (US 8,740,397, col. 4:30-34). Defendant may argue that this context limits the term to discrete, purpose-built injector components, rather than conventional light-scattering features found in standard backlights.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement for all asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant’s alleged affirmative acts of providing advertising, marketing materials, user manuals, and technical support that instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶95, 103, 109, 115, 122, 128).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents. This knowledge is alleged to stem from at least a pre-suit notice letter sent on February 25, 2021, and from prior infringement lawsuits filed on March 24, 2022 (Compl. ¶70-71, 134). For the ’089 Patent, the complaint specifically alleges knowledge based on a prior jury verdict finding willful infringement (Compl. ¶135).

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

This litigation will likely center on a combination of claim construction, technical evidence, and the impact of prior legal proceedings. The key open questions for the court appear to be:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "optical window" in the ’397 Patent, described in the specification as an area separate from corrugations, be construed to cover the flattened tips of the prismatic ridges as alleged in the complaint’s infringement theory?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of structural identity: does the accused QLED monitor’s backlight incorporate the specific “planar two-dimensional array of optical elements” recited in the ’089 Patent for high-angle light injection, or does it utilize a conventional light guide plate architecture that functions in a materially different way?
  • A central procedural question will be the preclusive effect of prior litigation: to what extent will the court’s previous claim constructions and the jury’s verdict in the earlier cases involving the ’397 and ’089 patents narrow the field of dispute and influence the proceedings in this new, expanded action?