DCT
3:21-cv-07429
Ikorongo Texas LLC v. LG Electronics Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ikorongo Texas LLC (Texas) and Ikorongo Technology LLC (North Carolina)
- Defendant: LG Electronics Co., Ltd. (South Korea) and LG Electronics America, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: WISNIA PC; Sorey & Hoover, LLP
- Case Identification: 3:21-cv-07429, N.D. Cal., 01/28/2025
- Venue Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendants have consented to venue in the judicial district and have waived any challenge thereto.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones and tablets, which include the Google Maps application, infringe a reissue patent related to passively tracking and selectively sharing user location and other experiences with contacts.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for collecting a user's digital or physical experiences (such as locations visited) on a communication device and sharing that information with a selected group of contacts or "buddies."
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges extensive pre-suit notice, asserting that the patent owner's predecessors held "numerous meetings and discussions" with Defendant's intellectual property and business teams regarding the asserted patent family, including forwarding presentations that expressly listed the patent-in-suit, beginning as early as November 2013. The patent-in-suit, RE 41,450, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,080,139.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-04-24 | Priority Date for RE41,450 Patent (via original application) |
| 2006-07-18 | Original U.S. Patent No. 7,080,139 Issues |
| 2008-07-14 | RE 41,450 Reissue Application Filed |
| 2010-07-20 | RE 41,450 Patent Issues |
| 2013-11-03 | Plaintiff's predecessor allegedly forwards "Concert Portfolio" presentation listing the ’450 Patent to Defendant |
| 2014-05-01 | Plaintiff's predecessor allegedly gives "Representative Claims" presentation to Defendant |
| 2014-08-01 | Plaintiff's predecessor allegedly provides "Concert Technology Generated Asset Catalog" presentation to Defendant |
| 2018-08-01 | Defendant LGEUS merges with LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. |
| 2025-01-28 | 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"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical environment where new communication channels like the internet and instant messaging have created new ways for users to share experiences, but these channels are difficult for marketers to observe and for users to leverage systematically (RE41,450 Patent, col. 1:11-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for passively tracking a user's "experiences" on communication devices, such as visiting a URL or a physical location, and then selectively sharing that activity data with designated "buddies" (RE41,450 Patent, Abstract). The system collects user activity, associates it with the user's account, and makes it accessible to a pre-defined list of contacts based on access rights set by the user (RE41,450 Patent, col. 2:32-47).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for automating the sharing of real-world and digital activities, moving beyond manual, text-based messaging to a more structured and passive data-sharing ecosystem.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 74 (RE41,450 Patent, col. 22:3-22).
- Claim 74 Elements:
- A computer-implemented method of sharing computer usage experiences, including:
- registering a user with a registration server to collect and share visited location data using a client-side application collected while visiting a location with a location-aware device that records the visited location;
- accessing one or more of the user’s messaging buddy lists to identify one or more buddies with whom the tracking data may be shared;
- defining rights of the buddies to access the visited location data; and
- posting at least a portion of the user’s visited location data for the buddies to access according to their defined rights.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 75 and 83 (Compl. ¶20).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "LG smart phones and tablets with GPS capabilities," with the LG V series, G series, and specifically the LG G8X ThinQ cited as examples (Compl. ¶20). The infringement theory centers on the pre-installed Google Maps application and its "Location sharing" feature (Compl. ¶¶27-28).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused LG devices, when used with the pre-installed Google Maps application, perform a method of sharing user experiences (Compl. ¶23). The core accused functionality is the "Location sharing" feature, which allows a user to share their real-time location with selected contacts (Compl. ¶28). The complaint provides a screenshot from the Google Maps application that depicts the user interface for initiating this feature (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
RE41,450 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 74) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| registering a user with a registration server to collect and share visited location data using a client-side application... | LG phones are sold with the Google Maps application pre-installed, which requires user registration with Google's servers to function. | ¶27 | col. 7:47-51 |
| accessing one or more of the user’s messaging buddy lists to identify one or more buddies... | The Google Maps "Location sharing" feature allows users to share their location with "friends & family," who are selected from the user's Google contacts list. | p. 8 | col. 7:1-4 |
| defining rights of the buddies to access the visited location data; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element, but this function is inherent in location-sharing services that allow users to select specific contacts. | ¶20 | col. 3:56-62 |
| posting at least a portion of the user’s visited location data for the buddies to access according to their defined rights. | The "Location sharing" feature shares the user's real-time location data with the selected contacts, who can then view it. | p. 8 | col. 2:42-47 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "messaging buddy lists," rooted in the patent's context of 2001-era desktop instant messaging clients (e.g., AIM), can be construed to read on a modern, cloud-synchronized Google Contacts list that is integrated into a mobile operating system and used by a mapping application.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the "Location sharing" software has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶28). A key question will be whether this specific feature can be legally separated from the broader Google Maps application, which is a multi-function tool with numerous non-infringing uses.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "messaging buddy lists"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining whether the accused functionality—selecting contacts from a Google account to share a location with—falls within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because its meaning may be tied to the specific technology prevalent at the time of the invention (early 2000s instant messengers).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses sharing experiences with "friends" in a general sense, suggesting the "buddy list" is simply the mechanism for identifying those friends (RE41,450 Patent, col. 1:24-26).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly references "instant messaging products" and their associated "buddy lists," and figures depict interfaces styled after such applications, which could support an argument that the term is limited to that specific technological context (RE41,450 Patent, col. 7:1-15; Fig. 4, 8A).
The Term: "posting...for the buddies to access"
- Context and Importance: This term's construction will define the act of infringement. A dispute may arise over whether "posting" requires an asynchronous publication to a feed or wall, as depicted in some patent figures, versus a direct, real-time data stream to specific individuals, as implemented in the accused feature.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, requiring only that the data is made available "for the buddies to access," without specifying the format. The patent describes an "activity viewer" where buddies can see the user's activities, which could be interpreted as any interface that makes the shared data visible (RE41,450 Patent, Fig. 1, 131).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patent depict the shared information in a list or feed format, which a defendant may argue limits the meaning of "posting" to this type of asynchronous, list-based display rather than a real-time map view (RE41,450 Patent, Fig. 9).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides instructions on its website and in product literature that encourage users to operate the devices in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶25). It alleges contributory infringement on the grounds that the "Location sharing" component within Google Maps is a distinct component especially made for infringement with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶26-28).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s alleged actual, pre-suit knowledge of the ’450 Patent. The complaint cites "numerous meetings and discussions" and specific presentations about the patent portfolio provided to Defendant's IP and business teams beginning in November 2013, long before the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶16, 30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technological translation: Can claim terms like "messaging buddy lists," grounded in the technical context of early-2000s desktop instant messaging, be construed to encompass modern, integrated, cloud-based contact management systems used within mobile applications?
- A key question for indirect infringement will be severability: Can the "Location sharing" feature be legally treated as a "separate and distinct component" with no substantial non-infringing uses, as required for contributory infringement, or will it be viewed as an inseparable feature of the overwhelmingly non-infringing Google Maps application?
- A central question for damages will be pre-suit knowledge: Given the specific and repeated allegations of pre-suit presentations of the patent portfolio to Defendant starting in 2013, what level of objective recklessness can be established to support a finding of willful infringement if liability is found?