DCT
2:17-cv-09279
Tzu Tech LLC v. Interactive Holdings Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: TZU Technologies, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Interactive Holdings Limited (Hong Kong) and Xplosion Inc. (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Offices of J. Curtis Edmondson
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-09279, C.D. Cal., 12/29/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants regularly conducting business in California, committing acts of infringement in the state, and targeting sales to California residents over the Internet.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ network-connected teledildonics products infringe a patent related to the interactive, remote control of sexual aids over a computer network.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of teledildonics, involving hardware and software systems that allow users to control physical stimulation devices from a remote location via a network.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initial pleading in this matter. No prior litigation, post-grant proceedings, or licensing history involving the patent-in-suit is mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-08-17 | U.S. Patent No. 6,368,268 Priority Date |
| 2002-04-09 | U.S. Patent No. 6,368,268 Issues |
| 2017-12-29 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,368,268, “Method and Device for Interactive Virtual Control of Sexual Aids Using Digital Computer Networks,” issued April 9, 2002 (’268 Patent, p. 1; Compl. ¶11).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a limitation in prior art sexual stimulation devices, which required the operator to be in "close proximity to the recipient" (’268 Patent, col. 1:41-42). It notes that while medical remote monitoring systems existed, they were "not readily suitable for use for sexual stimulation aids" (’268 Patent, col. 1:52-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system that enables an "operator" at a first location to control a stimulation device used by a "recipient" at a remote location by using personal computers connected over a network like the Internet (’268 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-12). The system architecture, as shown in FIG. 1, involves two distinct user interfaces, each with a computer, connected via a network, allowing one user's inputs to be translated into control signals that operate a physical device at the other user's location (’268 Patent, FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: The patented system proposed to move beyond locally controlled devices by leveraging the then-emerging public internet to facilitate real-time, interactive control between geographically separated users (’268 Patent, col. 1:52-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶16). However, the infringement allegations in the complaint substantially track the language of independent claim 8.
- Independent Claim 8 of the ’268 Patent recites the following essential elements:
- A hand-operable input device for generating a command signal.
- A first user interface connected to the input device that generates a control signal.
- A second user interface, remotely located from the first, that receives the control signal.
- A stimulation device that receives the control signal from the second user interface and imparts stimulation to a second user.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but its general allegation of infringing "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open (Compl. ¶25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "SayberX Product Family," which consists of the "Sayberx hand-held stimulator," a wearable controller called the "X-Ring," and associated mobile applications for iOS and Android (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the SayberX system as a "stimulation system" where a handheld stimulator can be controlled by a mobile app or by an "X-ring" controller (Compl. ¶14, ¶15). The X-Ring is alleged to pair with the stimulator via a Bluetooth connection, allowing the movements of the ring to be "translated into movements in the stimulator" (Compl. ¶14). The system is alleged to allow a first user to remotely control a stimulation device operated by a second user (Compl. ¶15). A screenshot from the Sayberx.com website, included as Exhibit C, lists Xplosion Inc. as responsible for "Global distribution" of the "SayberX" and "X-Ring" products (Compl. Ex. C, p. 22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’268 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a hand-operable input device for generating a command signal in response to an input received from a first user; | The system allegedly has a "hand-operable input device for generating a command signal," identified as the X-Ring controller or the mobile app used by the first user (Compl. ¶14). | ¶15 | col. 8:2-4 |
| a first user interface connected to said input device, said first user interface generating a control signal based upon the command signal; | The system is alleged to have a "first user interface" connected to the input device that generates a control signal based on the command signal. | ¶15 | col. 8:5-8 |
| a second user interface remotely located from said first user interface, said second user interface receiving the control signal; and, | The system allegedly includes a "second user interface" that is "remotely located from first user interface" and which "receives the control signal." | ¶15 | col. 8:9-12 |
| a stimulation device receiving the control signal from said second user interface, said stimulation device imparting stimulation to a second user in response to the control signal. | A "stimulation device" (the Sayberx hand-held stimulator) allegedly receives a control signal from the second user interface and imparts stimulation to a user in response to that signal. | ¶15 | col. 8:13-17 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a modern smartphone running an application constitutes a "user interface" as that term is used in the ’268 patent. The patent’s specification and figures consistently depict the "user interface" as a complete personal computer system, including a desktop computer, monitor, and keyboard (’268 Patent, FIG. 1, items 10, 30). The definition of this term relative to the accused mobile device-based system will be critical.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations in paragraph 15 are conclusory and track the claim language without providing underlying technical detail (Compl. ¶15). A key factual question will be how the accused system's components actually communicate. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the "stimulation device" receives its control signal from the "second user interface," as required by the claim, rather than through a more direct network connection? The patent discloses a local transmitter (e.g., radio) connecting the second computer to the stimulation device, and the complaint is silent on the specific architecture of the accused system (’268 Patent, col. 3:50-58).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "user interface"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in nearly every independent claim and is fundamental to the patent's architecture. The patent was filed in 1998, and its illustrations depict desktop computer systems. Whether this term can be construed to cover the modern smartphone-and-app environment of the accused products will likely be a dispositive issue.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that each user interface "preferably comprise[s] a personal computer" (’268 Patent, col. 2:58-59), which may imply that other configurations are possible. It further notes the "computer 11 may be any suitable interface, such as a television that communicates through the Internet or a processor designed to implement the invention" (’268 Patent, col. 7:29-33), suggesting a more functional, rather than structural, definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Every embodiment and figure depicting a "user interface" shows a conventional desktop computer system (’268 Patent, FIG. 1, 2). A defendant may argue that the invention is limited to these disclosed embodiments, and that a smartphone, which integrates the display, input, and processor in a way not contemplated by the patent, falls outside the term's scope.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint invokes 35 U.S.C. § 271 generally but does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶2). The pleading lacks specific factual allegations required to support a claim of either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations of specific intent, knowledge of the patent, or the provision of a component with no substantial non-infringing use.
Willful Infringement
The complaint asserts that Defendants' infringement "has been, and continues to be, willful" (Compl. ¶19, 26). However, it does not allege any specific facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit notification of the patent or other evidence of egregious conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and technological change: can the term "user interface," rooted in the 1998 context of desktop PCs as depicted in the patent, be construed to read on the modern smartphone and mobile app architecture of the accused SayberX system? The resolution of this question may determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: the complaint's infringement theory rests on conclusory assertions that directly recite the language of claim 8. The case may turn on what evidence is produced in discovery to demonstrate that the accused system's specific data flow and component interactions—from the controlling user's input to the remote stimulator's activation—in fact align with the sequence and connections mandated by the claim limitations.