Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 25 of 77
`
`LCD's construction improperly limits
`In the Court's view,
`the constraining portion "to a passage through the film" and "a
`gap." This is contrary to the specification which expressly
`contemplates that a constraining portion may be a "groove" which
`does not equate with a "gap." v157 patent, col. 2, 11. 27-30,
`63-65, col. 4, 11. 7-16.
`first position / second position
`With respect to the first and second orientations described
`in these terms, LCD argues that the first supporting portion or
`position must be located near an upper edge of the frame. LCD
`and AUG generally agree that the second position is determined by
`reference to the first position, but to the extent LCD's
`construction of the second position depends from its upper frame
`requirement of the first position, AUG contends that LCD's
`construction is incorrect. According to AUG, there is no upper
`edge location requirement and the first position is simply an
`initial position.
`D.I. 1383 at
`513-516.
`The Court agrees with AUG and concludes that no such upper
`edge limitation exists in the claim. In the Court's view,
`adopting LCD's proposal in this regard would improperly limit the
`claims to the preferred embodiments. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
`Medrad. Inc.. 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . Accordingly,
`the Court concludes that a first position means "an initial
`position of a liquid crystal display unit" and a "second
`
`23
`
`Page 1351 of 1919
`
`
`
`LCD's construction improperly limits
`In the Court's view,
`the constraining portion "to a passage through the film" and "a
`gap." This is contrary to the specification which expressly
`contemplates that a constraining portion may be a "groove" which
`does not equate with a "gap." v157 patent, col. 2, 11. 27-30,
`63-65, col. 4, 11. 7-16.
`first position / second position
`With respect to the first and second orientations described
`in these terms, LCD argues that the first supporting portion or
`position must be located near an upper edge of the frame. LCD
`and AUG generally agree that the second position is determined by
`reference to the first position, but to the extent LCD's
`construction of the second position depends from its upper frame
`requirement of the first position, AUG contends that LCD's
`construction is incorrect. According to AUG, there is no upper
`edge location requirement and the first position is simply an
`initial position.
`D.I. 1383 at
`513-516.
`The Court agrees with AUG and concludes that no such upper
`edge limitation exists in the claim. In the Court's view,
`adopting LCD's proposal in this regard would improperly limit the
`claims to the preferred embodiments. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
`Medrad. Inc.. 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . Accordingly,
`the Court concludes that a first position means "an initial
`position of a liquid crystal display unit" and a "second
`
`23
`
`Page 1351 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 26 of 77
`
`position" means "the position determined by reference to the
`angle of rotation between the first and second position."
`d. does not contact
`LGD contends that the phrase "does not contact" means "does
`not touch;" however, LGD further explains that this "requires
`that a supporting portion does not touch a constraining portion
`when in a non-supporting position, including when the film
`expands or contracts due to temperature variation." D.I. 1388 at
`if 681. AUO contends that this phrase should be construed
`according to its plain meaning and should not include any thermal
`expansion and contraction limitations. In this regard, AUO
`points out that such limitations are included in dependent claim
`9, and therefore, the doctrine of claim differentiation should
`preclude claim 1 from being construed to include these additional
`limitations. D.I. 1384 at 40-41; D.I. 1440 at 17.
`Claim differentiation "refers to the presumption that an
`independent claim should not be construed as requiring a
`limitation added by a dependent claim." Curtiss-Wright Control
`Corp. v. Velan. Inc.. 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`However, claim construction positions based on claim
`differentiation are rebuttable, taking a secondary role if an
`alternate construction is dictated by the written description or
`prosecution history. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v.
`Dakocvtomation Cal. . Inc.. 517 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .
`
`24
`
`Page 1352 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 27 of 77
`
`After reviewing the claim language, specification and
`prosecution history, the Court concludes that the term "does not
`according to its
`contact" should be construed as AUG proposes,
`plain meaning without the additional temperature and thermal
`contraction and expansion limitations from claim 9 that inform
`LGD's proposed claim construction. Claim 9 depends on claim 1
`and adds the limitations that "when the frame is disposed in the
`second position, a first gap is formed between the first
`supporting portion and the first constraining portion, and the
`first gap is an allowance for film expansion or contraction due
`to temperature variation; when the frame is disposed in the first
`position, a second gap is formed between the second supporting
`portion and the second constraining portion, and the second gap
`is an allowance for film expansion or contraction due to
`temperature variation." '157 patent, col. 9, 11. 16-20. During
`prosecution of the application for the '157 patent, the Examiner
`did not require the applicant to combine the elements of claims 1
`and 9 into a single claim, and instead determined that claim 1
`was separately patentable without any of the limitations of claim
`AUO-10 at AUO-LGD 0001333, 0001452, 0001487-88; Tr. 1202:21-
`1203:6 (Smith-Gillespie). LGD points out that the embodiments of
`the '157 patent refer to thermal considerations, however
`limitations from the specification should not be read into
`claims.
`Claim 1 has no limitation relating to thermal expansion
`
`25
`
`Page 1353 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 28 of 77
`
`or contraction, and the Court is persuaded that, consistent with
`the doctrine of claim differentiation, claim 1 should not be read
`in a manner so as to incorporate the limitations of claim 9.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,090,506 (the "*506 patent")
`4
`AUG asserts claim 7 and 17 of the
`'506 patent.
`Claim 7 is a
`dependent claim that depends on independent claim 1. Claim 17 is
`also an independent claim. Accordingly, the relevant claims of
`the '506 patent provide, in full:
`1. A signal transmission device, connecting a display
`module and a system, comprising: a first flexible
`printed circuit board, electrically connecting the
`display module and the system and a second flexible
`printed circuit board, electrically connecting the
`display module and the first flexible printed circuit
`board, wherein the first and second flexible printed
`circuit boards are joined by hot bar soldering.
`7. The signal transmission device as claimed in claim
`1, wherein the second flexible printed circuit board
`transmits a light source signal.
`17. A signal transmission device, connecting an display
`module and a system, comprising: a first flexible
`printed circuit board, electrically connecting the
`display module and the system; and a second flexible
`printed circuit board, electrically connecting the
`display module and the first flexible printed circuit
`board, wherein the first flexible printed circuit board
`has a first alignment mark, and the second flexible
`printed circuit board has a second alignment mark
`overlapped with and aligned to the first alignment
`mark.
`The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`'506 patent is a person with a bachelors degree in
`of the
`mechanical engineering or physics and several years of experience
`working with aspects of liquid crystal display, or the equivalent
`
`26
`
`Page 1354 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 29 of 77
`
`D.I. 1383 at f 571; Tr.
`
`combined education and work experience.
`227 :12-20 (Silzars) .
`the first and second flexible printed circuit
`boards are joined by hot bar soldering
`LGD contends that this term describes a process by which the
`circuit boards are joined
`and is thus, a process limitation.
`LGD contends that the term "the first and second flexible printed
`circuit boards are joined by hot bar soldering" means
`both flexible printed circuit boards are connected to
`each other by a soldering process where the circuit
`boards are heated with a bar to melt the solder at
`multiple points simultaneously along each circuit board
`while pressure is applied to the connection.
`D.I. 1388 at f 541.
`In response, AUO contends that this term is not a process
`limitation, but a structural limitation. In this regard, AUO
`contends that claim 1 does not include any of the typical
`product-by-process language and is a pure product claim defined
`solely by structural limitations. Thus, AUO contends that
`"joined by hot bar soldering" means "joined by solder material."
`D.I. 1384 at 45.
`Alternatively, AUO contends that if this term
`is construed as a process limitation.
`it should be construed as
`the first and second printed circuits made on flexible
`film are joined by a soldering process where the solder
`and flux are applied to the contact area and the
`contact area is heated with a bar to melt the solder.
`D.I. 376 at Exh. 0-4.
`AUO contends that LGD's construction is
`overly narrow, because hot bar soldering does not require
`
`27
`
`Page 1355 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 30 of 77
`
`"pressure" beyond that which is necessary to hold the two items
`being soldered together and does not require melting solder at
`"multiple" contact points.
`"Courts must generally take care to avoid reading process
`limitations into an apparatus claim . . .
`Baldwin Graphic
`Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir.
`2008) .
`"Even where terms are amenable to interpretation as a
`procedure of manufacture, apparent 'process' terms should be
`interpreted as structural limitations when used in an adjective
`non-process sense and define a physical characteristic of the
`apparatus."
`R2 Medical Svs., Inc. v. Katecho, Inc., 931 F. Supp.
`1392, 1425 n.5 (N.D. 111. 1996) (citing 2 Donald S. Chisum,
`Patents § 8.05[5], at 8-96 (1994)); Biacore v. Thermo Bioanalvsis
`Corp.. 79 F. Supp. 2d 422, 456 (D. Del. 1999) ("The mere use in a
`claim of structural or characterizing terms derived from
`processes or methods, however, does not prevent a claim from
`being considered a true product claim.")
`Considering the claim language in light of the specification
`and prosecution history, the Court concludes that the limitation
`"joined by hot bar soldering" does not amount to a process
`limitation, but instead describes the structural relationship
`between the first and second flexible printed circuit boards.
`Claim 1 of the '506 patent was distinguished over the prior art
`based on the limitation requiring that solder material join the
`
`28
`
`Page 1356 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 31 of 77
`
`// 3
`
`two flexible printed circuit boards rather than a foldable flat
`cable. AUO-12 at AUO-LGD 1948. Thus, the Court views the
`soldering described in this claim as a structural limitation.
`Accordingly, the Court construes the phrase "first and second
`printed circuit boards are joined by hot bar soldering" to mean
`that the "first and second printed circuit boards are joined by
`solder material.
`alignment mark
`b.
`During the claim construction proceedings in this case
`neither party proposed a construction for the term "alignment
`mark." However, it appears that post-trial the parties are now
`disputing the meaning of this term. According to LGD, a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand an "alignment mark"
`to "be a distinctive identifying feature that is provided solely
`for positioning of the flexible printed circuit boards during
`assembly."
`D.I. 1388 at H 544.
`In response, AUO contends that alignment marks can have more
`than one purpose. For example, they can function for both
`
`Even if the Court concludes that this phrase is a
`3
`process limitation, the Court concludes LCD's proposed
`construction is too narrow. In reaching this conclusion, the
`Court credits the testimony of Dr. Silzars regarding the hot bar
`soldering process. Specifically, Dr. Silzars explained that hot
`bar soldering requires applying a hot bar to a solder joint.
`However, this does not require that multiple joints be soldered
`simultaneously, and the Court finds no support for this
`additional limitation in the patent specification or prosecution
`history. Tr. 320:19-322:11, 336:11-18 (Silzars).
`
`29
`
`Page 1357 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 32 of 77
`
`positioning and bonding. Thus, AUO contends that LCD's
`definition of alignment marks is too restrictive, and "alignment
`marks" should be more broadly defined as patterns used for
`accurate positioning and connection of flexible printed circuit
`50 .
`boards.
`D.I. 1383 at nil 657-663; D.I. 1384 at 46
`Reviewing this claim term in light of the specification of
`the '506 patent, the Court concludes that AUO's more expansive
`definition is correct. The '506 patent discloses more than one
`type of alignment mark. For example, pad electrodes are
`disclosed on the first and second printed boards in Figure 3a.
`These pad electrodes serve as both alignment marks for
`positioning and as contact pads for bonding or electrically
`joining two flexible printed circuit boards.
`506 patent, col.
`2, 11. 26-38. Accordingly, the Court concludes that an alignment
`mark is a pattern used for accurate positioning and connection of
`flexible printed circuit boards.
`II. Direct Infringement
`Applicable Law
`A patent is infringed when a person "without authority
`makes, uses or sells any patented invention, within the United
`States during the term of the patent . .
`." 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a) .
`A patent owner may prove infringement under either of two
`literal infringement or the doctrine of equivalents.
`theories:
`Literal infringement occurs where each element of at least one
`
`30
`
`Page 1358 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 33 of 77
`
`claim of the patent is found in the alleged infringer's product.
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.. 836 F.2d 1329, 1330 n. 1
`(Fed. Cir. 1987); Robert L. Harmon, Patents and the Federal
`Circuit 195 & n. 31 (3d ed. 1994).
`"The doctrine of equivalents allows the patentee to claim
`those insubstantial alterations that were not captured in
`drafting the original patent claim but which could be created
`through trivial changes." Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo
`Kabushiki Co.. 535 U.S. 722, 733 (U.S. 2002) . "An element in the
`accused device is equivalent to a claim limitation if the only
`differences between the two are insubstantial." Honeywell Int11
`v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 370 F.3d 1131, 1139 (Fed. Cir.
`2004) . To prove infringement by the doctrine of equivalents, a
`patentee must provide "particularized testimony and linking
`argument" as to the "insubstantiality of the differences" between
`the claimed invention and the accused product, or with respect to
`the function/way/result test. See Texas Instruments Inc. v.
`Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`"[E]vidence and argument on the doctrine of equivalents cannot
`merely be subsumed in plaintiff's case of literal infringement."
`Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Sealv Mattress Co.. 873 F.2d 1422, 1425
`(Fed. Cir. 1989).
`Infringement is a two step inquiry. Step one requires a
`court to construe the disputed terms of the patent at issue.
`
`31
`
`Page 1359 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 34 of 77
`
`Construction of the claims is a question of law subject to de
`novo review. See Cvbor Corp. v. FAS Techs., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454
`(Fed. Cir. 1998) . Step two requires the fact-finder to compare
`the accused products with the properly construed claims of the
`patent. This second step is a question of fact. See Bai v. L &
`L Wings. Inc.. 160 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The party
`asserting infringement under either the theory of literal
`infringement or the doctrine of equivalents has the burden of
`proof and must meet its burden by a preponderance of the
`evidence. SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Lab. Corp., 859
`889 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
`F.2d 878
`Whether LGD Infringes claims 1 and 3 of AUO's
`Patent
`After comparing LCD's accused products with claims 1 and 3
`of the '160 patent
`the Court concludes that AUG has established
`by a preponderance of the evidence that LGD literally infringes
`the '160 patent.4 In reaching this conclusion, the Court credits
`the testimony of Dr. Silzars.
`
`' 160
`
`g
`
`LCD modules that include the New Monde chip are
`4
`representative of the accused products. Tr. 169:6-170:18
`(Silzars); AUO-1553. For purposes of infringement, the Court
`finds that there are no relevant differences between the LGD
`products that Dr. Silzars analyzed. Tr. 169:6-169:11 (Silzars).
`In addition, the accused LGD products that use overdrive are the
`same for purposes of infringement, based on Dr. Silzars'
`examination of the products and his analysis of the specification
`and the testimony of LGD witnesses. Tr. 169:12-23.
`
`32
`
`Page 1360 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 35 of 77
`
`Claim 1 Preamble: A liquid crystal display, comprising
`LGD does not dispute that this element of the claims is
`present in the accused devices, and the Court finds that LCD's
`accused display modules are liquid crystal displays. AUG-164 at
`1/51; AUG-859.
`Claim 1:
`an input logic for inputting a video signal
`from a host
`Page 1 of the New Monde specification shows that the New
`Monde timing controller chip includes LVDS input logic for
`inputting a video signal from a host.
`AUG-165 at 1/51; Tr.
`173:19-174:17 (Silzars). All of the timing controllers in the
`accused LGD modules receive an LVDS input through an input logic,
`the LVDS interface.
`AUG-1533 ; AUO-135 at 1/46; AUO-160 at 1/36;
`AUG 161 at 1/36; AUG 149 at 1/50; AUG 150 at 1/50; AUO-155 at
`2/41; AUG 156 at 2/41; AUO-157 at 1/35; AUO-158 at 1/35; AUO-159
`at 2/41; AUG-137 at 1/48; AUO-138 at 1/48; AUO-145 at 1/45; AUO-
`146 at 1/45; AUG-143 at 1/46; AUO-144 at 1/46; AUO-133 at 1/53;
`AUG-134 at 1/53; AUO-167 at 1/51; AUO-168 at 1/51; AUO-151 at
`1/51; AUO-152 at 1/51; AUO-153 at 2/35; AUO-154 at 2/35; AUO-162
`at 2/33; AUO-169 at 1/51; AUO-170 at 1/51; AUO-164 at 1/51; AUO-
`165 at 1/51; AUO-139 at 1/45; AUO-140 at 1/45; AUO-131 at 1/44;
`AUO-132 at 1/44; AUO-166 at 2/39; AUO-141 at 1/25; AUO-142 at
`1/25; AUO-147 at 1/47; AUO-148 at 1/47.
`
`33
`
`Page 1361 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 36 of 77
`
`Claim 1:
`storage for storing the previous brightness
`level of the video signal input through said input
`logic
`The Court finds that the accused devices meet this claim
`The frame memory is the "storage for storing." The
`element.
`system block diagram of New Monde includes a "frame memory"
`identified as the "Frame Memory SDRAM" in the System Block
`Diagram and as a Field Store in the Over Driving Scheme Diagram.
`Tr. 177:14-179:7 (Silzars); AUO-164/165 at 1/51 and 4/51. The
`frame memory stores the previous level of light intensity of the
`video signal input through the input logic. The frame memory
`temporarily holds the brightness level of the video signal
`received from the host through input logic for the previous time
`increment. Tr. 178:13-179:7 (Silzars); AUO-165 at 1. Each of
`the timing controller chips analyzed by Dr. Silzars is used in a
`system that includes a similar frame memory SDRAM, also called
`the Field Store in the Over Driving Scheme block diagram. AUO-
`1533; AUO-1553; AUO-135 at 1/46 and 4/46; AUO-136 at 1/46 and
`4/46; AUO-160 at 1/36 and 3/36; AUO-161 at 1/36 and 3/36; AUO-149
`at 150 and 4/50; AUO-150 at 1/50 and 4/50; AUO-155 at 2/41; AUO-
`156-2/41; AUO-157 at 3/35; AUO-158 at 3/35; AUO-159 at 2/41; AUO-
`137 at 1/48 and 4/48; AUO-138 at 1/48 and 4/48; AUO-145 at 1/45
`and 4/45; AUO-146 at 1/45 and 4/45; AUO-143 at 1/46 and 4/46;
`AUO-144 at 1/46 and 4/46; AUO-133 at 3/53 and 4/53; AUO-134 at
`3/53 and 4/53; AUO-167 at 1/51 and 4/51; AUO-168 at 1/51 and
`
`34
`
`Page 1362 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 37 of 77
`
`4/51; AUO-151 at 1/51 and 4/51; AUO-152 at 4/51; AUO-153 at 2/35;
`AUO-154 at 2/35; AUO-162 at 2/33; AUO-169 at 1/51 and 4/51; AUO-
`170 at 1/51 and 4/51; AUO-164 at 1/51 and 4/51; AUO-165 at 1/51
`and 4/51; AUO-139 at 1/45 and 4/45; AUO-140 at 1/45 and 4/45;
`AUO-131 at 3/44 and 4/44; AUO-132 at 3/44 and 4/44; AUO-166 at
`2/39; AUO-141 at 2/25 and 4/25; AUO-142 at 2/25 and 4/25; AUO-147
`at 1/47 and 4/47 and AUO-148 at 1/47 and 4/47.
`LGD contends that the accused products do not meet this
`claim limitation, because the accused timing controllers store
`compressed data that represents a comparison of brightness levels
`to the average grayscale level of a block of liquid crystal
`cells. LGD contends that the compressed data is not actual
`previous brightness levels. nor can it be used to recreate actual
`previous brightness levels.
`However,
`the Court finds that LGD's contentions are not
`supported by the record. The compressed data is used to recreate
`actual brightness levels. This is supported by LDG's
`presentation, AUO-1538 at page 9, which describes the
`decompressed data as the "reconstructed previous frame." This is
`also supported by the testimony of LGD's witness, Mr. Kim, who
`testified that decompression recovers "the original image or
`close to the original image" and that ideally the decompressed
`data is "identical" to the original data but there may be "some
`small," "acceptable" changes. Tr. 78:5-22 (C.G. Kim); Tr.
`
`35
`
`Page 1363 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 38 of 77
`
`179:22-181:22 (Silzars). While it is true that the decompressed
`data is not used to actually display the images, it is used to
`which in turn display the image. Thus, look up overdrive values,
`
`errors in the decompressed data would impact the quality of the
`Tr. 1363:3-1364:9 (Silzars). In sum, the Court
`displayed image.
`concludes that the timing controllers do store the actual
`previous brightness levels in compressed form, and therefore, the
`Court finds that the accused devices meet the "storage for
`storing the previous brightness level of the video signal input
`through said input logic" claim element.
`a deterxninator for determining an output
`Claim 1:
`brightness level based on the previous brightness level
`stored in said storage and the next brightness level of
`the next video signal input to said input logic
`The Court concludes that the accused devices meet this claim
`limitation, because LGD's timing controller chips include a
`lookup table, which is the determinator for determining an output
`brightness level. The brightness level output by the lookup
`table is based on the previous brightness level, which was stored
`in the frame memory, and the next brightness level. In the
`example of the New Monde lookup table. the brightness level for
`the previous frame and the current frame ranges from 0 to 255.
`Tr. 172:14-173:9 (Silzars); AUO-165 at 26/51. The lookup table
`is used to compare the video information (i.e. the brightness
`level) in the previous frame to the brightness information in the
`current frame and apply a correction. Tr. 171:15-172:13
`
`36
`
`Page 1364 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 39 of 77
`
`(Silzars); AUO-165 at 4/51. Each of the timing controllers
`analyzed by Dr. Silzars includes a similar lookup table.
`LGD's argument that this claim limitation is not met relates
`to its argument regarding the storage of previous brightness
`levels, which the Court has declined to accept. In addition, LGD
`argues that the timing controllers in the accused products do not
`use "offset" values as required by the limitation "a determinator
`for determining an output brightness level."
`However, the claim
`terms do not include the term "offset," and the Court is not
`persuaded that an "offset" should be read into the accused
`devices. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the accused
`devices satisfy this claim limitation.
`so as to make a time integration quantity of
`Claim 1:
`a brightness change substantially equal to an ideal
`quantity of light in a stationary state with respect to
`the next brightness level
`The Court concludes that the accused products meet the
`limitations of this claim element. The determinator must provide
`an output brightness level that achieves the claimed results: a
`time integration of a brightness change that is substantially
`equal to an ideal quantity of light. Dr. Silzars tested the
`accused products, measuring the brightness change and noting that
`the brightness change was within 20% of the ideal response. See
`e.g. AUO-1075; Tr. 193:17-195:8; 13 70:23-1372:9 (Silzars).
`LGD contends that Dr. Silzars's test results are inaccurate
`for several reasons.
`including that Dr. Silzars's calculations
`37
`
`Page 1365 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 40 of 77
`
`did not reflect the "total amount of light" that would be emitted
`from the liquid crystal cell. Based on the Court's claim
`construction, however, the claims do not refer to the total
`amount of light that would be emitted by an ideal liquid crystal
`xather, the claims are directed to the amount of light
`cell,
`that would be emitted due to the brightness change. Further, the
`Court credits Dr. Silzars's test results, and concludes, based on
`his testimony, that a brightness change within 2 0% is
`substantially equal to an ideal quantity of light in a stationary
`state with respect to the next brightness level.
`LGD's argument that this claim element is not met in the
`accused devices is premised on the notion that "substantially
`equal" should also represent an improvement in the context of the
`"ideal quality of light." However, the Court has not included
`this additional language in its construction of the relevant
`terms, and therefore, the Court concludes that an improvement is
`not necessary to establish this claim element.
`In sum
`the Court finds that AUO has established by a
`preponderance of the evidence, that the accused LGD products meet
`the elements of claim 1 of the '160 patent. Accordingly, the
`Court concludes that LGD infringes claim 1 of the 160 patent.
`
`3 8
`
`Page 1366 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 41 of 77
`
`Claim 2:
`The liquid crystal display according to claim
`1, wherein said determinator comprising a table for
`storing a brightness level determined by the
`characteristic of a liquid crystal cell according
`to a relation between the previous brightness
`level and the next brightness level, and determining
`the output brightness level by modifying said next
`brightness level based on the brightness level read
`from said table.
`The Court concludes that the limitations described in claim
`2 are met in the accused devices. The determinator in LCD's
`timing controller chips comprises a table for storing a
`brightness level. This table is the lookup table, which stores a
`brightness level. Tr. 204:11-16, 172:14-173:18 (Silzars); AUO-
`165 at 26/51. The lookup table stores brightness levels that
`vary according to the relation between the previous brightness
`level and the next brightness level. Id. The lookup table
`values are determined by the characteristics of the liquid
`crystal cell. They are determined by trial and error using
`measurements of the response of the liquid crystal cell. A
`person makes the measurements using a photodiode, which measures
`Tr. 79:24-80:24 (C.G. Kim).
`light, and an oscilloscope.
`Claim 3:
`The liquid crystal display according to claim
`2, wherein: said video signal input through said input
`logic comprises a plurality of color signals; and
`The Court concludes that this claim element is met in the
`accused devices. The video signal input includes a plurality of
`color signals. In particular, the LVDS video signal includes
`three separate colors: red, green and blue. Tr. 204:17-205:4;
`
`39
`
`Page 1367 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 42 of 77
`
`434:24-435:10 (Silzars); AUO-165 at 1/51. The LVDS receiver,
`converts the LVDS data stream back
`which inputs the LVDS signal,
`into 28 bits or RGB, that is red green and blue data. AUO-165
`at 3/51, 4/51.
`said table in said determinator is provided
`Claim 3:
`for each of said color signals.
`The Court concludes that this claim element is also met in
`the accused devices,
`The lookup table includes three separate
`lookup tables, one each for red blue and green data.
`Specifically, there are three Arithmetic LUTs, or lookup tables,
`in the block diagram for the New Monde chip. The Arithmetic LUTs
`each output 8 bits of red, green and blue, respect ively. Tr.
`205:5-10 (Silzars); AUO-165 at 3/51 14/51; Tr. 958:12-23
`(Bccles).
`the Court concludes that AUG has established by a In sum,
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that the accused LGD products meet
`the elements of claim 3 of the l157 patent. The LGD LCD modules
`containing the New Monde controller chip include every element of
`claim 3 of the 'ISO patent. Further, the LGD modules containing
`the Mew Monde timing controller chip, which infringe claim 1 are
`representative of the accused products containing the timing
`controller chips identified in AUO-1553, the listing of timing
`controller chips analysed for infringement. Tr. 169:6-23, 170:8-
`18 (Silzars). Each of these products therefore also infringes
`claim 3, Accordingly, the Court concludes that LGD infringes
`
`40
`
`Page 1368 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 43 of 77
`
`claim 3 of the 'ISO patent.
`' 629
`Whether LGD Infringes claims 7 and 16 of AUO's
`Patent
`AUO's standing to assert the '629 patent
`As a threshold matter, LGD contends that AUO lacks
`constitutional standing to assert the '629 patent against LGD,
`'629 patent at the time this because AUO was not the owner of the
`
`action was filed. LGD contends that the inventors of the '629
`patent assigned their rights in the patent to IBM Japan, but IBM
`Japan never assigned its rights to International Business
`Machines Corporation (US) ("IBM USA") before IBM USA assigned its
`rights to AUO in June 2005.
`Thus, LGD contends that the June
`2005 assignment could not have included the '629 patent. In
`addition, LGD contends that AUO cannot cure this standing defect
`through the retroactive application of the Patent Assignment Form
`(LGDTX 931), which purported to filed with the PTO in May 2007
`
`assign the rights in the '629 patent from the named inventors to
`IBM USA.
`In response, AUO contends that the '629 patent issued naming
`IBM USA as the assignee on the face of the patent, and IBM USA
`received title to the '629 patent through a succession of
`assignment agreements.
`As a result, AUO contends that the June
`2005 Patent Assignment Agreement, in which IBM USA transferred
`and assigned to AUO "all right, title and interest in and to"
`certain specified patents, including the '629 patent "along with
`
`41
`
`Page 1369 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 44 of 77
`
`any and all damages for infringement of any of the assigned
`"and the sole right
`patents before, on and after" June 30, 2005,
`to sue therefor under the assigned patents," was sufficient to
`transfer title of the '629 patent from IBM USA to AUO.
`In a patent case, as in all federal actions, a plaintiff
`must have standing to sue before a claim can be brought. Sicom
`Svs. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 427 F.3d 971, 975 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`The burden to establish standing rests on the party bringing
`suit. Id.
`The assignation on the face of a patent is "not a conclusive
`indication" of patent ownership.5 U.S. Philips Corp. v. Iwasaki
`Elec. Co.. 505 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Rather, the
`plaintiff must demonstrate that it is the owner/patentee.
`assignee, or grantee of the patent-in-suit. See 35 U.S.C. § 281;
`Morrow v. Microsoft Corp.. 499 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2007);
`Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc.. 2007
`U.S. Dist. Lexis 93711, *13-14 (D. Del. 2007).
`
`There is some authority, however, suggesting that the
`5
`ownership data provided on the face of a patent creates a
`presumption of ownership. Arachnid v. Merit Indust.. Inc.. 93 9
`F.2d 1574, 1578 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Board of Trustees of the
`Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Svs.. Inc.. 487
`F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1111 n.4 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Regardless of
`whether the Court views the naming of IBM USA as the assignee on
`the face of the patent as a presumption of ownership or not, the
`Court concludes that assignment to IBM USA has been demonstrated
`either affirmatively by AUO or by the fact that LCD has not
`overcome the presumption that legal title to the '62 9 patent
`vested in IBM USA as the assignee.
`
`42
`
`Page 1370 of 1919
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF Document 1497 Filed 02/16/10 Page 45 of 77
`
`On the record presented, the Court concludes that AUO has
`demonstrated by credible chain of title evidence that it is the
`assignee of the l629 patent.0 LGD contends that the inventors
`assigned their rights to the invention claimed in the *629 patent
`to IBM Japan in 2 000,- and there was no direct conveyance of
`rights between IBM Japan and IBM USA prior to IBM USA's
`assignment to AUO.
`However, LCD's argument ignores the
`assignment documents predating 2000. Specifically, IBM USA and
`IBM World Trade ("World Trade") entered into an agreement date
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
