DCT
3:15-cv-01282
SmartData SA v. Amazon.com Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SmartData S.A. (Switzerland)
- Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mount, Spelman & Fingerman, P.C.; Law Offices of Larisa Migachyov
- Case Identification: 3:15-cv-01282, N.D. Cal., 03/19/2015
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant operating its website "www.amazon.com", which is accessible in the district, and offering products for sale with the expectation they will be purchased by residents of the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s streaming media players, when used with a mobile device and a television, infringe a patent related to a modular computer system that leverages existing consumer electronics.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns creating a computer-like experience by using a small, portable hardware module to wirelessly connect a user's mobile phone (for input and network access) with a television (for display).
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-05-29 | U.S. Patent No. 7,158,757 Priority Date (PCT) |
| 2007-01-02 | U.S. Patent No. 7,158,757 Issued |
| 2015-03-19 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,158,757 - "Modular Computer"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,158,757, "Modular Computer", issued January 2, 2007.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional computers as having a "plurality of elements" (processor, keyboard, display) that make them costly, inconvenient to use, and awkward to transport (’757 Patent, col. 1:7-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "portable microcomputer that is capable of using existing installations" to overcome these problems (’757 Patent, col. 1:18-20). It proposes a system of three separate, pre-existing components: a portable "pocket-sized" central processing unit (the "first element"), a mobile telephone or similar device for user input and as a "gateway" to a remote network (the "second element"), and a television or monitor for display (the "third element") (’757 Patent, col. 1:31-43; Fig. 1). This modular approach allows a user to assemble a computing system from devices they already own.
- Technical Importance: At the time of the invention, this approach represented a method to lower the cost and increase the portability of network-connected computing by repurposing the functionality of increasingly widespread devices like mobile phones and televisions (’757 Patent, col. 1:21-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a computer comprising three separate elements:
- "a) a portable pocket-sized first element comprising said central unit which contains means for storing and executing computer programs and means for storing data,"
- "b) a second physically separate element comprising said data input device, said interface for communication with a remote network and means of wireless transmission with said first element,"
- "c) a third physically separate element comprising said display means and/or said sound reproduction means and means of connection to said first element,"
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Amazon Fire TV and the Amazon Fire TV Stick" are identified as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Products as "streaming entertainment devices" (Compl. ¶13). Infringement is alleged to occur through the "use of an Amazon streaming entertainment device... together with a smartphone, tablet, or other mobile device, and a television or another audio/video display" (Compl. ¶14). A key accused feature is the ability to "'mirror' the contents shown on a smartphone, tablet, or other mobile device, onto a television" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges that Defendant is a "market leader in streaming entertainment products" (Compl. ¶12).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative allegations as they map to the elements of Claim 1.
'757 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) a portable pocket-sized first element comprising said central unit which contains means for storing and executing computer programs and means for storing data, | The Accused Product (e.g., the Fire TV Stick) is a portable, pocket-sized device that contains a central processing unit and memory for executing its software. | ¶13 | col. 6:56-60 |
| b) a second physically separate element comprising said data input device, said interface for communication with a remote network and means of wireless transmission with said first element, | A user's smartphone or tablet acts as the physically separate input device and provides the interface to the internet, communicating wirelessly with the Accused Product. | ¶14, ¶15 | col. 6:61-64 |
| c) a third physically separate element comprising said display means and/or said sound reproduction means and means of connection to said first element, | A television or other audio/video display, to which the Accused Product is connected, serves as the physically separate display and sound reproduction means. | ¶14 | col. 6:65-66 |
| wherein the computer can use a screen of a television as the display means... a key pad or a touch screen of a mobile telephone as the interface, and a radio communication interface obtained through the mobile telephone that also operates as a gateway for accessing the remote network. | The system uses a television for display and a smartphone/tablet for input. The smartphone is alleged to function as the "gateway" for the Accused Product to access the internet when performing functions like "mirroring." | ¶14, ¶15 | col. 6:8-16 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the Accused Products, which are primarily dedicated streaming media clients, meet the definition of a "central unit" for a modular "computer" as described in the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the smartphone/tablet "operates as a gateway for accessing the remote network." A key technical question will be whether the Accused Products use the mobile device as a data conduit to the internet, or if they possess their own independent Wi-Fi connection and the mobile device merely acts as a remote control that directs the Accused Product to content. The evidence for the mobile device’s specific role as a "gateway" is not detailed in the complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "operates as a gateway for accessing the remote network"
Context and Importance: The infringement theory relies on the user's smartphone or tablet satisfying this limitation. The manner in which the Accused Product and the mobile device interact to access network content will be dispositive. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the Fire TV Stick accesses the internet via its own Wi-Fi, and the phone only sends commands, then the phone may not be a "gateway" in the manner required by the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "gateway" is not explicitly defined, which may support a construction covering any device that facilitates a connection to a network, even if only by providing instructions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a specific data path where the first element (the box) connects "through the mobile telephone 3" to the remote network 6, suggesting the phone provides the actual data link (’757 Patent, col. 2:50-55). This could support a narrower construction requiring the mobile device to act as the data modem or router for the central unit.
The Term: "portable pocket-sized first element"
Context and Importance: This term defines the physical and functional nature of the core infringing component. The dispute may turn on whether a device like the Fire TV Stick, which is physically small, fits the functional role of the "first element" as the system's "central unit" rather than simply a media receiver.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the first element is "composed of a small box, advantageously of pocket format" (’757 Patent, col. 2:58-60), which could broadly read on the physical form factor of the Fire TV Stick.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification describe this element as the "central unit" which "executes" programs like an "Internet browser" based on commands from the phone (’757 Patent, col. 3:28-35). This might be argued to require a more general-purpose computing function than that of a dedicated media streaming device.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶18). The factual basis for inducement is the allegation that Amazon advertises the "mirror" feature, thereby instructing customers on how to perform the infringing use (Compl. ¶15). The basis for contributory infringement is the allegation that the accused features "have no substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶15).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain factual allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patent or objective recklessness by the Defendant. The prayer for relief requests enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, but the body of the complaint does not lay a specific foundation for willfulness (Compl. Prayer ¶3).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to turn on two fundamental questions of technology and claim scope, arising from a complaint filed with minimal technical detail.
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does a dedicated media streaming device like the Amazon Fire TV Stick, which receives content from the internet, qualify as the "portable pocket-sized first element" acting as the system's "central unit" as contemplated by the ’757 patent?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does a user's smartphone, when "mirroring" content to an Accused Product, operate as a "gateway" that provides the actual data pathway to the internet for the streaming device, as the patent appears to require? Or does the streaming device access the internet independently, with the smartphone merely acting as a remote control, potentially placing its function outside the scope of the claims?