On Tuesday, Lightside Technologies, LLC filed a complaint in the Southern District of Florida against consumer electronics manufacturer Curtis International Ltd. for its purported infringement of the patents-in-suit in its ProScan-branded television products.
The patents-in-suit include United States Patent No. 8,842,727 (the ’727 patent); 5,999,220 (the ’220 patent); 6,370,198 (the ’198 patent); and 8,228,979 (the ’979 patent). These patents relate to “the field of video production, photographic image processing, and computer graphics.” The plaintiff contended that the defendant “made, sold, offered for sale, used, and/or imported products in the United States” Curtis International’s ProScan-branded products which used the plaintiff’s patented systems, including the ProScan HDTV products and other similar television products.
For example, the defendant purportedly infringed at least claim 1 of the ’727 patent, entitled “Wide-Band Multi-Format Audio/Video Production System With Frame-Rate Conversion,” which protects a “method performed by a video apparatus, comprising: receiving compressed video from a source; decompressing the compressed video content to generate uncompressed video content in an internal format,” among other methods.
According to the claim chart, the defendant’s Accused Products are Smart HDTVs with “video apparatus capable of receiving streaming media input via a network connection.” The claim chart noted, the Accused Products “support receiving input video content via Internet streaming.” The chart also explained that in the patented method “the input format of the content depends on the source, but all streamed content is compressed” and it includes an input to receive an A/V signal in a display format, these can come from various sources, such as the internet, Netflix, or an HDMI input.
The Accused Products reportedly use via memory buffer storage devices which allow “asynchronous program recording and reproducing.” The plaintiff claimed that as described in the patent the Accused Product has a “graphics processor (that) is (comprised of) any chip or apparatus” and the “input A/V signal is converted into a production format.” The Accused Products’ HD video signal “is output internally … and provided as an input to the video display circuitry on the UHDTV or HDTV,” which purportedly uses the patented method.
As noted in the ’727 patent, the defendant’s product utilizes frame-rate conversion via the UltraSMR technology “to minimize motion blur” and to “give smooth motion in movies, sports, and gaming.” It also purportedly operates using a standard television format regardless of the input program display format, but allows programming to be put in an enhanced-definition HDTV format using UltraSMR or a Pixel Map. Consequently, Lightside averred that Curtis International infringed this patent. The allegations for the remaining patents-in-suit are similar to the allegations for infringement of the ’727 patent.
The plaintiff is seeking declaratory judgment in its favor and an award for damages, costs, and fees. Lightside is represented by Criden & Love, P.A. and Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
