TVnGO LTD. (BVI) v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
1:18-cv-10238
D.N.J.Apr 17, 2020Background
- TVnGO sued LG for patent infringement, asserting five patents covering TV–Internet integration that display ‘‘overlays’’ (icons) enabling simultaneous broadcast and Internet content viewing.
- Central claim terms disputed at Markman were “overlay activation criterion” and “overlay activation signal” (and “special overlay activation signal” treated the same).
- The patents are related continuations (’945, ’339, and ’969 from ’220; ’621 from ’969) and share specifications describing overlays, remote‑control selection, and IP content display.
- LG moved/asserted indefiniteness during claim construction, arguing the disputed terms are used inconsistently within and across the patents and thus fail 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
- The Court conducted a claim construction hearing, considered intrinsic evidence and expert testimony, and ordered supplemental briefing.
- The Court concluded multiple claims across all five patents are indefinite and therefore not amenable to construction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “overlay activation criterion”/“overlay activation signal” are definite | Terms have plain meaning; ‘‘generate’’ and ‘‘display’’ used interchangeably; specification and prosecution history clarify meaning | Terms are not defined, are used inconsistently intra‑ and inter‑patent, creating irreconcilable ambiguity | Indefinite: terms do not inform a POSA with reasonable certainty; claims invalid for indefiniteness |
| Intra‑patent consistency (within each patent) | Specification supports user command inclusion and internet‑provided data; any differences are reconcilable | Claims and specs contradict (e.g., overlay activation criterion is both Internet‑provided and user‑provided; signal both displays overlay and displays IP content) | Indefinite due to irreconcilable intra‑patent inconsistencies |
| Inter‑patent consistency (across continuations) | Different wording is acceptable across related patents; examiner allowance suggests clarity | Same concept labeled differently (criterion vs signal; generate vs display) but with different meanings in specs, causing confusion | Indefinite: inconsistent uses across patents leave no confident claim scope |
| Reliance on prosecution/examiner allowance and discovery | Examiner allowance and fact discovery would show those skilled in art understood the terms | Examiner allowance does not resolve intrinsic inconsistency; discovery would not cure drafting defects | Prosecution history and potential discovery do not cure indefiniteness; intrinsic record controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (U.S. 2014) (indefiniteness standard: claims must inform a POSA with reasonable certainty)
- BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (apply Nautilus; consider claims, spec, prosecution history)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (specification is primary guide to claim meaning)
- Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (indefiniteness when no informed, confident choice among meanings)
- Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (examiner allowance and expert application do not alone establish definiteness)
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91 (U.S. 2011) (presumption of validity; clear and convincing evidence standard)
- Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (instructing that general claim construction principles apply to indefiniteness)