IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: LG Electronics did not infringe patent for backlighting LCD screens, (Jun 23, 2014)

By Peter Reap, J.D., LL.M.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) did not err in finding that respondents—including LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; LG Display Co., Ltd.; and LG Display America, Inc. (collectively, “LG”)—did not violate 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (2012) (“section 337”) by the importation, sale for importation, or sale following importation of products alleged to infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,883,932 (“the ’932 patent”), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided (Industrial Technology Research Institute v. International Trade Commission, June 23, 2014, O’Malley, K.). Thus, the Commission’s finding that LG did not violate section 337 was affirmed.

Background. Industrial Technology Research Institute and ITRI International, Inc. (collectively, “ITRI”) appealed from the Commission’s finding of no Section 337 violation.

The ’923 patent, titled “Apparatus for Improving Uniformity Used in a Backlight Module,” relates to a structure used in backlit digital display screens to uniformly distribute light across the screen. Without any structures to help distribute the light, the area directly over the light source would appear the brightest and the other areas would appear darker. This would create unwanted shadows in the display. To solve this problem, LCD manufacturers put a textured sheet, called a “light-diffusing sheet,” between the light source and the viewing screen to diffuse the light evenly across the screen.

The ’923 patent purports to cover an improved structure to uniformly diffuse the light using “structured arc sheets,” instead of light-diffusing sheets.

On September 14, 2011, the Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-805 based on ITRI’s allegations that LG violated section 337 by importing or selling following importation into the United States certain LCD computer monitors and televisions that infringed the ’932 patent. ITRI alleged that a domestic industry existed as to its patent because it had licensed its patent to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Samsung”) and Samsung sold LCD screens that practiced the ’923 patent in the United States.

The presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a final initial determination (“Final ID”), finding no violation of section 337 because LG did not infringe the ’932 patent based on his construction of “structured arc sheet.” The ALJ construed “structured arc sheet” to mean “a sheet that is constructed in the shape of an arc.” He then concluded that LG’s products did not contain “structured arc sheets” as construed. The ALJ also found that—because Samsung’s products, like LG’s products, did not contain “structured arc sheets” as construed—ITRI had failed to meet the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.

The Commission declined to consider the ALJ’s Final ID, however, and sent the matter back, directing the ALJ to first make an initial determination regarding invalidity and unenforceability.

On remand, the ALJ issued another final initial determination, again finding no violation of section 337. In addition to his previous claim construction, non-infringement, and domestic industry findings, the ALJ found, inter alia, the ’932 patent invalid as anticipated.

On May 6, 2013, the Commission reviewed the ALJ’s determinations and terminated the investigation, finding no violation of section 337. The Commission, inter alia, affirmed: (1) the ALJ’s construction of “structured arc sheet”; (2) the finding of non-infringement and failure to meet the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement based on that construction; and (3) the determination that the ’932 patent was invalid as anticipated. ITRI timely appealed these findings to the Federal Circuit.

“Structured arc sheet.” Claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the patent application, the court noted. ITRI challenged the Commission’s construction of “structured arc sheet” as “a sheet that is constructed in the shape of an arc.” ITRI proposed that structured arc sheet instead be construed as “a sheet containing an arclike structure for altering the pathway of illuminating light in multiple directions.” The Commission and LG responded that the intrinsic evidence—including the claim language, specification, and prosecution history—fully supported the Commission’s construction.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the Commission and LG that the intrinsic evidence clearly supported the Commission’s construction. Starting with the claim language, the most natural reading of “structured arc sheet” is that the entire sheet must be in the shape of an arc, not that a part of the sheet contains an “arc-like” structure, the court explained.

The specification of the ’923 patent also supported the Commission’s construction. All of the figures and the language of the specification consistently indicated that the entire sheet must be constructed in the shape of an arc. The specification, moreover, provided no support for ITRI’s contention that “arc” should be construed as “arc-like,” according to the court. The prosecution history of the ’923 patent was consistent with the claim language and specification, the court added.

Additionally, although ITRI proposed adding the functional limitation that the structured arc sheets are “for altering the pathway of illuminating light in multiple directions,” it failed to point to any language in the intrinsic evidence that required adding this functional limitation into the construction, the court determined. The plain language of the claims, moreover, already includes a functional limitation, requiring that the structured arc sheets exist “for making the illuminating light uniform.”

For the foregoing reasons, the Commission correctly construed “structured arc sheet” as “a sheet that is constructed in the shape of an arc.”

Remaining issues. ITRI did not contest the Commission’s finding of no infringement and failure to meet the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement if the court affirmed the Commission’s construction of “structured arc sheets.” Thus, the Commission’s findings of no infringement and failure to meet the domestic industry requirement were affirmed. As this was sufficient to affirm the termination of the investigation, the court did not need to address LG’s affirmative defense of anticipation.

The case is No. 2013-1480.

Attorneys: Ari Rafilson (Shore Chan DePumpo LLP) for Industrial Technology Research Institute and ITRI International, Inc. Megan M. Valentine, U.S. International Trade Commission. Meredith Martin Addy (Steptoe & Johnson LLP) for LG Electronics, Inc.

Companies: Industrial Technology Research Institute; ITRI International, Inc.; LG Electronics, Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCir