Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC has filed another round in its LED display adjustment campaign, hitting Hisense (8:20-cv-00123), LG Electronics (LGE) (8:20-cv-00125), and TCL (8:20-cv-00127) in the Central District of California, where an earlier case against VIZIO is set for trial in September 2020. The asserted patents generally relate to adjusting an LED display backlight, with the defendants accused of infringement through the provision of televisions with certain LED backlight adjustment features (e.g., local dimming, black frame insertion, and scanning backlight features).
On the eve of its trial in the Eastern District of Texas in a case filed against Samsung in October 2017, Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC has filed a second suit against the company (2:19-cv-00229) in the same district. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap held a final conference on June 11, 2019 in preparation for trial over a single patent generally directed to setting the brightness level of an electronic display based on the ambient light level, targeting certain Galaxy smartphones and tablets as well as other products. The new complaint asserts a different patent, generally related to controlling a “backlight system”, accusing Samsung of infringement through the provision of certain televisions, particularly calling out “a local dimming feature that dims the backlight behind parts of the screen that are displaying black”. That patent is already at issue in the campaign, having been asserted in a September 2018 suit against VIZIO in the Central District of California.
Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC has filed suit against Samsung (2:17-cv-00715), asserting a single patent, generally related to adjusting a display based on the ambient light in different environments, developed at Microsemi. The NPE pleads ownership of the patent-in-suit, although currently available USPTO records suggest that it is held by “LED Display Technologies, LLC”, a purported Delaware entity. The accused products are Galaxy smartphones and tablets, as well as “other consumer electronics display products”; the plaintiff’s website claims that its “technologies and solutions” are “widely used” within such devices, including notebook computers, televisions, automotive displays, and “LED and LCD lighting applications”.