DCT
8:25-cv-02731
Perceptix Tech LLC v. Meta Platforms Inc
Key Events
Complaint
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: Perceptix Technologies LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 8:25-cv-02731, C.D. Cal., 12/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Meta is a resident of California and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically its Reality Labs offices, where activities related to the accused technology allegedly occur.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wearable communication devices, including the Meta Orion and Meta Ray-Ban Display, infringe a patent related to a wearable mobile phone controlled by hand gestures detected via electromyography (EMG) signals.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using EMG sensors, typically worn on the wrist, to interpret a user's hand motions as commands for controlling electronic devices, a key interface method for augmented reality systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been aware of the patent-in-suit since at least 2014, having cited it in Information Disclosure Statements during the prosecution of at least seventeen of its own patent applications. It further alleges Defendant acquired patents from other companies that had also cited the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with written notice of infringement on October 21, 2025, prior to filing the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-12-06 | ’393 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-09-29 | ’393 Patent Issue Date |
| 2014-08-15 | First alleged IDS citation of ’393 Patent by Meta |
| 2024-09-25 | Meta Orion prototype introduced |
| 2025-09-17 | Meta Ray-Ban Display introduced |
| 2025-10-21 | Plaintiff provides written notice of infringement to Meta |
| 2025-12-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,596,393 - "Wearable Mobile Phone Using EMG and Controlling Method Thereof"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of conventional mobile phones that rely on physical input keys, which constrains device miniaturization and makes it difficult to design truly wearable form factors (’393 Patent, col. 1:16-27).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a wearable mobile phone system that eliminates the need for physical keys by using electromyography (EMG) to detect a user's hand motions. A wrist-worn unit with multiple EMG sensors detects the electrical signals generated by muscle movements, and a processing unit translates these signals into commands (e.g., dialing numbers, selecting menu items) for operating the mobile phone functions (’393 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-56). The patent's Figure 2 depicts a ring-shaped device worn on the wrist containing the sensors and processing units (’393 Patent, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This approach enables a non-visual, hands-free method of controlling a mobile communication device, which supports greater miniaturization and is foundational for user interfaces in emerging wearable computing platforms like smart glasses (Compl. ¶23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (an apparatus) and 6 (a method), and reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2, 5, and 9 (Compl. ¶24, ¶38).
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus) Elements:
- An EMG measuring unit with a plurality of EMG sensors, made in a ring shape to be worn on a user's wrist.
- An EMG transferring unit connected to the measuring unit.
- An EMG determining unit mounted to one side of the transferring unit, which receives the EMG signal to determine hand motion and extract 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.
- Independent Claim 6 (Method) Elements:
- Receiving an EMG signal generated by a user's hand motion.
- Determining the hand motion from the EMG signal to extract an input signal for a mobile phone.
- Receiving the input signal at the mobile phone to perform a mobile phone function.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Meta Wearable Communication Devices," which include the "Meta Orion" augmented reality glasses and the "Meta Ray-Ban Display" glasses when used with the "Meta Neural Band" (Compl. ¶1, ¶10, ¶31).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are wearable devices, primarily in the form of smart glasses, that a user controls via hand gestures (Compl. ¶28-¶29). The system allegedly uses EMG technology, centered in the wrist-worn Meta Neural Band, to interpret these hand gestures and translate them into commands for applications like making phone calls or sending messages on the glasses (Compl. ¶29, ¶40). The complaint positions these devices as central to Meta's strategy in the augmented reality and wearable technology markets (Compl. ¶11, ¶32). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint outlines its infringement theory in narrative paragraphs, which are summarized below for the elements of independent claim 1.
’393 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an EMG measuring unit having a plurality of EMG measuring sensors for detecting the EMG changed by hand motion of a user, and made in a ring shape to be worn on a wrist of the user | The accused devices allegedly include an EMG measuring unit with sensors, embodied in a ring-shaped wristband (e.g., the Meta Neural Band), for detecting EMG signals from user hand motion. | ¶40 | col. 2:44-48 |
| an EMG transferring unit connected to the EMG measuring unit for transferring the EMG measured by the EMG measuring unit | The accused devices are alleged to have an EMG transferring unit connected to the sensor unit for transmitting the measured EMG data. | ¶41 | col. 2:48-50 |
| an EMG determining unit mounted to one side of the EMG transferring unit for receiving EMG from the EMG transferring unit to determine the hand motion and extract an input signal... | The accused devices allegedly contain an EMG determining unit that receives the EMG data, determines the specific hand motion, and extracts a corresponding input signal for the device. | ¶42 | col. 2:50-54 |
| a mobile phone functioning unit receiving the input signal from the EMG determining unit for functioning the mobile function and having an antenna and a sound transferring device | The smart glasses component (e.g., Meta Orion) allegedly acts as the mobile phone functioning unit, receiving the input signal from the determining unit to perform functions like calls and messaging, using an antenna and audio. | ¶43 | col. 2:54-56 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the accused system—comprising separate smart glasses and a wristband—constitutes a single "wearable mobile phone" as claimed in the patent. The defense may argue that the claimed invention describes a single, integrated wrist-worn device, not a distributed two-part system.
- Technical Questions: The infringement read depends on the physical and functional architecture of the accused products. A key question is whether the "EMG determining unit" is physically "mounted to one side of the EMG transferring unit" as required by claim 1. If the EMG signal processing and determination primarily occurs in the glasses' processor rather than within the wrist-worn Neural Band, it may raise questions about whether this limitation is met.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "wearable mobile phone"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the patent title and is a core limitation of the asserted apparatus claim. The definition is critical because the accused instrumentality is a system of smart glasses paired with a wristband, not a single, self-contained device. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome of the case could hinge on whether the accused distributed system falls within the scope of a "wearable mobile phone."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's stated object is to provide a wearable device that obviates the need for input keys on a mobile phone, suggesting the term could encompass any wearable system that achieves this function (’393 Patent, col. 1:33-39).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment described in the specification and shown in Figure 2 depicts an integrated device where the display, EMG determining unit, and mobile phone functioning unit are all part of a single assembly worn on the wrist or hand (’393 Patent, col. 2:57-65). This could support a narrower construction limited to a single, self-contained unit.
The Term: "mounted to one side of the EMG transferring unit"
- Context and Importance: This limitation from claim 1 defines the physical relationship between the EMG signal processor ("determining unit") and the wrist-worn sensor assembly ("transferring unit"). Its construction is important for determining whether a system where processing occurs in a separate device (the glasses) can infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue "mounted to" should be interpreted functionally to mean operably connected as part of a single system, not necessarily requiring direct physical attachment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "mounted to" suggests physical attachment. The patent's figures and description show the determining unit (30) as part of the same physical structure as the transferring unit (20) on the user's hand/wrist, which may support an interpretation requiring the components to be in a single housing (’393 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 2:62-63).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Meta provides instructions, demonstrations, user guides, and software updates that encourage and direct users to operate the accused devices in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶53-¶58). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the devices are a material part of the invention, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶52).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations of willful infringement based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’393 Patent. It claims that Meta cited the patent as prior art during the prosecution of at least seventeen of its own patent applications between 2014 and 2022 (Compl. ¶60-¶61). The complaint further alleges that Meta acquired companies (CTRL-Labs and North Inc.) that had also cited the patent, and that Meta continued to infringe after receiving a specific written notice from Perceptix on October 21, 2025 (Compl. ¶62, ¶64-¶65).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "wearable mobile phone," as described in a patent focused on an integrated wrist-worn device, be construed to cover a modern, distributed system composed of separate AR glasses and a sensor wristband? The interpretation of this term, along with the "mounted to" limitation, will be central to the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical architecture: where in the accused Meta system does the function of "determining the hand motion" primarily occur? If this processing is performed within the wrist-worn Neural Band, it may support the plaintiff's infringement theory; if it occurs within the glasses, it may raise a significant challenge to meeting the "mounted to" claim limitation.
- A third major focus will be on willfulness: given the extensive allegations that Meta repeatedly cited the ’393 Patent in its own patent prosecution filings for years, a critical question for trial will be whether Meta formed a good-faith belief of non-infringement or invalidity, or if its alleged conduct constituted objective recklessness.