Qualitative Data Solutions LLC v. Haptx Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Qualitative Data Solutions, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: HaptX, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: SML Avvocati P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01064, C.D. Cal., 02/07/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is deemed a resident of the district, and alternatively, because alleged acts of infringement are occurring in the district where Defendant has a regular and established place of business.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe two patents related to systems and methods for communicating messages to a user via skin-based haptic or vibrotactile feedback.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns using wearable devices to translate digital messages into tactile patterns on a user's skin, offering a non-visual and non-auditory communication channel.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 10,706,692 is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,953,494. Both patents claim priority to the same 2011 provisional application, creating a shared specification and potentially linked claim scope.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-02-25	Priority Date for ’494 and ’692 Patents
2018-04-24	U.S. Patent No. 9,953,494 Issued
2020-07-07	U.S. Patent No. 10,706,692 Issued
2025-02-07	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,953,494 - Device, System and Method for Mobile Devices to Communicate Through Skin Response, issued April 24, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to provide a method for users to receive messages from a mobile device without relying on visual or auditory cues, which is described as "extremely useful to those users who are hearing impaired as well as those users who are visually impaired" and also beneficial for users who desire discretion ('494 Patent, col. 3:35-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-part system. A primary mobile device (e.g., a smartphone) receives a message (such as an email or text) over a network. It then transmits that message to a separate, wearable "vibrotactile device" (e.g., a pad or wrist-watch) which contains a processor and actuators. This second device converts the message into a "predefined vibration pattern" that is effected onto the user's skin to communicate the message's content ('494 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:20-34).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a private, tactile communication channel, distinct from simple alerts, by encoding and transmitting the substantive content of messages through the sense of touch ('494 Patent, col. 9:47-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system comprising a mobile device and a separate "tactual device" configured to be worn by a user.
  • The mobile device having a module to receive a message over a network and a module to transmit it to the tactual device.
  • The tactual device storing a "tactually perceivable predetermined set of patterns ... that represent alphanumerical characters, words and phrases."
  • The tactual device having a processor to convert the message into a signal based on the stored patterns.
  • The tactual device having a plurality of independently located actuating elements to effect the patterns onto the user's skin.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,706,692 - Device, System and Method for Mobile Devices to Communicate Through Skin Response, issued July 7, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '494 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem: enabling silent, discreet, and accessible communication of messages for users of mobile devices ('692 Patent, col. 1:12-17).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same as in the parent patent: a system where a mobile device forwards a received message to a wearable vibrotactile device, which then translates the message into a specific pattern of vibrations on the user’s skin using multiple actuators ('692 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:28-40). The system is designed to convey the content of messages like emails or SMS texts ('692 Patent, col. 2:50-51).
• Technical Importance: The invention aims to move beyond simple haptic alerts to a more complex system capable of conveying language-based information through touch ('692 Patent, col. 10:10-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶24). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are substantially similar to claim 1 of the '494 Patent, but add the concept of "activation parameters":
  • A system with a mobile device and a separate, wearable "tactual device."
  • The mobile device receives a message from a network and transmits it to the tactual device.
  • The tactual device stores "predetermined set of patterns ... that represent alphanumerical characters, words and phrases."
  • A processor converts the message into a signal based on the patterns and a "plurality of activation parameters."
  • A plurality of actuating elements are selectively activated based on the perceivable patterns and the activation parameters.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify the accused instrumentalities by name, referring to them generally as "products" and "instrumentalities" of Defendant HaptX, Inc. (Compl. ¶6, ¶14, ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant HaptX, Inc. makes, uses, sells, and imports these unspecified products within the district (Compl. ¶10-11). Based on the defendant's identity as a known producer of haptic technology, the accused instrumentalities are presumably advanced haptic feedback systems, such as gloves, used for virtual and augmented reality applications. The complaint does not provide specific details on the functionality or market position of any particular product.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibits C and D (Compl. ¶14, ¶24). As these exhibits were not included with the public filing, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theory suggests that HaptX's products constitute the "tactual device" of the claimed system, which receives data (the "message") from a connected computer (the "mobile device") and generates haptic feedback on the user's skin via a plurality of actuators, thereby infringing the patents-in-suit.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent language and the general nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis raises several questions:

• Scope Questions: The patents repeatedly describe the "message" in terms of textual communications like e-mail or SMS ('692 Patent, col. 2:50-51). A primary question will be whether the data transmitted in the accused HaptX system (e.g., data representing force, texture, and object contact in a virtual environment) can be construed as a "message" within the meaning of the claims.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the accused products perform the specific function of converting a message into a "predetermined set of patterns...that represent alphanumerical characters, words and phrases" as required by independent claim 1 of both patents ('494 Patent, col. 10:56-59; '692 Patent, col. 10:60-63). The complaint does not provide evidence that the accused haptic feedback systems are used to communicate language, as opposed to simulating physical sensations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "message"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute. The patents' specifications provide examples such as "an e-mail, text message, predefined coded message, etc." ('692 Patent, col. 3:31-33). The accused products, likely VR/AR haptic gloves, presumably transmit data packets related to spatial coordinates, force feedback, and virtual object properties. Whether this type of data constitutes a "message" will be a critical issue for determining infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any structured data transmitted between devices for a specific purpose.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently frames the invention as a tool for a user to "receive a message without letting anyone know" and to comprehend content like "a brief message to call his colleague X" ('494 Patent, col. 9:39-58). This context strongly suggests the term refers to communicative content intended for human understanding, not just machine-to-machine operational data.

• The Term: "a tactually perceivable predetermined set of patterns stored in memory that represent alphanumerical characters, words and phrases"

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears in independent claim 1 of both patents and defines the core function of the claimed "tactual device." Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires a specific, language-based mapping between stored patterns and haptic output. Infringement will depend on whether the accused HaptX systems contain and use such a predefined, language-based pattern library.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any consistent haptic response to a given data input constitutes a "predetermined pattern."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language explicitly requires that these patterns "represent alphanumerical characters, words and phrases." The specification reinforces this by describing translations into Braille or other shorthand symbology, and "tracing the letter" on the user's skin ('692 Patent, col. 9:1-11, col. 9:39-44). This suggests the patterns must have a direct semantic link to language, not just a causal link to a physical event simulation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant has had knowledge of the patents "At least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶16, ¶26). This allegation is based on post-suit knowledge and does not allege specific facts supporting pre-suit inducement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, the prayer for relief requests an award of "damages ... in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284," which is the statutory basis for enhanced damages often awarded for willful infringement (Compl. p. 5, ¶(c)). The body of the complaint does not contain factual allegations of pre-suit knowledge or egregious conduct that would typically support a finding of willfulness.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court’s interpretation of claim scope and the factual evidence regarding the operation of the accused products. The central questions are:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "message," which the patents describe in the context of human-readable text like e-mails and SMS, be construed to cover the operational data streams used to generate force feedback in an immersive virtual reality system?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused HaptX system contain and use a "predetermined set of patterns" that explicitly "represent alphanumerical characters, words and phrases," as required by the claims, or does it generate haptic feedback based on physics simulations without a direct mapping to linguistic symbols?

3. A threshold procedural question may arise from the sufficiency of the pleadings: given the absence of named accused products and the reliance on unfiled claim chart exhibits, the court may need to address whether the complaint provides the defendant with adequate notice of the specific infringement allegations.