Bright LCD Patent Dispute

pcp_ip writes "Honeywell filed suit Wednesday against 34 companies (including, Apple, Dell, Sony, Kodak, Fuji et al.) for infringment of patent 5,280,371. The patent for "a directional diffuser for a liquid crystal display" was filed on January 1994 and enables "a display to produce a brighter image without requiring additional power." Honeywell is looking for an injunction to prevent the defendants from continuing to infringe its patent, and for "damages adequate to compensate them for Defendants infringement." So much for LCD prices coming down! Where's OLED when you need it?"

Re:But...

[paranode]

Surely it would be the manufacturer that's infringing, right?

Which also brings up the question of whether an LCD manufactured outside the US falls under the protection of this patent. Any thoughts on that?

Reform is needed

[Askjeffro]

The problem with patents rears its ugly head again... I have a friend who recently graduated and got a job at a Patent lawyer at a large corporation. His whole job is looking over old patents and "checking" to see if there are any modern infringments, ie: who can we sue that has mad money off of something we couldn't. sigh...

Wrong!

[blackmonday]

The Patent was actually filed July 9, 1992. I've got an idea for some patent reform: Let your patent get knowingly infringed for 1 year - lose the patent.

put the patent down, and slowly step away.

[lottameez]

This patent litigation is really getting absurd. I find it hilariously ironic that Kodak is named here after just crowing about its software patent win over Sun last week.

Now, just get Sun to file something against HP and you've got a three way standoff. Schweet! Get some popcorn and enjoy the show!

Sony is doing OLEDs

[js7a]

The new Sony CLIE PEG-VZ90 [i4u.com] has a 480×320x16b OLED display. Available in Japan only, at present. A bigger picture and some news links here [pocketpcthoughts.com].

Re:Well, it looks like the patent is valid..

[shotfeel]

Why not go after the people who are actually infringing? IE. the manufacturers of these devices?


Well, "The two largest LCD manufacturers, LG.Philips LCD and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., have previously taken licenses under this fundamental patent."

So, me not knowing the market, I'm wondering who the remaining manufacturers are. From the list of companies, I get the feeling their going after companies that have made products using smaller LCD displays (Apple - iPod, camera manufacturers, etc). So who's making those displays?

Re:Hall of Fame

[thedillybar]

>I can think of SCO, Kodak, Unisys and now Honeywell. I will venture all is not well at the little Honey

Honeywell patented this in 1994, developed it, and sold it. Then someone came along, took the idea, and started selling the product before the patent expired.

This is exactly what patents are supposed to prevent. Why are you guys giving them so much crap for doing something about it?

Unobvious?

[JayBlalock]

I thought one of the requirements to be a valid patent is to be unobvious. Now, if, in the time from when they applied for the patent until now, THAT many companies have independently come up with the same basic solution as was patented... doesn't that by simple definition mean that the solution is, in fact, QUITE obvious?

It seems to me that aspect alone should defeat most "submarine" patents. Unless you can prove that they knowingly stole your idea, the scope of the lawsuit should automatically invalidate your patent.

But then, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm foolish enough to attempt to hold government bodies up to standards of common sense...

Re:Directional Diffusers: BAD from my point of vie

[Marxist Hacker 42]

90 degrees didn't show anything-but maybe it does still have a diffuser, just a different kind of one, because at 45 degrees I see rainbows.

Doctrin of Laches (statute of limitations)

[cft_128]

I believe the doctrin of laches [converium.com] would protect the other manufactures. From the linked article:

Laches enables the infringer to avoid liability if the patent holder delays too long before commencing litigation. The doctrine flows from the longstanding, fundamental legal principle that equity will not protect those who sleep on their rights.

[...]

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held the laches defense applicable to patent infringement cases. The defense contains two elements:

The patent holder delayed bringing suit and that delay was unreasonable and inexcusable; and

The alleged infringer suffered materially prejudicial harm from the delay.

IANAPL but from what I have read it seems Honeywell waited long enough (over 6 years seems to the the magic number) in suing that the defendants could claim they believed that Honeywell did not object. The delay allowed the damages to build up and that delay causes the defendants harm.

Bit slow here, aren't we? -- or Scam?

[Nom du Keyboard]

was filed on January 1994

Took them 10 years to figure out that they're being infringed upon? Not a company I'd want to own stock in.

Or is this an outright scam? Wait until everyone is using it and then sue, as opposed to telling them in the beginning and letting them decide to license, work around, or do without.

If this has been a scam to wait until it is widely adopted, and then ask for all back royalities, the patent should be invalidated for lack of notice and enforcement, and Honeywell should be given NOTHING!

Re:Doctrin of Laches (statute of limitations)

[westlake]

From the same article:

Laches differs from a statute of limitations in that it fails to constitute a complete defense against patent holders' lawsuits. Patentees against whom the laches defense has been successfully invoked are barred from collecting only those damages that accrued prior to filing suit. /5/ Patentees may recover damages flowing from infringing conduct that takes place after commencement of an infringement action, even where the accused infringer successfully invokes the laches defense. Accordingly, interposition of laches does not permit the alleged infringer to lawfully continue the infringing conduct. Continued infringement remains the subject of litigation that may require settlement, entering into licensing agreements that require the payment of royalties to the patentee or paying the burdensome cost of patent infringement litigation while facing an uncertain outcome. As a practical matter, infringing activity often diminishes substantially or ceases entirely after suit is commenced.

It is perhaps worth adding that the technology exposed in a patent may not be commercially viable and therfore worth stealing until many years after the patent is issued.

The original provider of the technology...

[vettemph]

So, Whos "BEF" (brighness Enhancing Film) have these LCD manufacturing been buying? Who is really at fault? The defendants? The LCD manufactures? 3M for manufacturing BEF II? Mr. Fresnel?

The practical application of light has been around for a very long time. Look at the fluorescent lights above your head (if your at work), What kind of lenselets or diffuser is being used? Look at the tail lights on cars, the red plastic is internally (or sometimes externally) covered with bumps(lenses) to redirect the light. This is very old technology for light guiding.