DCT
3:24-cv-01232
TJTM Tech LLC v. Google LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: TJTM Technologies, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP; Law Office of Paul W. Reidl
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01232, N.D. Cal., 09/03/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California because Google's principal place of business is located there, and it allegedly conducts business and commits acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Driving Mode" and "Add Mode" features in its Android operating system infringe a patent related to technology for automatically suppressing mobile device notifications to prevent distracted driving.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the public safety problem of driver distraction by managing mobile device communications while a user is operating a vehicle.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,958,853, was previously challenged in an inter partes review proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which concluded with a decision that the challenger "failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood" of unpatentability. The complaint also references prior litigation involving the same patent against Apple, Samsung, and Verizon. Plaintiff further alleges that its own "OFF MODE" application, which practiced the invention, was available on the Google Play store before Google allegedly removed it and launched its own competing feature.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-05-01 | Plaintiff's "OFF MODE" application allegedly released |
| 2013-06-14 | '853 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 61/835,234) |
| 2014-02-09 | '853 Patent Non-Provisional Application filed |
| 2015-02-17 | '853 Patent issued |
| 2019-07-30 | PTAB issues decision in inter partes review proceeding |
| 2020-01-01 | Accused "Driving Mode" allegedly incorporated into Android OS (approximate) |
| 2024-09-03 | First Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,958,853 - "Mobile Device Inactive Mode and Inactive Mode Verification"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,958,853, "Mobile Device Inactive Mode and Inactive Mode Verification," issued February 17, 2015. (Compl. ¶2).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the "serious problem" of user distraction caused by mobile devices, particularly the rise in motor vehicle accidents, which it equates to the danger of driving while intoxicated. (Compl. ¶15; ’853 Patent, col. 1:21-25). It notes that simply powering down a device is an inadequate solution, as it can block urgent communications. (Compl. ¶16; ’853 Patent, col. 1:29-34). The patent also describes a need for drivers to prove they were not using their phone at the time of an accident. (Compl. ¶17; ’853 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system where a mobile device can be placed into an "inactive mode," for instance, when it detects it is in a moving vehicle. (Compl. ¶22). In this mode, the device suppresses distracting notifications from incoming calls or messages. (Compl. ¶18; ’853 Patent, Abstract). It can also automatically transmit a pre-selected "away message" to the sender and, upon exiting the inactive mode, provide the user a log of all missed communications. (Compl. ¶18; ’853 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 2:23-28).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method to mitigate driver distraction while allowing a user to remain reachable for important matters and be informed of missed communications later. (Compl. ¶20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶41).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A mobile device with a processor, memory, and wireless module.
- The memory contains instructions for the processor to perform steps including:
- providing a graphical user interface for a user to customize functions of an "inactive mode";
- receiving a user selection to automatically initiate the inactive mode when the device is paired with a vehicle;
- receiving a user selection of an "away message" for use in the inactive mode;
- automatically initiating a process to place the device in inactive mode in response to the pairing with the vehicle; and
- while in inactive mode and upon receiving a new communication, transmitting the selected away message and suppressing the standard communication cues (e.g., sound, vibration).
- The complaint provides "non-limiting examples" of infringement, suggesting a potential reservation of rights to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶41).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Google's "Driving Mode" and "Add Mode" features within the Android operating system. (Compl. ¶30-31). These features are allegedly present on Google Pixel smartphones (Pixel 2 and later) and other devices running the Android OS since 2020/2021. (Compl. p. 10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that these features allow a user to configure a "do not disturb" state that activates automatically, for instance, when the user's phone connects to a vehicle's Bluetooth system. (Compl. ¶31). When activated, the features allegedly silence the phone, keep the screen dark, and can send automatic replies to incoming messages. (Compl. ¶30).
- The user is said to configure this functionality through the "Modes and Routines" section of the Android Settings menu, which provides a graphical user interface for customization. (Compl. ¶31, p. 12). The complaint includes a screenshot from a Pixel phone's "Modes and Routines" menu showing a "Driving" mode option. (Compl. p. 12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’853 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a graphical user interface through which a user customizes one or more functions of the mobile device when placed in an inactive mode; | The Android OS provides a "Modes and Routines" settings menu where a user can customize the behavior of the "Driving Mode," such as how it activates or what kind of auto-reply message to send. A screenshot displays the "Change settings" screen for a custom mode. (Compl. p. 19). | ¶42 (p. 11-12) | col. 2:62-63 |
| receiving a user selection to automatically initiate the inactive mode in response to the pairing of the mobile device with a vehicle; | A user can select "Driving Mode" and configure it to "Turn on automatically" when driving is detected or when connected to a vehicle's Bluetooth. A screenshot shows a user interface with a toggle switch for "When connected to Bluetooth." (Compl. p. 16). | ¶42 (p. 14) | col. 6:17-21 |
| receiving a user selection of an away message to use when the mobile device is in inactive mode; | The Android OS allows a user to customize an "away message" or select a pre-written one, such as "I'll call you back," for use when the mode is active. A screenshot depicts the "Decline call and send a quick message" customization interface. (Compl. p. 19). | ¶42 (p. 18) | col. 8:27-30 |
| in response to the pairing of the mobile device and the vehicle, automatically initiating a process to place the mobile device in inactive mode; | Once configured, the "Driving Mode" or a custom "Add Mode" allegedly activates automatically upon connection to a selected Bluetooth device, such as a vehicle's infotainment system, without further user interaction at that time. | ¶42 (p. 20) | col. 2:35-37 |
| when the mobile device is in inactive mode, in response to receiving a communication... transmitting the user selected away message... and suppressing one or more sound, visual, or vibration... cues... | When Driving Mode is active, the system allegedly mutes sounds, stops vibrations, and blocks visual disturbances for incoming notifications. It also sends the user-selected away message (e.g., an auto-reply text or routing to voicemail) in response to the incoming communication. | ¶42 (p. 22) | col. 3:6-19 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Google's general-purpose "Modes and Routines" feature, which can be triggered by various conditions, falls within the patent's more specific disclosure focused on a "vehicle". The court may need to determine if "pairing... with a vehicle" can be read to cover a standard Bluetooth connection to a car's infotainment system, as the complaint alleges.
- Technical Questions: The infringement case will depend on evidence demonstrating that the accused Android features perform the complete, multi-step sequence required by Claim 1. This includes distinct user actions for (1) enabling the automatic trigger and (2) selecting an away message, followed by (3) the system's fully automatic initiation based on the pairing event. The complaint's evidence suggests this sequence exists, but a key question for the court will be whether the technical operation of the accused software matches every limitation of the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "vehicle"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claim, as the automatic trigger is tied to pairing with a "vehicle". Its construction is critical because the accused Android features are part of a general, context-aware "Modes" system that can be triggered by non-vehicle events (e.g., arriving at a location, a time of day). Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused product, in its entirety, is designed for and operates as the specific vehicle-centric invention claimed in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the patent, which could support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, encompassing various modes of transport.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification consistently frames the invention in the context of driving safety. It repeatedly references "motor vehicle accidents," "distracted driving," and "driving directions functionality," suggesting the intended meaning is limited to automobiles. (e.g., ’853 Patent, col. 1:23-24, col. 2:34).
The Term: "pairing of the mobile device with a vehicle"
Context and Importance: This phrase defines the specific event that triggers the automatic mode initiation. The infringement allegation hinges on equating a Bluetooth connection to a car's audio or infotainment system with the claimed "pairing... with a vehicle."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly links this concept to Bluetooth: "the inactive mode may be automatically initiated upon the pairing of the mobile device 100 and a vehicle, as shown by the Bluetooth device detection screen 550." (’853 Patent, col. 8:59-62). This language may support the view that a standard Bluetooth connection is what the patent contemplates as "pairing."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "pairing" implies a specific type of persistent, authenticated link beyond a simple connection, or that connecting to an in-car accessory (the infotainment system) is not the same as pairing with the "vehicle" itself.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that to the extent the accused features are not pre-loaded, Google induces infringement by offering the software for download and providing "directions to consumers on how to download the apps" and use them in an infringing way. (Compl. ¶43).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’853 patent. The complaint alleges this knowledge arises from multiple sources, including Google's awareness of Plaintiff's "OFF MODE" app on its own Google Play store and, more specifically, Google's alleged membership in Unified Patents, an organization that challenged the ’853 patent at the PTAB. (Compl. ¶32, ¶35, ¶45).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "vehicle", which is rooted in the patent's specific context of on-road driver safety, be construed to read on the accused functionality, which is part of a general-purpose, context-aware "Modes" system in Android that is not exclusively tied to vehicles?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational fidelity: assuming a favorable claim construction, does the evidence show that Google's "Driving Mode" and "Add Mode" features perform every step of the claimed method, particularly the specific sequence of user customization followed by a hands-off, "automatic" initiation triggered solely by the device pairing with a vehicle?