DCT
2:19-cv-10604
Throop LLC v. Microsoft Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Throop, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Microsoft Corp (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: One LLP
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-10604, C.D. Cal., 12/16/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant transacts business in the Central District of California, offers the accused products for sale in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in Los Angeles, California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Microsoft HoloLens augmented reality headset infringes patents related to a wireless, wearable system for two-way multimedia communication.
- Technical Context: The technology involves wearable, hands-free communication systems that provide users with untethered, real-time access to video, audio, and data over a network, a field with applications in complex industrial, medical, and aerospace environments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the senior patent-in-suit since at least December 2010, when Defendant cited the patent in an Information Disclosure Statement during the prosecution of its own, unrelated patent application. The junior patent-in-suit is a continuation in the same patent family.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-01-15 | Priority Date ('897 and '726 Patents) |
| 2006-04-25 | '897 Patent Issue Date |
| 2010-12-XX | Date by which Microsoft allegedly knew of '897 Patent |
| 2016-10-25 | '726 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-12-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,035,897, "Wireless Augmented Reality Communication System" (Issued Apr. 25, 2006)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of accessing networked digital information, such as electronic technical manuals, in environments where hands are occupied or conditions are harsh (e.g., an astronaut performing a repair) (ʼ897 Patent, col. 1:26-44). Existing hands-free systems were described as self-contained and lacking capabilities for multi-user, two-way communication with other users or remote multimedia devices (ʼ897 Patent, col. 1:50-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a wireless communication system centered on a "small, wearable portable access unit (PAU)" that connects to a "centrally-located network access unit, called a general purpose node" (ʼ897 Patent, col. 2:27-33). This architecture allows a user to have a hands-free, two-way video and audio link with remote users or devices, view data on a wearable display, and control networked equipment, while also allowing remote observers to see the user's field of view via an integrated camera (ʼ897 Patent, col. 2:57-64).
- Technical Importance: The system aimed to provide untethered, real-time, collaborative multimedia access, moving beyond the prior art's paradigm of a single user interacting with a self-contained, non-networked wearable computer ('897 Patent, col. 1:50-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and one or more of its dependent claims (Compl. ¶17).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a "mobile access unit" comprising:
- A video input and a video output for real-time video.
- A wearable display connected to the video output.
- A codec connected to the video input and output.
- A transceiver with a transmitter and a receiver for communicating over wireless links.
- The codec is configured to encode, multiplex, demultiplex, and decode real-time video for transmission and display.
U.S. Patent No. 9,479,726, "Wireless Augmented Reality Communication System" (Issued Oct. 25, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '897 Patent, the '726 Patent addresses the same fundamental problem of providing hands-free, networked multimedia access ('726 Patent, col. 1:12-21).
- The Patented Solution: The claims of the '726 Patent focus more specifically on the user-interaction aspects of the system. The invention is claimed as a system and method where a user's portable unit connects to a network node, which then allows the user to see a "list of one or more media devices" connected to the network ('726 Patent, col. 9:40-47). The user can then select a device from that list using a "touchpad" to establish a data link and view multimedia content ('726 Patent, col. 9:50-56).
- Technical Importance: This patent emphasizes the system's function as a dynamic, user-directed hub for connecting to various networked resources, rather than just the hardware components of a single link ('726 Patent, col. 4:35-50).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 25 and one or more of their dependents (Compl. ¶29).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a communication system where a "portable access unit" comprising a "wearable device, a touchpad and a transceiver" connects to a general purpose node, displays a list of available media devices, and receives a command from the touchpad to select a device and display its multimedia content.
- Independent Claim 25 recites a method claim that mirrors the system of claim 1.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are the Microsoft HoloLens devices and associated services (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the Microsoft HoloLens as a "self-contained computer with Wi-Fi connectivity" that functions as an "untethered device" (Compl. p. 7). The complaint references marketing materials stating the HoloLens combines hardware, AI, and mixed reality to allow users to "learn, communicate, and collaborate more effectively" (Compl. p. 5). The complaint points to specific applications like "Dynamics 365 Remote Assist" and "Skype" as examples of infringing use, which enable collaborative work and communication by letting remote contacts "see what you see" (Compl. p. 6, p. 8). A screenshot from a promotional video for "Skype for HoloLens" shows a user engaged in a two-way video call, with the remote participant's video feed appearing as a hologram in the user's environment (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'897 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mobile access unit for use in a localized communications system | The HoloLens device itself, which is described as a "mobile access unit." The complaint includes a photograph of the HoloLens headset being worn by a user, depicting its mobile and wearable nature (Compl. p. 7). | ¶18 | col. 4:6-11 |
| a video input configured to receive real-time video information | The HoloLens includes cameras that capture the user's environment in real-time. | ¶19 | col. 7:29-30 |
| a video output configured to provide real-time video information | The HoloLens projects holographic images, including real-time video from remote sources, into the user's view. | ¶19 | col. 7:30-31 |
| a wearable display connected to the video output | The HoloLens's "see-through holographic lenses (waveguides)" which display information to the user. | ¶19 | col. 8:36-40 |
| a codec connected to the video input and video output | The complaint alleges the HoloLens contains a codec connected to its video input and output components. | ¶19 | col. 7:42-43 |
| a transmitter connected to the codec... configured to transmit a data stream... over an upstream wireless communication link | The complaint alleges the HoloLens includes a transmitter (part of its Wi-Fi/Bluetooth hardware) connected to the codec for sending data. | ¶20 | col. 7:44-49 |
| a receiver connected to the codec... configured to receive a data stream... over a downstream wireless communication link | The complaint alleges the HoloLens includes a receiver (part of its Wi-Fi/Bluetooth hardware) connected to the codec for receiving data, including encoded real-time video. | ¶20 | col. 7:49-53 |
| wherein the codec is configured to: encode real-time video... and multiplex the encoded real-time video with other data | The complaint alleges the HoloLens codec performs the functions of encoding video captured by its cameras and multiplexing it with other data for transmission. | ¶21 | col. 7:54-61 |
| wherein the codec is also configured to: demultiplex the encoded real-time video... and decode the encoded real-time video | The complaint alleges the HoloLens codec performs the functions of demultiplexing and decoding received video streams to be shown on the display. | ¶21 | col. 7:62-67 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patent describes the "mobile access unit" as a "pager-sized" device that acts as a terminal for a "general purpose node" (ʼ897 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-33). A potential issue is whether the self-contained, powerful computing architecture of the HoloLens, which is a standalone computer, falls within the scope of the patent's more "thin-client" description.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges a specific internal architecture involving a "codec" that performs distinct "encode", "multiplex", "demultiplex", and "decode" functions and is connected between the I/O and the transceiver (Compl. ¶¶19-21). A key evidentiary question for the court will be whether the HoloLens's internal processing hardware and software actually operate according to this specific claimed structure and data flow.
'726 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis for the '726 Patent. The infringement theory appears to be that the HoloLens operating system or applications (like Skype or Remote Assist) present the user with a list of contacts or connectable devices, and the user can select one to initiate a multimedia communication session, thereby practicing the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶29, 31).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claims 1 and 25 require a "touchpad" for receiving user commands. The HoloLens primarily uses in-air hand gestures and voice commands as input methods. The case may turn on whether these modern input modalities can be construed to meet the "touchpad" limitation, a term from the 1999 priority date.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the HoloLens's contact lists or application menus constitute the claimed "list of one or more media devices that are connected to the general purpose node"? The functionality must map to the claim's requirement of displaying devices that are actively connected to a central node.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the '897 Patent
- The Term: "mobile access unit"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core infringing device. Its construction is critical because the accused HoloLens is a sophisticated, self-contained computer, while the patent's specification repeatedly characterizes the invention as a "pager-sized" device ('897 Patent, Abstract), suggesting a simpler terminal. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the term is construed broadly to cover any portable device with the claimed capabilities or narrowly to the thinner-client architecture described.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. The specification describes its function as providing "hands-free, tetherless, real-time access and display of network resources" ('897 Patent, col. 1:21-23), a functional description that the HoloLens arguably meets.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention describes a system of "small individual portable access units linked to a local cellular general purpose node" ('897 Patent, col. 2:4-6). This, combined with the "pager-sized" description, suggests a specific client-server architecture where the "unit" is distinct from the primary processing "node," potentially distinguishing it from the all-in-one HoloLens.
For the '726 Patent
- The Term: "touchpad"
- Context and Importance: Asserted claims 1 and 25 require user commands to be received via a "touchpad." The HoloLens's primary input methods are gestures and voice. Infringement will depend on whether these methods are considered equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because of the potential mismatch between the claim language, rooted in 1999 technology, and the modern interface of the accused device.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that an "integrated 'touchpad' on the PAU may be used for remote computer control" ('726 Patent, col. 2:45-48). A party could argue this defines the term functionally as any integrated component used for control commands, potentially encompassing gesture-sensing systems.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the patent. A party could argue that its plain and ordinary meaning at the time of invention (1999) was a physical, two-dimensional, touch-sensitive surface, which would not include three-dimensional in-air gestures or voice commands.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement claim is based on allegations that Microsoft provides user guides, instruction manuals, advertising, and demonstrations that instruct and encourage customers to use the HoloLens in an infringing manner (e.g., by using collaborative apps like Skype) (Compl. ¶¶23, 31).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Crucially, it alleges that Microsoft knew of the '897 Patent "since at least December 2010" because it cited the patent during the prosecution of its own patent application (Compl. ¶15). For the '726 Patent, knowledge is alleged from the filing of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of "architectural scope": can the '897 patent's "mobile access unit," described in the specification as a "pager-sized" terminal dependent on a "general purpose node," be construed to read on the powerful, self-contained computing architecture of the accused HoloLens device?
- A key question for the '726 patent will be one of "definitional scope": does the term "touchpad," as required by the asserted claims, encompass the HoloLens's primary input modalities of in-air gestures and voice commands, or is its meaning limited to a physical, touch-sensitive surface common at the time of the invention?
- Given the allegation that Microsoft cited the '897 patent in its own prosecution records nearly a decade before this suit, a critical focus for damages will be on "willfulness": what evidence will be presented to determine whether Defendant proceeded with objective recklessness despite this documented pre-suit knowledge of the core technology?