LCD patents are valid but not infringed
LG Display Co., LTD. v. Au Optronics Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.06-726-JJF and 07-357-JJF April 30, 2010.
Farnan, J. CMO’s action is stayed; its motion for leave to file a response to post-trial briefs is denied. Plaintiff failed to prove defendant infringes plaintiff’s patents-in-suit. Defendant failed to prove plaintiffs’ patents are invalid. Final judgment is withheld until a damages opinion issues.
This is Phase II of this patent infringement action involving plaintiff’s patents. The disputed technology relates to liquid crystal display products or methods of producing and assembling LCD products. The court first construes claims. It then credits expert testimony of Professor King Liu over Dr. Schlam finding the “substantially all” requirement of the interconnecting element is not met, nor do “diode design” products meet the resistance limitation. Plaintiff has not proved that its ‘002 and ‘449 patents are infringed. The ‘321 patent is likewise found not to infringe, crediting the testimony of Dr. Howard over D. Rubloff. With respect to the process patent ‘374, the court finds that plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to invoke Section 295 for purposes of shifting the burden of proof on infringement. It is not persuaded by the testimony of expert Dr. Melnik which is found to be speculative and insufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood of infringement. It credits instead the testimony of Mr. Lin and Mr. Tannas. The ‘002 patent is not invalid as obvious, nor is the ‘374 patent found to be invalid as obvious or anticipated by prior art.
