DCT

8:11-cv-01056

Universal Electronics Inc v. Logitech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:11-cv-01056, C.D. Cal., 07/15/2011
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants transacting substantial business and deriving substantial revenue from the sale of infringing products within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Harmony line of universal remote controls and related products infringes seventeen patents related to remote control setup, programming, and operation.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns universal remote control technology, a mature market segment focused on consolidating control of multiple home entertainment devices into a single controller.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a significant history between the parties, including a 2002 patent litigation against Defendant's predecessor, Intrigue Technologies. This litigation resulted in a 2004 settlement and license agreement covering some of the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff alleges this license terminated on June 30, 2010, after Defendants failed to renew, and that subsequent negotiations to re-license the patents were unsuccessful. This history of prior litigation and licensing may be central to allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1987-12-02 Earliest Priority Date ('917, '077, '313 Patents)
1993-07-13 U.S. Patent No. 5,228,077 Issued
1993-10-19 U.S. Patent No. 5,255,313 Issued
1994-01-28 Earliest Priority Date ('761 Patent)
1995-05-09 U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761 Issued
1996-09-03 U.S. Patent No. 5,552,917 Issued
1998-07-07 Earliest Priority Date ('059 Patent)
1999-01-20 Earliest Priority Date ('7309, '262 Patents)
2000-08-01 U.S. Patent No. 6,097,309 Issued
2002-01-01 UEI commenced "Prior Litigation" against Intrigue Technologies, Inc. (approx. date)
2002-04-03 Earliest Priority Date ('003, '209, '696 Patents)
2002-10-10 Earliest Priority Date ('468 Patent)
2003-02-18 U.S. Patent No. 6,522,262 Issued
2003-05-16 Earliest Priority Date ('243 Patent)
2004-01-01 Defendants acquired Intrigue Technologies, Inc. (approx. date)
2004-06-28 UEI and Logitech executed a settlement and license agreement
2004-12-21 Earliest Priority Date ('642 Patent)
2005-06-21 Earliest Priority Date ('930, '309, '504, '505 Patents)
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. RE 39,059 Reissued
2006-08-15 U.S. Patent No. 7,093,003 Issued
2006-09-12 U.S. Patent No. 7,106,209 Issued
2006-10-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,126,468 Issued
2007-05-15 U.S. Patent No. 7,218,243 Issued
2007-08-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,259,696 Issued
2009-09-15 U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642 Issued
2010-06-30 License agreement between UEI and Logitech terminated
2010-08-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,782,309 Issued
2010-10-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,821,504 Issued
2010-10-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,821,505 Issued
2010-11-09 U.S. Patent No. 7,831,930 Issued
2011-07-15 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,552,917 - “Remote Control,” Issued September 3, 1996

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent does not explicitly state a problem in its background section, but implies the need for a mechanism to update the functionality of a remote control with new instruction codes or infrared code data after its initial manufacture (U.S. Patent No. 5,552,917, Abstract).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a remote control with a CPU, memory, and "data coupling circuitry." This circuitry allows instruction codes or infrared code data to be supplied from an external source directly to the remote's CPU and memory, enabling the remote to control new or different devices not contemplated during its original design ('917 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-30).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a remote control's useful life to be extended by updating its internal code library, a foundational concept for modern configurable universal remotes.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • Input circuitry (e.g., keys or pushbuttons) for inputting commands.
    • Infrared signal output circuitry.
    • A central processing unit (CPU) coupled to the input and output circuitry.
    • A memory coupled to the CPU.
    • Code data for generating infrared codes stored in the memory.
    • Data coupling circuitry coupled to the CPU for enabling instruction codes or infrared code data to be supplied from outside the remote control for entry into the memory.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. RE 39,059 - “Computer Programmable Remote Control,” Reissued April 4, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating a universal remote control that can be easily updated and programmed by a user, without requiring the user to have technical expertise in infrared codes (U.S. Patent No. RE 39,059, col. 2:20-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a computer is used to select and download device codes to a remote control. The computer has access to a library of codes and presents a user-friendly interface for selecting devices. This selected data is then transferred to the remote control's memory, allowing it to control the chosen devices ('059 Patent, col. 5:28-44).
  • Technical Importance: This patent describes the foundational architecture for web- or PC-based setup of universal remote controls, which became a dominant method for configuring advanced remotes.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶22). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A computer with a memory storing code data for creating IR lamp driver instructions.
    • A universal remote control with input circuitry, infrared output circuitry, a CPU, and memory.
    • Data coupling circuitry for periodically coupling the computer to the remote control.
    • The coupling enables the inputting of code data from the computer memory into the remote control memory.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,218,243 - “System and Method for Automatically Setting Up a Universal Remote Control,” Issued May 15, 2007

Technology Synopsis

This patent relates to a method for automatically setting up a remote control by having an appliance transmit an identifying signal (a "squawk signal") that the remote control can receive. The remote control then uses the information in this signal to configure itself to command the appliance (Compl. ¶26; '243 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶27). Independent claims 1 and 21 are representative.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the setup processes of the Harmony H300, H650, H700, H900, One, H1100, and Harmony Revue products infringe this patent (Compl. ¶27).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,093,003 - “System and Method for Upgrading the Remote Control Functionality of a Device,” Issued August 15, 2006

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a system where a device with remote control functionality (like a PDA or advanced remote) can have its capabilities upgraded by connecting to a server. The device can upload its current configuration, and the server can provide relevant downloadable data files, such as new command codes or graphical user interface elements ('003 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶32). Independent claim 1 is representative.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Harmony H300, H650, H700, H900, One, and H1100 products infringe this patent (Compl. ¶32).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,831,930 - “System and Method for Displaying a User Interface for a Remote Control Application,” Issued November 9, 2010

Technology Synopsis

This patent covers a user interface for a remote control application on a hand-held electronic device. The interface displays operational modes and allows a user to set up the remote, perform activities, and access favorites. The application is also described as being upgradeable ('930 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶37). Independent claims 1 and 4 are representative.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Harmony H650, H700, H900, One, and H1100 products infringe this patent (Compl. ¶37).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,782,309, 7,821,504, and 7,821,505 - “Controlling Device with Dual-Mode, Touch-Sensitive Display”

Technology Synopsis

This family of patents describes a remote control with a touch-sensitive display that operates in two modes. In one mode, it displays graphical icons for controlling appliances. In a second mode, it acts as a pointer control (like a touchpad) for a cursor on a remote display, such as a PC or TV screen ('309, '504, '505 Patents, Abstracts).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" for each patent (Compl. ¶41, ¶45, ¶49). Representative independent claims include claim 1 of the '309 patent, claim 1 of the '504 patent, and claim 1 of the '505 patent.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Logitech Revue, Logitech Mini Controller for Logitech Revue, and Logitech Harmony Apps for iPhone and Android infringe these patents (Compl. ¶41, ¶45, ¶49).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,106,209 - “Programming a Universal Remote Control,” Issued September 12, 2006

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a method for programming a universal remote by receiving a signal from a source remote, determining its characteristics, comparing those characteristics to a database, and finding a matching code set to configure the universal remote ('209 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶53). Independent claims 1 and 22 are representative.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Harmony H300, H650, H700, H900, One, H1100, and Logitech Revue products infringe this patent (Compl. ¶53).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,259,696 - “Interactive Web-Based Codeset Selection and Development Tool,” Issued August 21, 2007

Technology Synopsis

This patent covers a web-based tool for selecting and developing codesets for microcontrollers used in remote controls. A developer can use the tool to select appropriate codesets from a central database via a web browser and receive encrypted timing information for programming a new remote control ('696 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶58). Independent claim 1 is representative.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Harmony H300, H650, H700, H900, One, H1100, and Logitech Revue products infringe this patent (Compl. ¶58).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 5,255,313 - “Universal Remote Control System,” Issued October 19, 1993

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a universal remote control system where a computer, which stores code data, is periodically coupled to a universal remote control to input instructions into the remote's memory, enabling it to control various devices ('313 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶63). Independent claims 1 and 2 are representative.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Harmony H300, H650, H700, H900, One, and H1100 products infringe this patent (Compl. ¶63).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 5,228,077 - “Remotely Upgradable Universal Remote Control,” Issued July 13, 1993

Technology Synopsis

This patent discloses a universal remote control system that can be upgraded with new code data from an external source. The system includes coupling circuitry, such as a modem or direct connection, to transfer data from a computer to the remote's non-volatile memory ('077 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶68). Independent claim 1 is representative.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Harmony H300, H650, H700, H900, One, and H1100 products infringe this patent (Compl. ¶68).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 5,414,761 - “Remote Control System,” Issued May 9, 1995

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a remote control system that includes a computer and a remote control, with data coupling circuitry for periodically transferring instruction codes from the computer's memory to the remote's memory, enabling the remote to control various devices ('761 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶73). Independent claim 1 is representative.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Harmony H300, H650, H700, H900, One, and H1100 products infringe this patent (Compl. ¶73).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642 - “Relaying Key Code Signals Through a Remote Control Device,” Issued September 15, 2009

Technology Synopsis

This patent covers a system where a key code generator (e.g., a set-top box) receives a simple keystroke indicator from a remote, generates the corresponding full key code signal, and transmits it back to the remote. The remote then relays this key code to the target consumer device using a different carrier frequency (e.g., IR) ('642 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶78). Independent claim 1 is representative.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Logitech Revue product infringes this patent (Compl. ¶78).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,126,468 - “System and Method for Monitoring Remote Control Transmissions,” Issued October 24, 2006

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a system for monitoring remote control transmissions to update state tables for appliances. By tracking the current state of an appliance, the system can avoid sending commands that would place the appliance in an unintended state (e.g., toggling power off when it is already on) ('468 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶83). Independent claim 1 is representative.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Logitech Revue product infringes this patent (Compl. ¶83).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,097,309 and 6,522,262 - “Signal Envelope Pattern Recognition”

Technology Synopsis

This pair of patents relates to a method for a learning remote to identify the command format of devices that use high carrier frequencies. The system uses receiver signal reconstruction and knowledge of known code formats to recognize the signal envelope pattern and infer the correct carrier frequency, even if it cannot be directly measured ('7309, '262 Patents, Abstracts).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" for each patent (Compl. ¶88, ¶93). Representative independent claims include claim 1 of the '7309 patent and claim 1 of the '262 patent.

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Harmony H300, H650, H700, H900, One, H1100, and Logitech Revue products infringe these patents (Compl. ¶88, ¶93).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as the Harmony H300, H650, H700, H900, One, and H1100 remote controls; the Logitech Revue and its associated Mini Controller; Harmony Link technology; and the Logitech Harmony App for iPhone and Android (Compl. ¶15; ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint broadly describes the accused products as "remote controls and remote control related products" (Compl. ¶15). It does not provide specific technical details about how these individual products operate. The allegations imply that these products incorporate functionalities such as web-based or PC-based setup, learning capabilities, touch-screen interfaces, and interaction with media systems like the Logitech Revue. The complaint provides no specific operational details for the court to analyze against the patent claims. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement on a claim-by-claim basis. The allegations are conclusory and do not include claim charts or specific descriptions of how any accused product meets the limitations of any asserted claim (Compl. ¶17, ¶22). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

Identified Points of Contention

Evidentiary Questions

The central point of contention will be evidentiary. A primary question is what evidence Plaintiff will produce to demonstrate that the various accused products, which span hardware remotes, media hubs, and mobile applications, practice the specific steps and contain the specific structures recited in the claims of seventeen different patents.

Scope Questions

For patents such as the '309, '504, and '505, a question of scope may arise regarding whether a "controlling device" with a dual-mode display, as claimed, reads on software applications (e.g., Logitech Harmony App) running on general-purpose mobile devices like an iPhone or Android phone. Similarly, for the '642 patent, a question may be whether the Logitech Revue system performs the claimed method of receiving a simple indicator, generating a full key code, and transmitting it back to a remote for relay.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "data coupling circuitry" (from '917 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

The definition of this term is central to the '917 Patent, as it describes the mechanism for updating the remote. The dispute may turn on what physical or logical components in the accused Harmony remotes constitute this "circuitry" and whether their function aligns with the patent's description.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the circuitry broadly as being "coupled to the CPU for enabling... code data... to be supplied from outside the remote control" ('917 Patent, Abstract). This could be argued to cover any modern data port, such as a USB connector, that allows firmware or library updates.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is a continuation of an application that became U.S. Patent No. 5,228,077, which discloses specific embodiments such as serial ports and connections via modems or acoustic couplers ('077 Patent, col. 2:10-41). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to the types of data ports and connection methods disclosed in the specification of the parent patent.

Term: "periodically coupling the computer to the remote control" (from '059 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term defines the nature of the interaction between the programming computer and the remote. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused Harmony setup process, which involves connecting the remote to a PC via USB to download a configuration, meets the "periodically coupling" limitation.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not impose a strict temporal requirement on "periodically," which could be interpreted to mean "from time to time" or "as needed" by the user for updates. This would likely cover the accused products' functionality.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition that would narrow the term. However, a defendant could argue that in the context of the patent's filing era, "periodically" implies a more regular or scheduled connection than the on-demand, user-initiated updates typical of the accused Harmony products.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants contribute to and actively induce infringement by others (Compl. ¶18, ¶23). It further alleges inducement is facilitated by "creating and/or disseminating guides and other instructional and promotional materials for the infringing products" (Compl. ¶6).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for every asserted patent. The basis for willfulness rests on Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of the patents from three sources: a "Prior Litigation" initiated in 2002, a subsequent license "Agreement" executed in 2004 that included some of the asserted patents, and the parties' licensing negotiations that occurred after the Agreement terminated in 2010 (Compl. ¶20, ¶28, ¶36).

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the assertion of seventeen patents against a diverse product line with only general allegations, a central question for the court will be whether the Plaintiff can provide sufficient technical evidence to map the limitations of numerous distinct claims onto the specific hardware and software operations of each accused product.
  • A key legal and factual question will be the impact of the prior license: how will the history of litigation and a terminated license agreement, which allegedly covered some of the asserted patents, affect the analysis of willfulness and damages? The existence of a prior license often complicates infringement narratives, and its interpretation will be a pivotal issue.
  • The case may also turn on a question of technological evolution: can claim terms from patents filed in the 1980s and 1990s, which describe technologies like serial ports and acoustic couplers, be construed to cover modern technologies like USB connectivity and software applications running on smartphones, or is there a fundamental mismatch in scope?