8:24-cv-00428
Haptix Solutions LLC v. Microsoft Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Haptix Solutions LLC (California)
- Defendant: Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: One LLP
- Case Identification: 8:24-cv-00428, C.D. Cal., 05/17/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's regular and established places of business within the Central District of California, including offices in Irvine and Aliso Viejo, and its substantial business activities and product sales in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Surface Slim Pen 2 and associated Surface computer systems infringe a patent related to haptic feedback styluses for touchscreens.
- Technical Context: The technology involves providing dynamic tactile feedback in electronic styluses to simulate the feel of physical media like paper, a key feature for enhancing user experience in digital art and note-taking applications.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint alleges that Defendant had extensive pre-suit knowledge of the patent, detailing numerous instances where the patent was cited by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office against Defendant’s own patent applications and disclosed by Defendant itself during prosecution. These allegations form the basis of a claim for willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-11-26 | '686 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-11-21 | '686 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2010-04-29 | Microsoft '066 patent application filed |
| 2012-08-08 | Microsoft '088 patent application filed |
| 2012-08-17 | Microsoft '457 patent application filed |
| 2012-08-28 | '686 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-09-13 | Office Action in Microsoft prosecution cites '686 Patent |
| 2012-10-15 | Microsoft response in prosecution distinguishing '686 Patent |
| 2012-12-17 | Microsoft '281 patent application filed |
| 2013-02-12 | Microsoft IDS in '281 application cites '686 Patent |
| 2014-07-08 | Office Action in Microsoft prosecution cites '686 Patent |
| 2014-09-02 | Office Action in Microsoft prosecution cites '686 Patent |
| 2014-10-08 | Microsoft response in prosecution distinguishing '686 Patent |
| 2014-12-09 | Final Office Action in Microsoft prosecution cites '686 Patent |
| 2014-12-24 | Office Action in Microsoft prosecution cites '686 Patent |
| 2015-03-24 | Microsoft response in prosecution cancels claim over '686 Patent |
| 2015-06-18 | Microsoft '281 patent application abandoned |
| 2019-04-05 | Microsoft '096 patent application filed |
| 2020-03-02 | Office Action in Microsoft prosecution cites '686 Patent |
| 2020-06-02 | Microsoft response in prosecution distinguishing '686 Patent |
| 2021-04-09 | Microsoft '381 patent application filed |
| 2022-03-08 | Microsoft '071 patent application filed |
| 2022-11-15 | Office Action in Microsoft prosecution cites '686 Patent |
| 2023-01-13 | Microsoft response in prosecution distinguishing '686 Patent |
| 2023-02-15 | Notice of Allowance in Microsoft prosecution cites '686 Patent |
| 2024-02-29 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2024-05-17 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,253,686 - "Pointing Apparatus Capable of Providing Haptic Feedback, and Haptic Interaction System and Method Using the Same," Issued Aug. 28, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a limitation in conventional touch screen styluses: they lack sophisticated tactile feedback, making the experience of writing or drawing feel unnatural compared to using a pen on paper. It notes that prior solutions, such as installing a haptic feedback device directly into the touch screen, require intervening in the screen’s manufacturing process (’686 Patent, col. 1:16-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained, pen-type pointing apparatus that communicates wirelessly with a user terminal (e.g., a tablet). The terminal’s software sends "haptic output information" to the stylus, which then uses an internal "haptic stimulator" (such as a linear or rotary vibrator) to create a corresponding physical sensation for the user. This allows the stylus itself, rather than the screen, to generate nuanced feedback, such as vibrations that change with the speed of drawing, to simulate different textures or button clicks (’686 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-15; FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: This system architecture decouples the haptic feedback generation from the display hardware, enabling an accessory to provide advanced tactile effects for use with standard, non-haptic touchscreens (’686 Patent, col. 1:47-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (an apparatus) and 23 (a system) (Compl. ¶30).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a pointing apparatus with essential elements including:
- a wireless communication unit for receiving an event with haptic output information
- a controller that generates a control signal to reproduce a haptic pattern
- a haptic stimulator (e.g., a linear or rotary vibrator) that reproduces the pattern
- wherein the controller "increases an input cycle of the control signal in proportion to the moving speed of a pointer"
- Independent Claim 23 recites a system with essential elements including:
- a pointing apparatus that receives an event and reproduces a haptic pattern
- a user terminal with an application that generates and transmits the event to the pointing apparatus
- wherein the apparatus’s controller "increases or decreases an input cycle of the control signal in proportion to the moving speed of a pointer increasing or decreasing, respectively"
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least" these claims, reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶30).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Microsoft’s "Surface Slim Pen 2" (the "Accused Surface Pen") and the combination of the pen with compatible Microsoft "Surface Pro," "Surface Laptop," and "Surface Laptop Studio" devices (the "Accused Surface Pen / Surface Laptop") (Compl. ¶¶ 22-23).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Surface Slim Pen 2 contains a "built-in haptic motor" designed to provide tactile signals that "mimic the precision and responsiveness of putting pen to paper" (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27). This functionality is positioned as a key differentiator from prior stylus models, creating a more "natural" and "interactive experience" for users (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26). The haptic effects are enabled when the pen is paired with a compatible Surface device that supports "tactile signals" functionality, allegedly transforming "inking on the Surface Pro 8," for example (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 27). The complaint includes a side-by-side image comparing a marketing photo of the Accused Surface Pen in use with a tablet against a figure from the ’686 Patent to illustrate their alleged similarity (Compl. ¶24).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an attached claim chart in Exhibit B to detail its infringement theories; however, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 30). The narrative allegations provide the basis for the infringement case.
Narrative Infringement Theory
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products collectively meet the limitations of the asserted claims. The Surface Slim Pen 2 is alleged to be the claimed "pointing apparatus," while a compatible Surface device functions as the "user terminal" (Compl. ¶¶ 22-23). The pen's internal "haptic motor" is alleged to be the "haptic stimulator," and its "custom chip" is alleged to be the "controller" (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27). The system is alleged to operate by having an application on the Surface device generate and wirelessly transmit signals to the pen, which then creates tactile feedback (Compl. ¶23). The complaint asserts this feedback varies in a manner corresponding to the claims, quoting from the patent's description of how vibration frequency can be increased with stylus speed to mimic a rapid stroke (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19, 27).
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The asserted claims require the controller to vary the "input cycle of the control signal" specifically "in proportion to the moving speed of a pointer." A central dispute may arise over whether the accused system's method for modulating haptic feedback, which third-party reviews cited in the complaint suggest may also relate to pressure, meets this specific "speed"-based limitation (’686 Patent, col. 15:20-23; Compl. ¶27).
- Technical Questions: The complaint relies heavily on marketing statements and high-level descriptions to support its infringement theory. A key evidentiary question for the court will be what technical evidence demonstrates that the accused system's software and hardware actually operate in the specific manner claimed. This includes proving that the signals passed between the devices constitute "haptic output information" and that the pen's controller modulates an "input cycle" based on pointer speed, as opposed to another technical mechanism.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"input cycle of the control signal"
Context and Importance
This term appears in the independent claims and defines the specific technical mechanism for modulating the haptic feedback. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused system's method of varying vibrations (e.g., by changing frequency, intensity, or another parameter) falls within the scope of the claims.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses controlling vibration intensity using Pulse Width Modulation (PWM), where the "duty ratio" of a signal is changed within a cycle, which could support an interpretation that "input cycle" is not limited to simple frequency changes (’686 Patent, col. 8:1-8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also provides concrete examples where vibration frequency is directly tied to pointer speed levels (e.g., "vibration is generated once per a second when the speed of the pointer is at a level 1"), which could support an argument that the term requires direct modulation of the signal's period (’686 Patent, col. 8:33-36; FIG. 5B).
"in proportion to the moving speed of a pointer"
Context and Importance
This phrase limits how the "input cycle" can be modified. The infringement analysis will depend on whether this requires a direct, mathematical proportionality to speed or allows for a more general correlation where other factors, such as pressure, may also influence the feedback.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes that the relationship may be a "continuous functional relationship with the moving speed of the haptic stylus," suggesting a potentially broader, correlational meaning rather than strict proportionality (’686 Patent, col. 7:45-51).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract and primary embodiments consistently link increased speed with increased vibration frequency or intensity, which could be argued to mean that pointer speed must be the direct and primary driver of the feedback modulation (’686 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:51-55).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Microsoft's marketing, user manuals, and other support materials instruct and encourage customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 33-34). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the Accused Products are a material part of the invention, are especially adapted for the infringing use, and are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶32).
Willful Infringement
The complaint makes extensive allegations of willful infringement. It claims Microsoft had knowledge of the ’686 Patent since "at least 2010" and details a lengthy history of the patent being cited by the USPTO against Microsoft's own patent applications and being disclosed by Microsoft itself in Information Disclosure Statements across at least eight different patent families (Compl. ¶¶ 37-75). The complaint also pleads knowledge from a notice letter sent on February 29, 2024 (Compl. ¶36).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and technical mapping: Does the accused system’s method of varying haptic feedback, which may be based on a combination of inputs including pressure, meet the specific claim requirement that the "input cycle of the control signal" be modulated "in proportion to the moving speed of a pointer"?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of proof of operation: Beyond marketing materials, what technical evidence will be required to demonstrate that the software on the Surface device and the firmware in the Surface Slim Pen 2 operate as a system that practices the specific steps of generating, transmitting, and reproducing haptic patterns as recited in the asserted claims?
- The allegations of willful infringement are a central pillar of the complaint. The case may turn on whether the extensive patent prosecution history cited by the Plaintiff is sufficient to establish that the Defendant proceeded to market its products with knowledge and objective recklessness as to its infringement of a valid patent.