Perceptix Tech LLC v. Meta Platforms Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Perceptix Technologies LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Orbit IP, LLP
• Case Identification: 8:25-cv-02390, C.D. Cal., 10/22/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Meta is a resident of California and has a regular and established place of business in the Central District of California, specifically a Reality Labs office, where it has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wearable communication devices, which use electromyography (EMG) for gesture control, infringe a patent related to a wearable mobile phone controlled by hand motions detected via EMG sensors.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using electrical signals generated by muscle movements in a user's wrist to provide hands-free input for wearable computing devices, a key interface method for augmented and virtual reality systems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had extensive pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit, having disclosed it to the USPTO during the prosecution of at least seventeen of its own patent applications between 2014 and 2022. It further alleges knowledge through Defendant's acquisition of CTRL-Labs, whose technology is incorporated in the accused products and whose own patent portfolio cited the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-12-06	’393 Patent Priority Date
2009-09-29	’393 Patent Issue Date
2014-08-15	First alleged instance of Meta citing the ’393 Patent in its own patent prosecution
2024-09-25	Meta announces and demonstrates the accused Meta Orion prototype
2025-09-17	Meta announces the accused Meta Ray-Ban Display and Meta Neural Band
2025-10-21	Plaintiff provides written notice of infringement to Defendant
2025-10-22	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,596,393, "Wearable Mobile Phone Using EMG and Controlling Method Thereof," issued September 29, 2009 (’393 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the limitations of conventional mobile phones, which require physical input keys. This design constraint hinders device miniaturization and makes it "difficult to design an appearance" suitable for a truly wearable device. (’393 Patent, col. 1:16-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a wearable mobile phone that eliminates the need for physical keys by using electromyography (EMG) to detect a user's hand motions. The system, as described in the specification and depicted in Figure 2, includes a "ring shape" unit worn on the wrist containing EMG sensors that measure muscle signals. These signals are then processed to extract corresponding input commands for operating the mobile phone's functions. (’393 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-56).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for hands-free and non-visual control of a portable communication device, a foundational concept for later developments in wearable computing and human-computer interfaces. (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 5. (Compl. ¶10).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • An EMG measuring unit having a plurality of EMG measuring sensors for detecting EMG changed by hand motion, made in a ring shape to be worn on a wrist.
  • An EMG transferring unit connected to the EMG measuring unit for transferring the measured EMG.
  • An EMG determining unit mounted to one side of the EMG transferring unit for receiving the EMG, determining the hand motion, and extracting a corresponding input signal.
  • A mobile phone functioning unit that receives the input signal to perform a mobile function and has an antenna and a sound transferring device.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶43).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as "Meta Wearable Communication Devices," including the "Meta Orion" and "Meta Ray-Ban Display" devices, the latter of which is allegedly used with a "Meta Neural Band." (Compl. ¶¶9-10, 31).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused products as augmented reality glasses and "AI glasses" that use EMG technology to interpret hand gestures for user input. (Compl. ¶¶27, 29, 31). This functionality allegedly allows users to control applications, answer phone calls, and send messages through hand motions, which are detected by a wrist-worn component. (Compl. ¶¶28-29). The complaint characterizes these products as being at "the cutting edge of Virtual and Augmented Reality experiences." (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B, which was not publicly filed with the initial complaint. The infringement theory is outlined narratively in the body of the complaint.

’393 Patent Infringement Allegations (Narrative Summary)

The complaint alleges that the Meta Wearable Communication Devices embody each element of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶35). The theory posits that the wrist-worn component (e.g., the Meta Neural Band) functions as the claimed "EMG measuring unit" made in a "ring shape to be worn on the wrist," containing sensors to detect EMG from hand motions. (Compl. ¶37). The complaint further alleges the devices contain an "EMG transferring unit" to transfer these signals, an "EMG determining unit" to process the signals and extract an input command, and a "mobile phone functioning unit" (within the glasses or associated hardware) that receives the command to perform communication functions. (Compl. ¶¶38-40). The infringement allegations cover direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶44).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential issue may be whether the accused products—augmented reality glasses paired with a wrist-worn sensor band—fall within the scope of a "wearable mobile phone" as the term is used in the patent. The defense may argue that the claimed invention describes a more integrated device architecture distinct from the distributed system of the accused products.
• Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused devices meet the structural limitation requiring an "EMG determining unit mounted to one side of the EMG transferring unit." The physical and logical architecture of Meta's products will be central to determining if a component corresponding to this specific claimed structure exists and is located as required.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "wearable mobile phone"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble of claim 1 and the patent's title. Its construction is critical to determining whether the patent's scope covers the accused products, which are marketed as AR or AI glasses rather than "phones."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the term should be understood functionally to mean any wearable device capable of performing mobile telecommunication functions, consistent with the patent's goal of creating a wearable communication device without physical keys. (Compl. ¶23; ’393 Patent, col. 1:33-44).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may point to the consistent use of "mobile phone" throughout the specification and title, arguing the term limits the claim to devices that are primarily phones, not general-purpose computing glasses. The specification's description of a "mobile phone functioning unit" with an "antenna and a sound transferring device" could be used to support a narrower construction tied to conventional mobile phone architecture. (’393 Patent, claim 1; col. 2:48-56).

The Term: "mounted to one side of the EMG transferring unit"

• Context and Importance: This phrase in claim 1 describes a specific physical arrangement of the claimed components. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether the accused product's architecture, which may be highly integrated, contains a structure that meets this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may contend that "mounted to one side" does not require a physically distinct and separate module, but can describe a region of an integrated wristband assembly that performs the determining function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant could argue that the phrase, in conjunction with Figure 2, requires a discrete component attached to the exterior of the wristband (the "transferring unit"). Language describing the determining unit (30) and phone unit (40) as "disposed at a back of the hand" on the transferring unit (20) may support this more restrictive structural requirement. (’393 Patent, FIG. 2; col. 2:62-63).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges inducement by providing the accused devices to users, employees, and journalists and explicitly instructing them on how to use the infringing gesture-control features. (Compl. ¶¶46, 48). These instructions are allegedly provided through user manuals, online materials, and live demonstrations. (Compl. ¶¶48-49). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the devices are a material part of the invention, are specially adapted for infringement, and are not a staple article of commerce. (Compl. ¶45).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's purported long-standing knowledge of the ’393 Patent. The complaint asserts that Defendant cited the patent in at least 17 of its own patent applications filed between 2014 and 2022. (Compl. ¶¶51-52). It also alleges knowledge through the acquisition of other companies (like CTRL-Labs) and their patent portfolios, which also cited the ’393 Patent. (Compl. ¶53). Finally, the complaint notes that Plaintiff provided written notice of infringement to Defendant on October 21, 2025, one day before filing the suit. (Compl. ¶55).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "wearable mobile phone," originating from a 2004 priority date, be construed to encompass a modern augmented reality system composed of smart glasses communicatively linked to a separate EMG wristband?
• A second key issue will be structural compliance: Does the physical architecture of the accused Meta Neural Band and associated hardware satisfy the specific claim limitation requiring an "EMG determining unit mounted to one side of the EMG transferring unit," or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed structure and the accused product's integrated design?
• Finally, the case may present a significant question of willfulness: Given the extensive allegations that the Defendant repeatedly cited the patent-in-suit during its own internal research and patent prosecution for nearly a decade prior to the lawsuit, a central evidentiary battle may concern the extent to which this history demonstrates deliberate or reckless disregard of the Plaintiff's patent rights.