DCT
5:26-cv-00697
Coretronic Corp v. Maxell Ltd
Key Events
Amended Complaint
Table of Contents
complaint Intelligence
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Coretronic Corporation (Republic of China) and Optoma Technology, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Maxell, Ltd. (Japan)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
- Case Identification: 5:26-cv-00697, N.D. Cal., 04/22/2026
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant Maxell conducts substantial business in the district, has filed patent infringement suits in the district previously, and committed acts giving rise to this action within the district, including sending an email alleging infringement to Plaintiff Optoma, which is located in Fremont, California.
- Core Dispute: This is a declaratory judgment action in which Plaintiffs seek a court declaration that their Optoma-branded projectors do not infringe Defendant's patent, and that the patent is invalid, unenforceable, and not owned by the Defendant.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on technology for digital projectors, specifically methods for adjusting a projected image to maintain quality and flexibility when the projector's physical position is changed.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of licensing discussions and infringement accusations, including reports made by Maxell to Amazon.com and a prior lawsuit filed by Maxell against Plaintiff Coretronic in the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiffs also raise a significant challenge to Defendant's ownership of the patent-in-suit, alleging a flawed assignment following a corporate merger that may render the defendant without standing to sue for infringement. Invalidity allegations are based on, among other things, the alleged prior sale of Plaintiffs' own products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-01-01 | Alleged offer for sale of Hitachi CP-A100 model projector |
| 2008-03-10 | '142 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-12-13 | '142 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-10-01 | Maxell, Ltd. (original entity) dissolved in merger |
| 2023-04-27 | Maxell sends letter to Optoma regarding licensing |
| 2023-08-04 | Optoma sends letter to Maxell with technical questions |
| 2023-12-12 | Maxell and Coretronic meet to discuss patent allegations |
| 2024-02-19 | Coretronic emails Maxell asserting invalidity over prior art |
| 2024-07-01 | Maxell files suit against Coretronic in E.D. Texas |
| 2026-01-04 | Maxell begins submitting infringement reports to Amazon.com |
| 2026-01-14 | Maxell emails Optoma accusing specific projectors of infringement |
| 2026-04-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2026-05-28 | Scheduled pre-trial hearing in E.D. Texas action |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,075,142, "Projection-Type Image Display Apparatus," issued December 13, 2011.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the usability problems with conventional projectors, noting that changing the projector's installation position often leads to image aberrations, such as trapezoidal distortion, which require significant time to correct '142 Patent, col. 2:5-14
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a projector system that increases installation flexibility. It uses an image display element (like an LCD panel) that has a display area larger than the intended projection screen '142 Patent, col. 2:48-53 A "display controller" then selects and projects only a portion of the image from this oversized panel, "selectively fitt[ing]" it to the screen '142 Patent, col. 2:54-59 This allows a user to move the projector (e.g., horizontally) and have the controller compensate by electronically moving the projected "window" on the oversized panel, thereby maintaining a correct image on the screen without creating distortion '142 Patent, figs. 1A-2B
- Technical Importance: This design aims to provide greater freedom in projector placement, particularly for short-throw projectors in environments like classrooms and meeting rooms, without sacrificing image quality '142 Patent, col. 1:60-65
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement for claims 1, 3, and 4 Compl. ¶45
- Independent Claim 1, the basis for the asserted claims, recites:
- A projection-type image display apparatus, comprising:
- an enlarging projection optical unit which is configured to project an image displayed on an image display element enlargedly upon a display portion; and
- a display controller portion which is configured to move a position of the image within a display surface of the image display element;
- wherein the enlarging projection optical unit has a lens group for projecting the image enlargedly; and
- wherein the display controller portion moves the image so as to display the image within the display surface of the image display element by projecting a portion selectively fitted to the display portion when displaying on the display portion through the enlarging projection optical unit.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are numerous "Optoma-branded projectors" Compl. ¶3 The complaint lists many models by their Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) and model names, such as the GT2000HDR, HZ40HDR, and ML1050STi Compl. ¶¶12-14 Compl. ¶17
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are described as multimedia projectors Compl. ¶3 The complaint alleges that these projectors are commercially significant, with Optoma being a "market leader" and the "world's leading 4K UHD projector and DLP® brand" Compl. ¶2 The central technical allegation relevant to the dispute is a negative one: Plaintiffs contend that the accused projectors do not perform the function of projecting "a portion of an image selectively fitted to" the display surface as required by the patent claims Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶44 The complaint does not otherwise describe the specific image-adjustment functionalities of the accused projectors. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'142 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ...the display controller portion moves the image so as to display the image within the display surface of the image display element by projecting a portion selectively fitted to the display portion... | Plaintiffs allege their projectors do not perform this function. Maxell's infringement theory, as relayed by the complaint, necessarily implies that the projectors' image adjustment features select a part of a full image for display to fit the screen. | ¶17; ¶44 | col. 5:11-34 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The primary technical dispute is one of operational reality: Do the accused Optoma projectors use an oversized image display element and a controller that selects a "portion" of the image from that element for projection, as described in the '142 patent? Or do they use other, non-infringing methods for image adjustment? The complaint firmly alleges the latter Compl. ¶44
- Scope Question: A central legal question will be the interpretation of the claim phrase "projecting a portion selectively fitted to the display portion." The dispute will likely focus on whether this language is limited to the specific architecture shown in the patent's embodiments (an oversized physical panel) or if it can be construed more broadly to encompass general digital zoom or image shifting functionalities that may be present in the accused products.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "projecting a portion selectively fitted to the display portion"
- Context and Importance: This term is the crux of the non-infringement argument Compl. ¶44 The outcome of the case may depend on whether this term is construed narrowly to require the specific technical implementation described in the patent's specification, or broadly to cover a wider range of digital image manipulation techniques. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the accused projectors, which Plaintiffs claim lack the patent's specific architecture, can be found to infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope may point to the plain language of the claim itself, which does not explicitly require the image display element to be physically larger than the display portion, leaving open the possibility that a "portion" could refer to a subset of image data in a buffer rather than a physical area on a panel.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope will likely cite the patent's specification and abstract, which consistently describe the invention in the context of an "image display element hav[ing] a display surface larger than said display portion" '142 Patent, col. 2:48-50 Figures 1A, 2A, and 5A-5C all explicitly illustrate this concept of moving a smaller projected image (P') within the confines of a larger source image (P), which strongly suggests the "portion" is a selectable window on an oversized physical panel.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement "directly or indirectly" Compl. ¶45, but it does not detail any specific factual allegations made by Maxell that would support a claim for induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: As this is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer, willfulness is not a direct claim. However, the complaint's allegations of patent misuse and bad faith are premised on Maxell's purported knowledge of non-infringement and invalidity. The complaint alleges Maxell knew or should have known its claims were invalid due to the prior public sale of the Optoma HD72 projector Compl. ¶¶8, 19-20 and knew its infringement allegations were baseless because the accused products do not practice the key "selective fitting" limitation Compl. ¶¶21-22
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A threshold question will be one of standing: Does Maxell, Ltd. have proper ownership of the '142 patent? The court will first need to resolve the complex ownership chain issue, including the effect of a corporate dissolution and a subsequent nunc pro tunc assignment, before reaching the merits of infringement or validity Compl. ¶¶23-29
- A core issue will be one of functional operation: Does the evidence show that the accused Optoma projectors operate by "projecting a portion selectively fitted to the display portion" as that phrase is properly construed? The case will likely require a deep technical dive into how the accused projectors perform image adjustments versus the specific method disclosed and claimed in the '142 patent.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of prior art: Did the sale or offer for sale of the Optoma-branded HD72 model projector more than one year before the patent's priority date place the claimed invention in the public domain, thereby rendering the asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102? Compl. ¶48
Analysis metadata
Loading Amended Complaint
Suggested improvements