DCT

3:21-cv-07424

Ikorongo Texas LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:21-cv-07424, N.D. Cal., 01/29/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege that venue is proper and that Defendants have consented to venue in the district and waived any challenge thereto.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ smartphones and tablets, by incorporating location-sharing features, infringe a patent related to passively tracking and selectively sharing computer usage experiences.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to systems that monitor a user's digital activities and share those experiences with a network of selected contacts, a foundational concept for many modern social media and location-sharing services.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,080,139, which was filed in 2001. The complaint is a Third Amended Complaint, suggesting a case with a developed procedural history, although the details of prior pleadings are not included.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-04-24 Original Patent Application ('139 Patent) Filed
2006-07-18 U.S. Patent No. 7,080,139 Issued
2008-07-14 Reissue Application ('450 Patent) Filed
2010-07-20 U.S. Patent No. RE 41,450 Reissued
2025-01-29 Third Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE 41,450 - "Method and Apparatus for Selectively Sharing and Passively Tracking Communication Device Experiences"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE 41,450, "Method and Apparatus for Selectively Sharing and Passively Tracking Communication Device Experiences", Reissued July 20, 2010.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the rise of new communication channels like the Internet, instant messengers, and peer-to-peer technologies, and notes both the difficulty for marketers to observe these new vectors of influence and the desire of users to share their digital experiences with friends (RE41,450 E Patent, col. 1:11-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and system for passively tracking a user's experiences on a communication device (e.g., websites visited) and selectively sharing that information with a pre-defined group of "buddies" (RE41,450 E Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-49). This collected data can be filtered, aggregated, and displayed, creating a shared log of digital activity among a social network (RE41,450 E Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology proposed a framework for automatically capturing and syndicating user activity within a social network, a concept that predated and anticipated features now common in social media platforms and location-sharing services (RE41,450 E Patent, col. 1:21-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 83 (Compl. ¶17).
  • The essential elements of claim 83 are:
    • A computer-implemented method of sharing computer usage experiences, comprising:
    • tracking automatically on the client-side at least a portion of the user's computer usage experiences
    • and automatically reporting the user's computer usage experiences to a tracking server
    • to be published to particular selected other users in accordance with their defined categories of sharing.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Accused Instrumentalities are "Samsung smart phones and tablets with GPS capabilities," including the Galaxy S10, S10+, Galaxy S20, Galaxy Note 10, and Galaxy Note 10+ product lines (Compl. ¶17). The complaint specifically identifies the pre-installed Google Maps application as a component implementing the infringing functionality (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint focuses on the "Location sharing" feature within the Google Maps application (Compl. ¶25). This feature allows a user to share their real-time geographic location with selected contacts for a specified period (Compl. p. 7). The complaint alleges that this application is pre-installed on the accused Samsung phones and is part of the sale of the phone (Compl. ¶24). The complaint provides a screenshot from the Google Maps application, labeled "Location sharing," which prompts the user to "Let friends know where you are" by sharing their real-time location with selected friends and family (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an exemplary claim chart in an exhibit that is not provided with the pleading (Compl. ¶17, Ex. C). The narrative infringement theory alleges that the "Location sharing" feature in Google Maps, when used on an accused Samsung device, practices the method of asserted claim 83. The theory suggests that the smartphone's GPS and software perform "tracking automatically on the client-side" of the user's location (a "computer usage experience"). This location data is then "automatically report[ed]" to a server (e.g., Google's servers) and is "published to particular selected other users" (the friends with whom the user chooses to share their location).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether "computer usage experiences," a term originating in a 2001-priority patent focused on web browsing and desktop activities, can be construed to read on the sharing of real-time physical location data from a modern smartphone.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the accused functionality is "automatic" as required by the claim. A court may need to determine if the user's act of initiating a location-sharing session means the subsequent tracking is not "automatic," or if the continuous tracking after initiation satisfies that limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "computer usage experiences"

  • Context and Importance: The scope of this term is fundamental to the dispute. Its definition will determine whether the patent's claims, which are described in the specification primarily through the lens of web browsing and file interaction, can extend to cover real-world activities like geographic location tracking.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the term is not explicitly limited to any particular type of experience. The specification also refers more broadly to "communication device usage experiences" (RE41,450 E Patent, col. 2:33-35), which could support an interpretation that is not tethered solely to traditional desktop computing.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and figures are heavily focused on tracking website URLs, file interactions, and other desktop computer activities via a software tool named "fatbubble" (RE41,450 E Patent, Figs. 9, 12A-16B; col. 2:55-61). This consistent context could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to such digital, non-physical experiences.

  • The Term: "tracking automatically on the client-side"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused "Location sharing" feature requires a user to actively initiate it. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will decide whether a user-initiated process that subsequently runs without further intervention meets the "automatically" requirement.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires automatic tracking, not automatic initiation. An interpretation may be advanced that once the user enables the feature, the client device thereafter tracks the user's location and reports updates without further manual input for each data point, thereby satisfying the "automatically" limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a browser plug-in that "captures" a URL when a user visits it, an action that could be characterized as happening without a specific user command to "track this URL" (RE41,450 E Patent, col. 12:4-8). This could support an argument that "automatically" requires tracking to occur as a background process inherent to the computer's operation, rather than as part of a discrete, user-activated feature. The "GET STARTED" button in the accused feature's interface may be cited as evidence of non-automatic operation (Compl. p. 7).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. For inducement, it points to Samsung's affirmative acts of providing hardware and software, along with instructions and product literature that allegedly direct customers to use the accused features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶22). For contributory infringement, it alleges that the "Location sharing" component of the pre-installed Google Maps application is especially made or adapted for infringement and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶23-25).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged post-suit knowledge, stating that Samsung has had actual knowledge of the ’450 Patent since at least the service of the original Complaint in the case (Compl. ¶21).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "computer usage experiences," rooted in the patent’s 2001 context of tracking web browsing, be construed to cover the sharing of a user's real-time physical location generated by a smartphone's GPS?
  • A key question for claim construction will be one of temporal function: does the claim limitation "tracking automatically" require a process that operates continuously in the background without user initiation, or can it be met by a feature that, once manually activated by a user for a discrete session, proceeds to track and report data without further intervention?
  • A central factual dispute for contributory infringement will be whether the specific "Location sharing" software component has substantial non-infringing uses, an issue that will require technical evidence regarding the component's architecture and function within the broader Google Maps application.