DCT

3:09-cv-00305

Toshiba Corp v. Imation Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:09-cv-00305, W.D. Wis., 09/25/2009
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on the Defendants' business activities within the district, including the sale of the accused products through retailers, and the presence of registered agents for service of process in Wisconsin.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ recordable DVD discs infringe three U.S. patents that are essential to the DVD standard concerning optical disc structure, manufacturing evaluation patterns, and multi-layer data management.
  • Technical Context: The case concerns foundational technology for DVD (Digital Versatile Disc) media, which became the dominant standard for distributing digital video and large data sets in the late 1990s and 2000s.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patents-in-suit are essential to the DVD Standard Specifications and are part of the DVD6C licensing pool, which Toshiba co-founded in 1999. It is alleged that Defendants CMC and Ritek hold licenses from this pool for certain formats (DVD-ROM, DVD-Video) but not for the accused recordable DVD formats. The complaint further alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the patents through their use of official DVD logos, which requires a license from the DVDFLLC that notes the existence of pertinent patents, and through the public listing of essential patents by the DVD6C pool.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1994-01-19 U.S. Patent 5,708,651 – Earliest Priority Date
1994-04-14 U.S. Patent 5,831,966 – Earliest Priority Date
1995-04-14 U.S. Patent 5,892,751 – Earliest Priority Date
1998-01-13 U.S. Patent 5,708,651 – Issue Date
1998-11-03 U.S. Patent 5,831,966 – Issue Date
1999-04-06 U.S. Patent 5,892,751 – Issue Date
1999-01-01 DVD6C licensing group formed (approximated from complaint text)
2001-05-11 Defendant Ritek obtains license for DVD-ROM/Video Discs
2002-01-01 Defendant CMC obtains license for DVD-ROM/Video Discs
2009-09-25 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,708,651 - "Optical Disk Having Reduced Track Pitch and Optical Disk Playback Apparatus Containing the Same," issued January 13, 1998

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of increasing the data storage capacity of an optical disc to hold two hours of compressed video, which requires significantly higher recording density than a standard CD. This density increase creates a risk of "crosstalk," where the laser reading one data track inadvertently picks up signals from an adjacent track, causing errors ('651 Patent, col. 1:21-48, col. 2:11-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by defining a specific, optimized physical geometry for the data pits on the disc. It specifies precise mathematical ranges for the track pitch (the distance between tracks) and the cross-sectional shape of the pits (modeled as a trapezoid with specific upper and lower widths), with these dimensions being functions of the laser's wavelength (λ) and the objective lens's numerical aperture (NA) ('651 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:33-43). This precise geometry allows tracks to be packed more closely together while minimizing crosstalk.
  • Technical Importance: This approach of defining specific pit and track geometries was a key technical enabler for creating high-density DVDs capable of storing feature-length films on a single, CD-sized disc (Compl. ¶21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶33). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A circular substrate with a reflecting layer.
    • Information recorded as a plurality of pit trains.
    • A "track pitch" within a specific range defined by the formula (0.72 to 0.8)×(λ/ΝΑ)/1.14 µm.
    • A specified maximum "radial tilt" (not more than 9.5 mrad).
    • A specified "substrate thickness" (0.6 mm) and "diameter" (120 mm).

U.S. Patent No. 5,892,751 - "Optical Disk Having an Evaluation Pattern for Evaluating the Optical Disk," issued April 6, 1999

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: High-density optical discs are highly sensitive to "tilt," or a slight misalignment between the disc surface and the playback laser. This tilt can degrade the signal quality and cause read errors. The patent addresses the need for a reliable method to evaluate a manufactured disc for defects and to compensate for such tilt during playback ('751 Patent, col. 1:10-21, col. 2:31-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses recording a specific, predefined "evaluation test pattern" of pits and lands in a dedicated area of the disc, such as the lead-in area. A playback device can read this known pattern, analyze the resulting signal, and calculate compensation values to correct for tilt or other issues in real-time. The patent specifies the structure of this pattern as a sequence of pits and lands with defined lengths (e.g., 3T, mT, nT) ('751 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:31-40).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides a mechanism for robust quality control in disc manufacturing and for real-time calibration in playback devices, which is critical for the reliable performance of high-density media ('751 Patent, col. 2:25-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶39). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An optical disc with a lead-in area, a data area, and a lead-out area.
    • A "test pattern area" located in the lead-in area.
    • The test pattern area contains at least one "physical sector" with a header and a data section.
    • The data section contains a "test pattern" comprising a repetition of a predetermined arrangement of pits and lands (e.g., a first pit of length 3T/mT/nT, a first land, a second pit, etc.).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 5,831,966 - "Recording Layer Identifying Data in a Multi-Layer Recording Medium," issued November 3, 1998

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of a playback device identifying the physical characteristics of a disc, such as whether it is single-sided, double-sided, or multi-layered. The invention proposes storing specific identifiers in the disc's management data region, including a "number-of-disc-sides identifier" and a "disc side identifier", which inform the player whether it is reading Side A or Side B of a double-sided disc, enabling correct playback ('966 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-34).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The data management structure of the accused recordable DVD discs, which allegedly includes the claimed identifiers to manage single- and double-sided media according to the DVD standard (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are recordable DVD discs of formats including DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, and their dual-layer (DL) and DVD-RAM equivalents, sold by Defendants under brand names such as Imation® and Memorex® (Compl. ¶¶2, 12, 33).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these optical discs are manufactured to comply with the DVD Standard Specifications, which were created to meet industry demand for a high-capacity digital video storage format (Compl. ¶¶21, 24). The functionality at issue is the physical structure and data organization of the discs themselves, which allegedly embody Toshiba's patented technologies. The complaint distinguishes these recordable formats from the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats, for which some defendants are licensed (Compl. ¶25).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement contentions. The analysis below summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

  • '651 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a circular substrate having information recorded thereon with a track pitch The accused recordable DVD discs are alleged to be circular substrates with information recorded in tracks that meet the DVD Standard Specifications. ¶33 col. 10:55-58
said track pitch is in the range of (0.72 to 0.8)×(λ/ΝΑ)/1.14 µm The physical dimensions of the tracks on the accused discs are alleged to fall within the claimed range, as required by the DVD standards which allegedly incorporate the patent. ¶¶22, 33 col. 10:62-64
radial tilt is not more than 9.5 mrad The accused discs are alleged to be manufactured to meet the tilt specifications of the DVD standard, which fall within the claimed value. ¶¶22, 33 col. 10:64-65
thickness of said substrate is 0.6 mm, and diameter of said circular. substrate is 120 mm The accused discs are alleged to be standard 120 mm DVDs with a 0.6 mm substrate thickness, meeting the claim limitations. ¶¶22, 33 col. 10:65-68
  • '751 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a lead-in area defined in an inner peripheral region of the optical disk The accused recordable DVD discs are alleged to have a lead-in area as defined by the DVD Standard Specifications. ¶¶22, 39 col. 22:1-3
wherein said lead-in area includes a test pattern area composed of at least one physical sector The lead-in area of the accused discs is alleged to contain a test pattern area for evaluation and calibration, as required by the DVD standards. ¶¶22, 39 col. 22:7-10
a test pattern having a repetition of predetermined arrangements of said pits and lands in succession The test pattern area on the accused discs is alleged to contain the specific, repeating sequence of pits and lands required by the claim. ¶¶22, 39 col. 22:14-17
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Standard Essentiality: A central dispute will likely be whether the asserted patent claims are truly essential to the recordable DVD standards as alleged (Compl. ¶22). Defendants may argue that it is possible to create a standard-compliant disc without infringing the specific limitations of the asserted claims.
    • Factual Infringement: The primary point of contention will be evidentiary. Toshiba must prove through testing and expert analysis that the physical dimensions and data structures of the accused discs, as manufactured and sold, actually fall within the scope of the asserted claims. The complaint's reliance on standard-compliance is an allegation that requires factual proof.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "track pitch" ('651 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: This term is a core numerical limitation of the '651 patent's key claims. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the measured track pitch of the accused discs falls within the range defined by the claim's formula. Practitioners may focus on this term because its measurement and the proper values for λ and NA could be subject to debate.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the goal of increasing density generally, which a party might use to argue the claimed range is illustrative of the principle rather than a rigid boundary ('651 Patent, col. 1:57-61).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim provides a precise mathematical formula: "in the range of (0.72 to 0.8)×(λ/ΝΑ)/1.14 µm" ('651 Patent, col. 10:62-64). The specification provides detailed calculations and figures (e.g., FIG. 6-10) based on specific values, which could support an argument that the claimed range is a critical, hard-edged requirement tied to those specific engineering trade-offs.

  • Term: "test pattern" ('751 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: Infringement of the '751 patent hinges on whether the accused discs contain the claimed "test pattern". The definition of what constitutes this pattern will be critical.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the purpose of the test pattern as enabling tilt compensation and error rate detection ('751 Patent, col. 1:12-21). A party could argue the term should cover any data pattern that achieves this stated function.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides highly specific examples of the test pattern, defining sequences of pit and land lengths like "(3T+*mT), (nT+*3T), (mT+*nT)" ('751 Patent, col. 7:1-6). A party could argue that the term "test pattern" is limited to these specific disclosed embodiments or structurally similar sequences.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶33, 39, 45). The factual basis for these claims appears to be the allegation that Defendants provide the recordable discs, a material component of a larger system, with the knowledge and intent that they will be used in an infringing manner by end-users with DVD players/recorders.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement has been willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Toshiba's rights (Compl. ¶¶35, 41, 47). This allegation is supported by claims of both constructive and actual knowledge, based on: (1) Defendants' use of official DVD logos, which are licensed under terms that acknowledge the existence of pertinent patents (Compl. ¶¶27-28); (2) the public availability of the DVD6C patent list, which includes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶29); and (3) for Defendants CMC and Ritek, alleged actual knowledge from their existing licenses for other DVD formats from the DVD6C pool (Compl. ¶30).

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

  • A core issue will be one of standard-essentiality and proof: Can Toshiba demonstrate that compliance with the widely adopted recordable DVD standards necessarily requires practicing the specific limitations of the asserted claims, and can it provide the factual evidence that the accused products are indeed standard-compliant in a way that infringes?
  • A key question for damages will be one of knowledge and intent: Do the complaint's allegations regarding the DVD6C patent pool, DVDFLLC logo licensing, and the Defendants' specific licensing histories provide a sufficient basis to prove willful infringement, which could lead to a trebling of damages?
  • A central technical question will be one of claim construction and scope: Will the court interpret the numerical ranges and structural definitions in the claims (e.g., "track pitch", "test pattern") narrowly to the patent's specific examples, or more broadly to cover the functionalities described, and how will that interpretation map onto the accused products?