Maxell, Ltd. et al. v. Vizio, Inc.
Infringement action filed 15 Jun 2023 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 23 Aug 2023, with 7 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
Case record
- Case no.
- 23-2026
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 15 Jun 2023 – 23 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 69 days
- Basis of termination
- Appeal Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Broadcast receiving apparatus and starting method thereof · Contrast adjusting circuitry and video display apparatus using same · Display apparatus · Image processing apparatus · Image processing apparatus and image processing method · Method for switching an audio/video application, apparatus and smart TV · Portable terminal, information processing apparatus, content display system and content display method
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Image processing apparatus
A technique for flexibly converting the number of frames of a displayed image on the basis of a motion in the image or information of an image signal such as a program genre is provided. An image processing apparatus includes an input unit to which an image signal having a predetermined frame rate is input, an information acquirer for acquiring information concerning the input image signal, and a frame rate converter for converting the frame rate of the input image signal and outputting a resultant signal. The frame rate converter conducts the frame rate conversion of the input image signal on the basis of the information (such as the motion in the image or the program genre) of the input image signal acquired by the information acquirer.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 31 Jan 2012
- Earliest priority
- 23 May 2006
- Est. expiry
- 24 Sep 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- OGINO, MASAHIRO · TSURU, YASUTAKA · MIZUHASHI, YOSHIAKI · SATOH, JUNICHI
- Classification
- H04N7/01
- Prosecution counsel
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP
- Examiner
- HSIA, SHERRIE
Contrast adjusting circuitry and video display apparatus using same
With the aim of offering a video display technique by which stable and high contrast video images are reproduced, contrast adjusting circuitry is constructed. The contrast adjusting circuitry detects a maximum picture level (MPL) and an average picture level (APL) of luminance signals for a predetermined period, determines one of the predefined luminance regions within which the MPL falls and one of the predefined luminance regions within which the APL falls, and, based on the thus determined luminance regions of both MPL and APL, carries out a contrast adjustment of video images by changing the gain of luminance signals and color depth correction by changing the gain of color signals.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 20 Jul 2010
- Earliest priority
- 5 Apr 2002
- Est. expiry
- 15 Nov 2022
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2022-01463 · Other · filed by Vizio, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- AOKI, HIROSHI · HASEGAWA, RYO · MATONO, TAKAAKI
- Classification
- G09G5/10G02F1/133G09G3/20G09G3/36H04N5/20H04N5/57H04N5/70H04N9/64H04N9/68
- Prosecution counsel
- McDermott Will & Schulte LLP
- Examiner
- DHARIA, PRABODH M
Also asserted in this case
5 moreThe docket lists 7 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 5 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US7986858B2Image processing apparatus and image processing method
- US7730507B2Broadcast receiving apparatus and starting method thereof
- US9578369B2Portable terminal, information processing apparatus, content display system and content display method
- US10339893B2Display apparatus
- US10321206B2Method for switching an audio/video application, apparatus and smart TV
Parties of record
Maxell, Ltd.
- Core tech
- H04N7/01G09G5/10G02F1/133G09G3/20
- Counsel
- Eric A. White · Jamie B. Beaber · Kfir Levy
- Firm
- Mayer Brown LLP
- Also named
- Maxell Holdings, Ltd.
Vizio, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Brock F. Wilson · Cono A. Carrano · Pratik A. Shah · Ryan Stronczer · Z.W. Julius Chen
- Firm
- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Eric A. White | Maxell, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Jamie B. Beaber | Maxell, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Kfir Levy | Maxell, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Brock F. Wilson | Vizio, Inc. | Defendant |
| Cono A. Carrano | Vizio, Inc. | Defendant |
| Pratik A. Shah | Vizio, Inc. | Defendant |
| Ryan Stronczer | Vizio, Inc. | Defendant |
| Z.W. Julius Chen | Vizio, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). (2) Each side shall bear their own costs.”
Case 23-2026 · Fed. Cir. · closed 23 August 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 23-2026?
23-2026 is a patent infringement action brought by Maxell, Ltd. against Vizio, Inc., filed on 15 Jun 2023 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 23 August 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 23-2026?
US8107007B2 (“Image processing apparatus”), assigned to MAXELL, LTD., currently active; US7760213B2 (“Contrast adjusting circuitry and video display apparatus using same”), assigned to MAXELL, LTD., currently inactive; US7986858B2 (“Image processing apparatus and image processing method”), assigned to MAXELL, LTD.; US7730507B2 (“Broadcast receiving apparatus and starting method thereof”), assigned to MAXELL, LTD.; US9578369B2 (“Portable terminal, information processing apparatus, content display system and content display method”), assigned to MAXELL, LTD.; US10339893B2 (“Display apparatus”), assigned to MAXELL, LTD.; US10321206B2 (“Method for switching an audio/video application, apparatus and smart TV”), assigned to MAXELL, LTD.. The record also lists Broadcast receiving apparatus and starting method thereof, Contrast adjusting circuitry and video display apparatus using same, Display apparatus, Image processing apparatus, Image processing apparatus and image processing method, Method for switching an audio/video application, apparatus and smart TV and Portable terminal, information processing apparatus, content display system and content display method.
How was case 23-2026 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). (2) Each side shall bear their own costs.”
How long did case 23-2026 take?
69 calendar days, from filing on 15 Jun 2023 to closure on 23 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 23-2026?
Eric A. White, Jamie B. Beaber and Kfir Levy are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Maxell. Brock F. Wilson, Cono A. Carrano, Pratik A. Shah, Ryan Stronczer and Z.W. Julius Chen appear for defendant Vizio.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 23-2026 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.