Quantcast

SOUTHEAST TEXAS RECORD

Saturday, April 20, 2024

Jury reaches verdict, awards Eidos $4.1 million in LCD patent complaint

Patents 06

TYLER – A Texas jury awarded Eidos Display LLC and Eidos III LLC $4.1 million in damages in a lawsuit where it was found that an LCD panel maker knowingly violated a patent in the screen making process.

In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, a jury unanimously found Chi Mei Innolux Corp. and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA Inc. continuously inured Eidos by patent infringement to decrease steps in the screen making process. The verdict was reached June 30.

The complaint states, “The defendants are infringing the ’958 Patent with knowledge of Eidos’ patent rights and without a reasonable basis for believing their conduct is lawful. The AUO defendants’ infringement is willful and deliberate, and will continue unless enjoined by this court, making this an exceptional case and entitling Eidos to increased damages and reasonable attorney’s fees.”

Eidos alleged that Chi Mei Innolux Corp., based in Taiwan, knew and purposely infringed on its patent rights and sold products made by methods of infringement.

The technology at issue in the complaint is a way to improve the method “of producing Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) products that reduces the number of photolithographic steps and thereby improves yield and decreases manufacturing costs,” according to the suit.

LCDs are used in products such as cellphones, GPS devices, televisions and laptop computers.

Eidos has owned the '958 patent, known as Method of Producing an Electro-Optical Device, since March of 1999.

Eidos claims “the products made by the infringing method that are used, caused to be used, imported, caused to be imported, offered for sale, caused to be offered for sale, sold, and caused to be sold by the AUO defendants meet each and every limitation of a claim of the ’958 Patent, either literally or equivalently.”

Eidos asked the court to award monetary relief to be increased due to the flagrant nature at which defendants infringed on their patent. It also asked the court to award attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred, as well.

More News