DCT

3:21-cv-07429

Ikorongo Texas LLC v. LG Electronics Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00257, W.D. Tex., 04/01/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendants are registered to do business in Texas and have regular and established places of business within the district, including in Austin.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s GPS-enabled smartphones and tablets infringe four patents related to methods for passively tracking and selectively sharing computer and device usage experiences.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for collecting and sharing user activity data, such as web browsing history or physical location, which is a foundational concept in social media and location-based services.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that three of the asserted patents (the ’450, ’543, and ’704 Patents) are reissues of an earlier patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,080,139. Reissue proceedings typically involve correcting errors in an original patent and may result in a narrowing of claim scope, which can be a relevant factor in infringement analysis. The ’554 Patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-04-24 Priority Date for ’450, ’543, and ’704 Patents
2006-07-18 U.S. Patent No. 7,080,139 Issues
2007-12-21 Priority Date for ’554 Patent
2008-07-14 ’450 Patent Reissue Application Filed
2010-07-20 ’450 Reissue Patent Issues
2013-05-14 ’543 Patent Reissue Application Filed
2013-11-01 ’554 Patent Application Filed
2014-10-28 ’554 Patent Issues
2014-12-19 ’704 Patent Reissue Application Filed
2015-06-02 ’543 Reissue Patent Issues
2018-08-01 LGEUS merges with LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.
2019-11-05 ’704 Reissue Patent Issues
2020-04-01 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the difficulty advertisers and marketers faced in observing and understanding the influence of then-new communication channels like the Internet, peer-to-peer technologies, and instant messengers. (RE41,450 Patent, col. 1:12-22).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides methods and devices for collecting data about a user’s “computer usage experiences” and sharing that data with designated “buddies,” such as those on an instant messenger list. (RE41,450 Patent, col. 2:32-49). This system can automatically track activities like visiting a URL or a physical location and allows for selective sharing based on user-defined access controls. (RE41,450 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provided an early framework for passively tracking and sharing user activity online, a concept that would become central to modern social media feeds and location-aware applications. (RE41,450 Patent, col. 1:23-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 67. (Compl. ¶21).
  • Claim 67 recites a computer-implemented method with the following essential elements:
    • Communicating with a registration server to register a user for automatic and passive client-side collection of computer usage experiences.
    • Accessing one or more lists of other users and selecting users with whom to share the collected experiences.
    • Defining categories of computer usage experiences to be shared with the selected users.
    • Tracking automatically and passively on the client-side at least a portion of the user's computer usage experiences.
    • Automatically reporting the experiences to a tracking server to be published to the selected users in accordance with the defined categories.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE 45,543 - “Method and Apparatus for Selectively Sharing and Passively Tracking Communication Device Experiences”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a reissue of the same parent patent as the ’450 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problem of observing and understanding user interactions with new digital communication technologies. (RE45,543 Patent, col. 1:12-22).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for tracking user interactions with communication devices, such as browsing URLs or visiting locations with a location-aware device, and sharing that activity with selected users (“buddies”) based on defined access rights. (RE45,543 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-49).
  • Technical Importance: The technology established a method for automated activity sharing within a social network context, predating many of the features now common in social media and mobile applications. (RE45,543 Patent, col. 1:23-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 45. (Compl. ¶31).
  • Claim 45 recites a method for sharing Internet browsing experiences with the following essential elements:
    • Tracking automatically with a client-side application at least a portion of a user's Internet usage and reporting the data to a server.
    • Categorizing at least a portion of the reported tracking data by content category.
    • Presenting a history of the reported tracking data to the user with tools for searching and forwarding.
    • Receiving data from the user identifying persons on the user's buddy lists and authorizing them to receive tracking data.
    • Sending one or more entries from the history to the authorized persons in response to a user request.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE 47,704 - “Method and Apparatus for Selectively Sharing and Passively Tracking Communication Device Experiences”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, part of the same family as the ’450 and ’543 Patents, discloses methods for passively tracking a user's interactions with a communication device (e.g., visited websites or physical locations with a location-aware device) and selectively sharing that experience data with other authorized users. (Compl. ¶13).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 48 is asserted. (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s GPS-enabled smartphones and tablets, including the LG G8X ThinQ, infringe the patent by implementing a method of sharing computer usage experiences. (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 8,874,554 - “Turnersphere”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the presentation of media items associated with a geographic area. It describes a system where a user device provides its location and media interaction history to a service, which in turn provides information identifying other media items (e.g., songs) associated with a specified geographic area for presentation to the user. (’554 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s GPS-enabled smartphones and tablets, including the LG G8X ThinQ, infringe the patent. (Compl. ¶51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as "LG smart phones and tablets with GPS capabilities," including but not limited to the LG V series, G series, and the LG G8x ThinQ smartphone. (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the use of these devices includes "a computer-implemented method of sharing computer usage experiences as claimed." (Compl. ¶21).
  • The complaint does not provide specific details regarding the technical operation of the accused software or hardware features. The allegations are framed at a high level of generality, focusing on the overall function of sharing user experiences rather than the specific implementation within the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

For each of the four asserted patents, the complaint incorporates by reference an "exemplary claim chart" (Exhibits F, G, H, and I, respectively) that is not attached to the pleading. (Compl. ¶21, ¶31, ¶41, ¶51). Consequently, the complaint does not contain an element-by-element breakdown of the infringement allegations. The narrative infringement theory is presented in conclusory terms.

RE41,450 Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that LG infringes at least claim 67 of the ’450 Patent. (Compl. ¶21). The sole factual support provided is the assertion that the "use of LG G8X ThinQ, including during testing, repair and corporate use, includes a computer-implemented method of sharing computer usage experiences as claimed." (Compl. ¶21). Without the referenced Exhibit F, there is insufficient detail to analyze how each limitation of claim 67 is alleged to be met by the accused devices.

RE45,543 Infringement Allegations
Similarly, the complaint alleges that LG infringes at least claim 45 of the ’543 Patent. (Compl. ¶31). The complaint states that "the LG G8X ThinQ meets the claim," referencing the unattached Exhibit G. (Compl. ¶31). The pleading does not describe which specific features of the accused devices perform the claimed steps of tracking, categorizing, and sharing Internet browsing experiences.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "computer usage experiences," as described in the context of early-2000s web browsing in the patents, can be construed to cover the varied functionalities of modern smartphones and their operating systems.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint’s reliance on unattached exhibits raises the question of what specific software functionality in the accused devices allegedly performs the claimed method steps. For instance, what evidence does the complaint provide that LG devices perform the step of "defining categories of computer usage experiences to be shared with particular selected other users" as required by claim 67 of the ’450 Patent? The lack of specific factual allegations may itself become a point of contention regarding pleading sufficiency.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "computer usage experiences" (’450 Patent, claim 67)

  • Context and Importance: The scope of this term is fundamental to the dispute. Its construction will determine what types of user activities fall within the patented method. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth will dictate whether the claim reads on general smartphone operations or is limited to the specific examples disclosed in the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is not explicitly limited to a specific type of experience. The abstract refers broadly to "communication devices, including computers, web-enabled telephones, and PDAs," which could support an interpretation that covers modern smartphones. (RE41,450 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the invention focuses heavily on tracking "visited URL[s]" and "visited location[s]." (RE41,450 Patent, col. 2:55-67, col. 3:15-20). This focus on web browsing and location check-ins could support a narrower construction limited to those specific activities.

  • The Term: "tracking automatically and passively on the client-side" (’450 Patent, claim 67)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the data collection. The dispute may turn on whether the accused LG devices perform tracking in a manner that is both "automatic" (i.e., without requiring user action for each event) and "passive" (i.e., as a background process).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not recite a specific software architecture, which may allow the term to cover various methods of background data collection inherent in modern mobile operating systems.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the tracking mechanism as a "browser plug-in" or an "independently running process," suggesting a specific software component that is installed for the purpose of tracking. (RE45,543 Patent, col. 11:1-3). This could support a narrower construction that excludes native OS functions not part of a distinct, dedicated tracking application.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four patents. (Compl. ¶22-24, 32-34, 42-44, 52-54). Inducement is alleged based on LG providing instructions on its website and in product literature that allegedly guide users to infringe. (Compl. ¶26, 36, 46, 56). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that LG’s products have no substantial non-infringing uses or contain components especially adapted for infringement. (Compl. ¶27, 37, 47, 57).
  • Willful Infringement: For each patent, the complaint alleges that LG "knew of the... patent, or should have known," but bases its allegation of "actual knowledge" on a date "at least as early as the service upon LG of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶25, 35, 45, 55). This framing suggests the willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct rather than pre-suit knowledge, a distinction that is significant for the calculation of potential enhanced damages.

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

  • A central threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint’s reliance on conclusory statements and the incorporation of unattached exhibits provide sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for patent infringement under prevailing federal pleading standards?
  • A core substantive issue will be one of definitional scope: Can key claim terms such as “computer usage experiences,” which are rooted in the patent’s context of early-2000s web browsing and location tracking, be construed broadly enough to encompass the diverse and integrated functionalities of a modern smartphone operating system?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: What specific software components or user-initiated processes within LG's accused devices perform the multi-step methods recited in the asserted claims, particularly the steps of "defining categories" for sharing and "passively tracking" user activity?