EXHIBIT 1011
`EXHIBIT 1011
`
`Ex. 1011 — TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE — IPR2023-00240
`Page 1 of 25
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 1 of 25
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`LG Electronics Inc.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL
`Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.); TCL
`Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Industries
`Holdings (H.K.) Limited; TTE Technology,
`Inc. (d/b/a TCL North America); TTE
`Corporation; TCL Moka International
`Limited; TCL Moka Manufacturing S.A. de
`C.V.; TCL King Electrical Appliances
`(Huizhou) Co. Ltd.; Manufacturas Avanzadas
`S.A. de C.V.; TCL Smart Device (Vietnam)
`Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen TCL New Technology
`Co., Ltd.; TCL Optoelectronics Technology
`(Huizhou) Co., Ltd.; TCL Overseas
`Marketing Ltd.; and TCL Technology Group
`Corporation (f/k/a TCL Corp.),
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-00122
`
`PLAINTIFF LG ELECTRONICS
`INC.’S PATENT L.R. 3-1 AND 3-2
`DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED
`CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT
`CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S LOCAL PATENT RULES 3-1 AND 3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`Plaintiff LG Electronics Inc. (hereinafter, “LGE” or “Plaintiff”), pursuant to Local Patent
`
`Rule 3-1 and Local Patent Rule 3-2 and the Scheduling Orders entered in this case (Dkt. No. 41),
`
`submits its Disclosure of Asserted Claims, Infringement Contentions, and contentions regarding
`
`LGE products, as well as the required document production with respect to Defendants TCL
`
`Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.); TCL Industries
`
`Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Industries Holdings (H.K.) Limited; TTE Technology, Inc. (d/b/a TCL
`
`North America); TTE Corporation; TCL Moka International Limited; TCL Moka Manufacturing
`
`S.A. de C.V.; TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co. Ltd.; Manufacturas Avanzadas S.A.
`
`
`
` 
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 2 of 25
`
`

`

`de C.V.; TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen TCL New Technology Co., Ltd.; TCL
`
`Optoelectronics Technology (Huizhou) Co., Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.; and TCL
`
`Technology Group Corporation (f/k/a TCL Corp.) (collectively “TCL” or “Defendants”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Based on LGE’s review of publicly available information and an analysis of Defendants’
`
`accused systems and methods, LGE presents these Infringement Contentions. In making these
`
`disclosures and preliminary infringement contentions, LGE notes that it has not yet received any
`
`discovery from any Defendant regarding their accused products, or their methods and systems.
`
`Accordingly, all information contained in this Disclosure and accompanying Exhibits is the result
`
`of publicly available information and independent examination and analysis of the accused
`
`instrumentalities of each Defendant. Certain information about the operation of such accused
`
`instrumentalities is not available without engaging in further discovery.
`
`Accordingly, LGE reserves the right to modify, amend, and/or supplement any of its
`
`Disclosures of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions to the extent permitted by the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Patent Rules of this Court, and any Order of this Court.
`
`LGE specifically reserves the right to modify, amend, and/or supplement any of its identification
`
`of asserted claims and/or infringement contentions due not only to discovery obtained from any
`
`Defendants, but also discovery obtained from any third parties, voluntary disclosures by any
`
`Defendants or third parties, any of Defendants’ contentions and pleadings/briefs/declarations (and
`
`exhibits thereto), the issuance of a claim construction ruling by the Court, or for any other reason
`
`permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Local Patent Rules of this Court
`
`and/or any Order of this Court.
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 3 of 25
`
`

`

`II.
`
`LOCAL PATENT RULE 3-1 DISCLOSURES AND CONTENTIONS
`
`A.
`
`CLAIMS INFRINGED (Local Patent Rule 3-1(a))
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3-1(a), LGE identifies the following patents (hereinafter,
`
`the “Patents-in-Suit”) and the following claims of the Patents-in-Suit (hereinafter, “Asserted
`
`Claims”) that the Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe:
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,982,803
`(the “’803 patent”)
`
`7,839,452
`(the “’452 patent”)
`10,334,311
`(the “’311 patent”)
`
`9,080,740
`(the “’740 patent”)
`9,788,346
`(the “’346 patent”)
`
`10,499,431
`(the “’431 patent”)
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`1, 2, 6-10, 13, 14, 16
`
`1-3, 5-17, 19-21, 23
`
`1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14,
`15, 16, 18, 20, 21
`
`1-3, 7-29, 31
`
`9-10, 12-14, 16
`
`1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-16
`
`Title
`
`Audio and Video
`Synchronizing Apparatus and
`Method
`Image Display Device in
`Digital TV
`Method of Providing External
`Device List and Image
`Display Device
`Planar Lighting Device
`
`Channel Access Method for
`Very High Throughput
`(VHT) Wireless Local Access
`Network System and Station
`Supporting the Channel
`Access Method
`Channel Access Method for
`Very High Throughput
`(VHT) Wireless Local Access
`Network System and Station
`Supporting the Channel
`Access Method
`
`B.
`
`ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES (Local Patent Rule 3-1(b))
`1. U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803
`
`For U.S. Patent No. 7,982,803, the Accused Instrumentalities include TCL televisions that
`
`
`
`
`
`include an infringing audio passthrough feature, including but not limited to the TCL model
`
`numbers identified in the chart below. Each of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in the chart
`
`below infringes claims 1, 2, 6-10, 13, 14, and 16 of the ’803 patent, as explained in more detail in
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 4 of 25
`
`

`

`LGE’s Patent L.R. 3-1(c) Disclosures and attached claims charts. LGE also accuses all other TCL
`
`televisions (made, used, sold, imported, or offered for sale by or for TCL during the damages
`
`period for the ’803 patent) that are insubstantially different (or which have substantially the same
`
`structure and/or operation and achieve substantially the same function and/or result), with respect
`
`to the asserted claims of the ’803 patent, from any of the TCL model televisions set forth below.
`
`Series
`
`Model(s)
`
`3-Series
`
`32S331; 32S335
`
`4-Series
`
`43S435; 50S435; 55S435; 65S435; 75S435; 85S435; 43S431; 50S431; 55S431;
`
`65S431; 75S431; 43S433; 75S433; 43S455; 55S455; 65S455; 75S455; 50S455;
`
`55S21
`
`5-Series
`
`55S531; 65S531; 50S535; 55S535; 65S535; 75S535
`
`6-Series
`
`55R635; 65R635; 75R635; 65R648; 75R648
`
`7-Series
`
`85R745
`
`
`
`
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 7,839,452
`
`For U.S. Patent No. 7,839,452, each of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in Chart
`
`452A below infringes claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, and 23 of the ’452 patent, and each
`
`of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in Chart 452B below infringes claims 6, 8, 13, and 15
`
`of the ’452 patent. The Accused Instrumentalities include all TCL televisions that include the
`
`infringing 4K upscaling operation, including but not limited to the TCL model numbers identified
`
`in the chart below. The infringement of claims 1-3, 5-17, 19-21, and 23 of the ’452 patent is
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 5 of 25
`
`

`

`explained in more detail in LGE’s Patent L.R. 3-1(c) Disclosures and attached claims charts. LGE
`
`also accuses all other TCL televisions (made, used, sold, imported, or offered for sale by or for
`
`TCL during the damages period for the ’452 patent) that are insubstantially different (or which
`
`have substantially the same structure and/or operation and achieve substantially the same function
`
`and/or result), with respect to the asserted claims of the ’452 patent, from any of the TCL model
`
`televisions set forth below.
`
`Chart 452A – Accused Instrumentalities for Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, and 23
`
`Series
`
`Model(s)
`
`4-Series
`
`43S403; 43S405; 43S421; 43S423; 43S425; 43S431; 43S433; 43S434; 43S435;
`
`43S446; 43S455; 49S403; 49S405; 49S425; 50S421; 50S423; 50S425; 50S431;
`
`50S434; 50S435; 50S446; 50S455; 55S20; 55S21; 55S401; 55S403; 55S405;
`
`55S421; 55S423; 55S425; 55S431; 55S433; 55S434; 55S435; 55S446; 55S455;
`
`65S401; 65S403; 65S405; 65S421; 65S423; 65S425; 65S431; 65S434; 65S435;
`
`65S446; 65S455; 70S430; 70S434; 75S421; 75S423; 75S425; 75S431; 75S433;
`
`75S434; 75S435; 75S446; 75S455; 85S435; 85S446
`
`5-Series
`
`43S513;43S515; 43S517; 43S525; 49S513; 49S515; 49S517; 50S525; 50S535;
`
`50S546; 55S513; 55S515; 55S517; 55S525; 55S531; 55S535; 55S546; 65S513;
`
`65S515; 65S517; 65S525; 65S531; 65S535; 65S546; 75S535; 75S546
`
`6-Series
`
`55R613; 55R615; 55R617; 55R625; 55R635; 55R646; 65R615; 65R617;
`
`65R625; 65R635; 65R646; 75R615; 75R617; 75R635; 75R646
`
`7-Series
`
`85R745
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 6 of 25
`
`

`

`8-Series
`
`65Q825; 75Q825.
`
`Chart 452B – Accused Instrumentalities for Claims 6, 8, 13 and 15
`
`Series
`
`Model(s)
`
`4-Series
`
`43S403; 43S405; 43S421 ; 43S423; 43S425; 43S431; 43S433; 43S435; 43S455;
`
`49S403; 49S405; 49S425; 50S421; 50S423; 50S425; 50S431; 50S435; 50S455;
`
`55S20; 55S21; 55S401; 55S403; 55S405; 55S421; 55S423; 55S425; 55S431;
`
`55S433; 55S435; 55S455; 65S401; 65S403; 65S405; 65S421; 65S423; 65S425;
`
`65S431; 65S435; 65S455; 75S421; 75S423; 75S425; 75S431; 75S433; 75S435;
`
`75S455; 85S435
`
`5-Series
`
`43S513; 43S515; 43S517; 43S525; 49S513; 49S515; 49S517; 50S525; 50S535;
`
`55S513; 55S515; 55S517; 55S525; 55S531; 55S535; 65S513; 65S515; 65S517;
`
`65S525; 65S531 ; 65S535; 75S535
`
`6-Series
`
`55R613; 55R615; 55R617; 55R625; 55R635; 65R615; 65R617; 65R625;
`
`65R635; 75R615; 75R617; 75R635
`
`7-Series
`
`85R745
`
`8-Series
`
`65Q825; 75Q825
`
`
`
`
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 10, 334,311
`
`For U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311, each of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in the
`
`chart below infringes all of the asserted claims of the ’311 patent as identified above in section 3-
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 7 of 25
`
`

`

`1(a). The Accused Instrumentalities include TCL Roku television models which include the
`
`infringing icon feature, including but not limited to the model numbers identified in the chart
`
`below. Each of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in the chart below infringes claims 1, 3,
`
`4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21 of the ’311 patent, as explained in more detail in
`
`LGE’s Patent L.R. 3-1(c) Disclosures and attached claims charts. LGE also accuses all other TCL
`
`televisions (made, used, sold, imported, or offered for sale by or for TCL during the damages
`
`period for the ’311 patent) that are insubstantially different (or which have substantially the same
`
`structure and/or operation and achieve substantially the same function and/or result), with respect
`
`to the asserted claims of the ’311 patent, from any of the TCL model televisions set forth below.
`
`Series
`
`Model(s)
`
`3-Series
`
`28S305; 32S305; 32S321; 32S323; 32S325; 32S327; 32S331; 32S335; 40S305;
`
`40S325; 43S305; 43S325; 49S305; 49S325
`
`4-Series
`
`43S403; 43S405; 43S421; 43S423; 43S425; 43S431; 43S433; 43S435; 43S455;
`
`49S403; 49S405; 49S425; 50S421; 50S423; 50S425; 50S431; 50S435; 50S455;
`
`55S20; 55S21; 55S401; 55S403; 55S405; 55S421; 55S423; 55S425; 55S431;
`
`55S433; 55S435; 55S455; 65S401; 65S403; 65S405; 65S421; 65S423; 65S425;
`
`65S435; 75S421; 75S423; 75S425; 75S431; 75S433; 75S435; 75S455; 85S435
`
`5-Series
`
`43S513; 43S515; 43S517; 43S525; 49S513; 49S515; 49S517; 50S525; 50S535;
`
`55S513; 55S515; 55S517; 55S525; 55S531; 55S535; 65S513; 65S515; 65S517;
`
`65S535; 75S535
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 8 of 25
`
`

`

`6-Series
`
`55R613; 55R615; 55R617; 55R625; 55R635; 65R615; 65R617; 65R625;
`
`65R635; 65R648; 75R615; 75R617; 75R635
`
`7-Series
`
`85R745
`
`
`
`8-Series
`
`65Q825
`
`
`
`4. U.S. Patent No. 9,080,740
`
`For U.S. Patent No. 9,080,740, each of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in Chart
`
`740A below infringes claims 1 and 7-21 of the ’740 patent, each of the Accused Instrumentalities
`
`identified in Chart 740B below infringes claims 2-3 and 22-29 of the ’740 patent, and each of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities identified in Chart 740C below infringe claim 31 of the ’740 patent. The
`
`Accused Instrumentalities include TCL televisions with infringing backlight structures, including
`
`but not limited to the model numbers identified in the chart below. The infringement of claims 1-
`
`3, 7-29, and 31 of the ’740 patent is explained in more detail in LGE’s Patent L.R. 3-1(c)
`
`Disclosures and attached claims charts. LGE also accuses all other TCL televisions (made, used,
`
`sold, imported, or offered for sale by or for TCL during the damages period for the ’740 patent)
`
`that are insubstantially different (or which have substantially the same structure and/or operation
`
`and achieve substantially the same function and/or result), with respect to the asserted claims of
`
`the ’740 patent, from any of the TCL model televisions set forth below.
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 9 of 25
`
`

`

`Chart 740A – Accused Instrumentalities for Claims 1 and 7-21
`
`Series
`
`Model(s)
`
`3-Series
`
`28S305; 32S21; 32S305; 32S321; 32S323; 32S325; 32S327; 32S330; 32S331;
`
`32S334; 32S335; 40S305; 40S325; 40S330; 40S334; 43S305; 43S325; 43S334
`
`4-Series
`
`43S403; 43S405; 43S421; 43S423; 43S425; 43S431; 43S433; 43S434; 43S435;
`43S446; 43S455; 50S434; 50S435; 50S446; 50S455; 55S20; 55S21; 55S431;
`
`55S433; 55S434; 55S435; 55S446; 55S455; 65S434; 65S435; 65S446; 65S455;
`
`70S434; 75S433; 75S434; 75S435; 75S446; 75S455; 85S435; 85S446
`
`5-Series
`
`43S525
`
`
`
`Chart 740B – Accused Instrumentalities for Claims 2-3 and 22-29
`
`Series
`
`Model(s)
`
`3-Series
`
`40S305; 40S325; 40S330; 40S334; 43S305; 43S325; 43S334
`
`4-Series
`
`43S403; 43S405; 43S421; 43S423; 43S425; 43S431; 43S433; 43S434; 43S435;
`43S446; 43S455; 50S434; 50S435; 50S446; 50S455; 55S20; 55S21; 55S431;
`
`55S433; 55S434; 55S435; 55S446; 55S455; 65S434; 65S435; 65S446; 65S455;
`
`70S434; 75S433; 75S434; 75S435; 75S446; 75S455; 85S435; 85S446
`
`5-Series
`
`43S525
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 10 of 25
`
`

`

`Chart 740C – Accused Instrumentalities for Claim 31
`
`Series
`
`Model(s)
`
`4-Series
`
`55S20; 55S21; 55S431; 55S433; 55S434; 55S435; 55S446; 55S455; 65S434;
`
`65S435; 65S446; 65S455; 70S434; 75S433; 75S434; 75S435; 75S446; 75S455;
`
`85S435; 85S446
`
`
`
`
`
`5. U.S. Patent No. 9,788,346
`
`For U.S. Patent No. 9,788,346, each of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in the chart
`
`below infringes all of the asserted claims of the ’346 patent as identified above in section 3-1(a).
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include all TCL televisions that comply with the 802.11ac
`
`amendment to the Wi-Fi standard, including but not limited to the TCL model numbers identified
`
`in the chart below. Each of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in the chart below infringes
`
`claims 9-10, 12-14, 16 of the ’346 patent, as explained in more detail in LGE’s Patent L.R. 3-1(c)
`
`Disclosures and attached claims charts. LGE also accuses all other TCL televisions (made, used,
`
`sold, imported, or offered for sale by or for TCL during the damages period for the ’346 patent)
`
`that are insubstantially different (or which have substantially the same structure and/or operation
`
`and achieve substantially the same function and/or result), with respect to the asserted claims of
`
`the ’346 patent, from any of the TCL model televisions set forth below.
`
`Series
`
`Model(s)
`
`3-Series
`
`32S321; 32S325; 32S327; 32S331; 32S335; 40S325; 43S325; 49S325
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 11 of 25
`
`

`

`4-Series
`
`43S455; 55S455; 65S455; 75S455; 43S403; 43S405; 43S421; 43S423; 43S425;
`
`43S431; 43S433; 43S434; 43S435; 43S446; 49S403; 49S405; 49S425; 50S421;
`
`50S423; 50S425; 50S431; 50S434; 50S435; 50S446; 55S401; 55S403; 55S405;
`
`55S20; 55S21; 55S421; 55S423; 55S425; 55S431; 55S433; 55S434; 55S435;
`
`55S446; 65S401; 65S403; 65S405; 65S421; 65S423; 65S425; 65S431; 65S434;
`
`50S455; 65S435; 65S446; 70S430; 70S434; 75S421; 75S423; 75S425; 75S431;
`
`75S433; 75S434; 75S435; 75S446; 85S435; 85S446
`
`5-Series
`
`55S531; 65S531; 43S513; 43S515; 43S517; 43S525; 49S513; 49S515; 49S517;
`
`50S525; 50S535; 55S513; 55S515; 55S517; 55S525; 55S535; 65S513; 65S515;
`
`65S517; 65S525; 65S535; 75S535
`
`6-Series
`
`55R613; 55R615; 55R617; 55R625; 55R635; 55R646; 65R615; 65R617;
`
`65R625; 65R635; 65R646; 65R648; 75R615; 75R617; 75R635; 75R646;
`
`75R648
`
`7-Series
`
`85R745; 98R754
`
`8-Series
`
`65Q825; 75Q825
`
`9-Series
`
`85X925
`
`
`
`
`
`6. U.S. Patent No. 10,499,431
`
`For U.S. Patent No. 10,499,431, each of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in the
`
`chart below infringes all of the asserted claims of the ’431 patent as identified above in section 3-
`
`1(a). The Accused Instrumentalities include TCL televisions which comply with the 802.11ac
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 12 of 25
`
`

`

`amendment to the Wi-Fi standard, including but not limited to the model numbers identified in the
`
`chart below. Each of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in the chart below infringes claims
`
`1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-16 of the ’346 patent, as explained in more detail in LGE’s Patent L.R. 3-
`
`1(c) Disclosures and attached claims charts. LGE also accuses all other TCL televisions (made,
`
`used, sold, imported, or offered for sale by or for TCL during the damages period for the ’431
`
`patent) that are insubstantially different (or which have substantially the same structure and/or
`
`operation and achieve substantially the same function and/or result), with respect to the asserted
`
`claims of the ’346 patent, from any of the TCL model televisions set forth below.
`
`Series
`
`Model(s)
`
`3-Series
`
`32S321; 32S325; 32S327; 32S331; 32S335; 40S325; 43S325; 49S325
`
`4-Series
`
`43S455; 55S455; 65S455; 75S455; 43S403; 43S405; 43S421; 43S423; 43S425;
`
`43S431; 43S433; 43S434; 43S435; 43S446; 49S403; 49S405; 49S425; 50S421;
`
`50S423; 50S425; 50S431; 50S434; 50S435; 50S446; 55S401; 55S403; 55S405;
`
`55S20; 55S21; 55S421; 55S423; 55S425; 55S431; 55S433; 55S434; 55S435;
`
`55S446; 65S401; 65S403; 65S405; 65S421; 65S423; 65S425; 65S431; 65S434;
`
`50S455; 65S435; 65S446; 70S430; 70S434; 75S421; 75S423; 75S425; 75S431;
`
`75S433; 75S434; 75S435; 75S446; 85S435; 85S446
`
`5-Series
`
`55S531; 65S531; 43S513; 43S515; 43S517; 43S525; 49S513; 49S515; 49S517;
`
`50S525; 50S535; 55S513; 55S515; 55S517; 55S525; 55S535; 65S513; 65S515;
`
`65S517; 65S525; 65S535; 75S535
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 13 of 25
`
`

`

`6-Series
`
`55R613; 55R615; 55R617; 55R625; 55R635; 55R646; 65R615; 65R617;
`
`65R625; 65R635; 65R646; 65R648; 75R615; 75R617; 75R635; 75R646;
`
`75R648
`
`7-Series
`
`85R745; 98R754
`
`8-Series
`
`65Q825; 75Q825
`
`9-Series
`
`85X925
`
`
`
`Further Accused Instrumentalities
`
`
`
`LGE has compiled the preceding identification of the Accused Instrumentalities (for each
`
`Asserted Patent) from the information currently available without the benefit of any discovery
`
`from any Defendants or third parties in this action. There may be additional TCL products that
`
`infringe the Asserted Claims, which are currently unknown to LGE, or additional TCL products
`
`that are made, used, imported, sold, or offered for sale in the future and that infringe the Asserted
`
`Claims, and for these reasons are not specifically identified above. LGE reserves the right to
`
`modify, amend, and/or supplement
`
`the above
`
`identification with additional Accused
`
`Instrumentalities.
`
`C.
`
`INFRINGEMENT CHARTS (Local Patent Rule 3-1(c))
`LGE attaches a set of charts identifying specifically where each element of each of the
`
`
`
`Asserted Claims is found within Defendants’ Accused Instrumentalities as follows: Exhibit A (the
`
`’803 patent), Exhibit B (the ’452 patent), Exhibit C (the ’311 patent), Exhibit D (the ’740 patent),
`
`Exhibit E (the ’346 patent), Exhibit F (the ’431 patent), and the Appendices to those Exhibits.
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 14 of 25
`
`

`

`
`
`LGE reserves the right to amend or supplement these charts, or to generate additional
`
`charts, based on discovery from Defendants or any third parties, any of Defendants’ disclosures,
`
`any voluntary disclosures from any third parties, facts or evidence learned during this case, any of
`
`Defendants’ contentions, admissions, pleadings, briefs, or exhibits to any such filings, the issuance
`
`of a claim construction ruling by the Court, or for any other reason permitted under the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Local Rules of this Court and/or any Order of this Court.
`
`D.
`
`STATEMENT OF INFRINGEMENT (Local Patent Rule 3-1(d))
`
`
`
`Defendants directly infringe the Asserted Claims by importing, making, using, offering for
`
`sale, and/or selling the Accused Instrumentalities. For example, in addition to selling Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, Defendants’ direct infringement includes any testing, quality assurance, and/or
`
`refurbishment of the Accused Instrumentalities performed in the United States.
`
`Based on its current understanding of the claim language (prior to claim construction) and
`
`publicly available information pertaining to the Accused Instrumentalities, and without notice of
`
`any non-infringement positions from Defendants in this case to date, LGE asserts that Defendants
`
`literally infringe each element, limitation, and/or step of the Asserted Claims as set forth herein
`
`(including the claims charts attached hereto) and thus the Accused Instrumentalities literally
`
`infringe the Asserted Claims.
`
`Additionally, for any claim element, limitation, or step that is deemed to be not literally
`
`infringed by any of the Accused Instrumentalities, LGE asserts that such claim element, limitation,
`
`or step is also satisfied under the doctrine of equivalents because any difference between any such
`
`claim element, limitation, or step and the Accused Instrumentalities is insubstantial. In other
`
`words, the Accused Instrumentalities perform substantially the same function, in substantially the
`
`same way, to achieve substantially the same result, as each such element, limitation, or step of the
`
`Asserted Claims (and as set forth in the claim charts attached hereto). For example, with respect
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 15 of 25
`
`

`

`to claim 3 of the ’740 patent, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a spacer which performs
`
`substantially the same function (e.g., exhibiting light transmission, refraction, or reflection), in
`
`substantially the same way (e.g., a transparent or semi-transparent object which exhibits light
`
`transmission, refraction, or reflection), to achieve substantially the same result (e.g., light is
`
`transmitted, refracted, or reflected). As another example, with respect to claim 10 of the ’740
`
`patent, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a combination of an adhesive connecting the
`
`reflection layer to the lower cover and a black adhesive connecting the circuit substrate to the lower
`
`cover thereby fixing the reflection layer and the circuit substrate relative to each other, and
`
`performing substantially the same function (e.g., fixing the reflection layer and circuit substrate
`
`relative to each other), in substantially the same way (e.g., adhesives), to achieve substantially the
`
`same result (e.g., the reflection layer is fixed to the circuit substrate). As discovery has not yet
`
`begun and the Court has not issued a claim construction Order, LGE reserves the right to rely on
`
`the doctrine of equivalents at trial.
`
`Defendants also indirectly infringe the Asserted Claims in violation of §271(b) by taking
`
`active steps to encourage and facilitate direct infringement by third parties, including users,
`
`partners, affiliates, subsidiaries, and service providers, in the United States with knowledge and
`
`the specific intent that its efforts would result in the direct infringement of the Asserted Claims.
`
`For example, as discussed in the Complaint and Answer, Defendants licensed patents from
`
`Plaintiff for several years, which confirms that Defendants understood that their products used
`
`technology covered by Plaintiff’s patents. In addition, Defendants have been aware of the ’803
`
`patent since at least June 4, 2021, and Defendants received a claim chart for the ’803 patent no
`
`later than June 4, 2021. Defendants have been aware of the ’452 patent since at least January 16,
`
`2019, and Defendants received a claim chart for the ’452 patent no later than March 9, 2020.
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 16 of 25
`
`

`

`Defendants have been aware of the ’311 patent since at least January 20, 2020, and Defendants
`
`received a claim chart for the ’311 patent no later than March 9, 2020. Defendants have been aware
`
`of the ’740 patent since at least June 4, 2021, and Defendants received a claim chart for the ’740
`
`patent no later than June 4, 2021. Defendants have been aware of the ’346 patent since at least
`
`January 16, 2019, and Defendants received a claim chart for the ’346 patent no later than March
`
`9, 2020. Defendants have been aware of the’431 patent, since at least March 9, 2020. After
`
`receiving such notice and ceasing to pay for a license, Defendants continued to encourage others
`
`to import, make, use, offer for sale, and/or sell televisions infringing upon the Asserted Claims.
`
`Evidence of such ongoing activities includes Defendants’ participation in trade shows such as the
`
`Consumer Electronics Show
`
`in
`
`January 2020
`
`and
`
`January 2022. See
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.tcl.com/eu/en/ces-2022;
`
`https://www.tcl.com/ces2020;
`
`and
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBTLalS_eyM. Further evidence of Defendants ongoing
`
`efforts to encourage others to infringe the Asserted Claims may include (without limitation)
`
`advertisements and promotional material for televisions that infringe the Asserted Claims, user
`
`guides and manuals for such televisions, and/or agreements with distributors for such televisions.
`
`Defendants further infringe the Asserted Claims in violation of §271(f) by exporting parts
`
`from the United States to one or more facilities in other countries (e.g., a factory in Mexico), with
`
`the intention that such parts be combined in a manner that would infringe the Asserted Claims if
`
`done in the United States.
`
`LGE reserves the right to amend or supplement its infringement statement and this
`
`disclosure, based on or in response to Defendants’ P.R. 3-4 production and disclosures, after claim
`
`terms are construed, after receiving Defendants’ source code and other confidential document
`
`productions, after receiving Defendants’ non-infringement contentions, after receiving
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 17 of 25
`
`

`

`Defendants’ disclosures and any voluntary disclosures from any third parties, after receiving
`
`discovery of additional information regarding Defendants’ infringement from either Defendants
`
`or any third parties, after receiving any pleadings, briefs, or exhibits to any such filings, or as
`
`permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Local Patent Rules of this Court
`
`and/or any Order of this Court.
`
`E. PRIORITY DATE (Local Patent Rule 3-1(e))
`
`
`
`Based on the presently available information and its investigations to date, LGE contends
`
`that conception of the subject matter of the Asserted Claims occurred as follows:
`
`
`
`The ’803 patent issued from U.S. application No. 11/401,798 that was filed on April 10,
`
`2006, properly claims priority to Korean application No. 10-2005-0031350 that was filed on April
`
`15, 2005. Therefore, the asserted claims of the ’803 patent are entitled to a priority date of at least
`
`no later than April 15, 2005. Furthermore, the date of conception for the asserted claims of the
`
`’803 patent is at least October 14, 2004, as demonstrated in documents being produced as part of
`
`this disclosure. Thus, LGE asserts that the priority date of the asserted claims of the ’803 patent is
`
`at least as early as October 14, 2004.
`
`
`
`The ’452 patent, issued from U.S. application No. 11/785,524 that was filed on April 18,
`
`2007, properly claims priority to U.S. application No. 11/374,112 that was filed on March 14,
`
`2006, which properly claims priority to U.S. application No. 09/922,863 that was filed on August
`
`7, 2001, which properly claims priority to Korean application No. 2000-45807 that was filed on
`
`August 8, 2000. Therefore, the asserted claims of the ’452 patent are entitled to a priority date of
`
`at least no later than August 8, 2000.
`
`The ’311 patent, issued from U.S. application No. 15/788,510 that was filed on October
`
`19, 2017, properly claims priority to U.S. application No. 15/390,198 that was filed on December
`
`23, 2016, which properly claims priority to U.S. application No. 13/535,735 that was filed on June
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 18 of 25
`
`

`

`28, 2012, which properly claims priority to Korean application No. 10-2011-0088863 that was
`
`filed on September 2, 2011. Therefore, the asserted claims of the ’311 patent are entitled to a
`
`priority date of at least no later than September 2, 2011. Furthermore, the date of conception for
`
`the asserted claims of the ’311 patent is at least May 25, 2011, as demonstrated in documents being
`
`produced as part of this disclosure. Thus, LGE asserts that the priority date of the asserted claims
`
`of the ’311 patent is at least as early as May 25, 2011.
`
`The ’740 patent, issued from application No. 14/455,569 that was filed on August 8, 2014,
`
`properly claims priority to U.S. application No. 14/161,284 that was filed on January 22, 2014,
`
`which properly claims priority to Korean application No. 10-2013-0007294 that was filed on
`
`January 23, 2013. Therefore, the asserted claims of the ’740 patent are entitled to a priority date of
`
`at least no later than January 23, 2013. Furthermore, the date of conception for the asserted claims
`
`of the ’740 patent is at least September 7, 2012, as demonstrated in documents being produced as
`
`part of this disclosure. Thus, LGE asserts that the priority date of the asserted claims of the ’740
`
`patent is at least as early as September 7, 2012.
`
`
`
`The ’346 patent, issued from application No. 15/357,438 that was filed on November 21,
`
`2016, properly claims priority to U.S. application No. 14/800,425 that was filed on July 15, 2015,
`
`which properly claims priority to U.S. application No. 14/579,286 that was filed on December 22,
`
`2014, which properly claims priority to U.S. application 12/999,836 that was filed as application
`
`No. PCT/KR2009/003264 on June 18, 2009, which properly claims priority to Korean application
`
`No. 10-2008-0057246 that was filed on June 18, 2008. Therefore, the asserted claims of the ’346
`
`patent are entitled to a priority date of at least no later than June 18, 2008. Furthermore, the date
`
`of conception for the asserted claims of the ’346 patent is at least June 4, 2008, as demonstrated in
`
`
`
` 
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 – TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd.
`TCL Indus Holdings Co., Ltd. v. LGE – IPR2023-00240
`Page 19 of 25
`
`

`

`documents being produced as part of this disclosure. Thus, LGE asserts that the priority date of
`
`the asserted claims of the ’346 patent is at least as early as June 4, 2008.
`
`
`
`The ’431 patent, issued from application No. 15/708,50