DCT
3:24-cv-02296
Haptic Inc v. Apple Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Haptic Inc (Delaware)
- Defendant: Apple Inc (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Susman Godfrey LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01351, W.D. Tex., 11/06/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Apple Inc conducts business in the district, maintains regular and established places of business in the district (including multiple Austin locations), and has committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the "Back Tap" accessibility feature in Apple's iPhones infringes a patent related to using taps on a surface to control electronic devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns using accelerometers to turn a physical surface into a gesture-based input interface for controlling smart devices, without requiring direct interaction with a traditional screen or button.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Apple initiated meetings with Haptic Inc in 2016 to discuss Haptic's "Knocki" product and potential partnerships. Haptic alleges it disclosed its patent-pending technology to Apple under a non-disclosure agreement during meetings in 2016 and 2017. Communications allegedly ceased shortly after these discussions, and Apple subsequently launched the accused "Back Tap" feature. These allegations form the basis of the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-02-13 | ’738 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application) |
| 2016-05-23 | Apple representative allegedly emails Haptic to discuss partnership |
| 2016-12-06 | In-person meeting allegedly held between Haptic and Apple |
| 2017-08-XX | Call allegedly held between Haptic and Apple to discuss technology |
| 2018-06-12 | ’738 Patent Issued |
| 2020-09-14 | Apple allegedly launches "Back Tap" feature with iOS 14 |
| 2023-11-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738 - "System and method for controlling a terminal device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738, "System and method for controlling a terminal device," issued June 12, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to solve limitations of existing remote control systems, such as the proliferation of device-specific controllers, the unreliability of voice commands in noisy environments, and the high cost and aesthetic disruption of integrating touchscreens into furniture or walls (’971 Patent, col. 2:3-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a control system that uses a sensor, placed in a housing and attached to a "mounting surface" (e.g., a wall or table), to turn that surface into an interactive controller. The sensor detects physical impacts (like taps or knocks) as vibrations, a server processes these vibration data patterns to identify a command, and the command is then transmitted to a separate terminal device (like a television or light) to execute a function (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:30-43). The system decouples the control interface from the end device itself.
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of a discreet, universal control interface out of an ordinary surface, eliminating the need for dedicated remote controls or expensive, built-in touchscreens (’971 Patent, col. 4:41-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 9 (Compl. ¶52).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a control system comprising three main parts:
- A housing with an "engagement means" for a "mounting surface."
- A sensor (specifically an accelerometer) inside the housing that creates an "interactive zone" aligned with the mounting surface to detect a "contact interaction" (an impact) and generate "vibration data."
- A server in communication with the sensor, which includes modules to receive the data, determine a data pattern, match it to a "gesture profile," and transmit an associated command.
- A terminal device in communication with the server to receive the command and initiate a corresponding activity.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Back Tap" feature available on Apple iPhones starting with the iPhone 8 series, and the corresponding iPhone models themselves (Compl. ¶44).
Functionality and Market Context
- The "Back Tap" feature allows a user to tap the back of an iPhone (using "double taps" and "triple taps") to trigger pre-configured functions (Compl. ¶46). These functions can control the iPhone itself or external devices, including smart home accessories via Apple's "Shortcuts" application (Compl. ¶45, ¶48). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating how a user's tap on the back of the iPhone constitutes a "Tap Interaction" within an "Interactive Zone" (Compl. ¶47). This visual depicts the back of the iPhone itself as the activated surface.
- The complaint alleges that "Back Tap" was a prominently featured accessibility function upon its release and directly competes with Plaintiff's "Knocki" product (Compl. ¶41, ¶54).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references claim charts in an attached Exhibit 2, which was not provided in the source filings. The following summary is based on the narrative allegations within the complaint body.
’971 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing having an engagement means for a mounting surface; | The iPhone’s physical body allegedly serves as the housing, and the back of the iPhone is alleged to be the "mounting surface." | ¶47 | col. 7:1-9 |
| a sensor contained within said housing, said sensor forming an interactive zone...said sensor being comprised of an accelerometer...wherein a contact interaction associated with said mounting surface...is detected by said sensor as data signals...comprised of vibration data of said contact interaction; | The iPhone allegedly contains an accelerometer that detects taps on the back of the device, which functions as the "interactive zone." These taps are the "contact interaction," and the accelerometer detects them as vibration data signals. | ¶45, ¶47 | col. 7:20-24 |
| a server in communication with said sensor...said processing module determining a data pattern corresponding to said data signals...and matching said data pattern with a gesture profile, said gesture profile being associated with a command; | The iPhone's internal processors and software allegedly function as the claimed "server," processing the vibration data from the accelerometer to determine a pattern (e.g., a double-tap or triple-tap), and matching this pattern to a user-configured command ("gesture profile") via the "Shortcuts" application. | ¶46, ¶58 | col. 9:40-54 |
| a terminal device being comprised of a receiving module and means for initiating activity...said terminal device being in communication with said server, said output module transmitting said command to said receiving module | The iPhone itself is alleged to be the "terminal device" when executing internal commands. For external commands, other Apple or third-party devices (e.g., Apple TVs, HomeKit devices) are alleged to be the "terminal device," receiving commands from the iPhone. | ¶45, ¶48, ¶53 | col. 5:41-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Architectural Questions: A primary question may be whether the integrated architecture of the iPhone maps onto the patent's described system of a distinct housing, sensor, server, and terminal device. The infringement theory appears to collapse these distinct components into a single product, the iPhone, which may raise questions of whether the iPhone's processor is a "server" and whether the iPhone can be both the "housing" for the sensor and the "terminal device" as contemplated by the claim.
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "mounting surface" will be critical. The patent specification consistently illustrates the "mounting surface" as an external object like a table or wall to which the sensor housing is affixed (’971 Patent, Figs. 7-9). The complaint alleges the "mounting surface" is the back of the iPhone itself (Compl. ¶47). A court will need to determine if the claim term is broad enough to read on an integral part of the device housing.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "server"
Context and Importance: This term is central because the patent describes a system where a sensor communicates with a server, which in turn communicates with a terminal device. The accused iPhone integrates these functions. The definition of "server" will determine whether the iPhone’s internal software and processing hardware can meet this limitation or if a physically separate computer is required.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims describe the server in functional terms, comprising a "routing module," a "processing module," and an "output module" (’971 Patent, col. 12:1-12), which could arguably be embodied in software on a single device.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes communication between the sensor and server using technologies like "wifi, Bluetooth, local area network, wired or other wireless connection" (’971 Patent, col. 5:22-26), which more commonly describe communication between separate physical devices.
The Term: "mounting surface"
Context and Importance: The patent's core concept involves turning an ordinary, independent surface into a controller. The complaint alleges the "mounting surface" is the back of the iPhone. Practitioners may focus on this term because if "mounting surface" is construed to mean a surface separate from the housing containing the sensor, the infringement allegation could be weakened.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly state that the mounting surface must be a separate object from the housing.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Every embodiment and figure in the patent depicts the mounting surface as an external object (a wall, table, or bed) upon which the control device is placed or to which it is attached (’971 Patent, col. 6:62-68; Figs. 5, 7, 8). The abstract describes the system as enabling a "mounting surface independent from the terminal device to become a controller."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges contributory infringement, stating that Apple sells iPhones (the "material components") that enable users to control third-party and other Apple devices via its HomeKit architecture, thus contributing to infringement by end-users (Compl. ¶60-61).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint details a history of communication initiated by Apple in 2016, including in-person and phone meetings where Haptic allegedly disclosed its "patent pending" technology under an NDA. The complaint alleges Apple ceased communication with Haptic shortly before developing and launching its own "Back Tap" feature (Compl. ¶33-40, ¶63).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Architectural Mapping: A central issue will be whether the self-contained architecture of the accused iPhone, where sensing, processing, and action occur within one device, can satisfy the elements of Claim 1, which describes a seemingly distributed system comprising a sensor, a "server," and a "terminal device."
- Definitional Scope of "Mounting Surface": The case may hinge on claim construction, specifically whether the term "mounting surface," which the patent illustrates as an external surface like a table or wall, can be interpreted to read on the integrated back panel of the iPhone itself.
- Willfulness and Pre-Suit Conduct: A key factual question will be what was disclosed during the alleged 2016-2017 meetings between Haptic and Apple. The detailed allegations of Apple's interest, the technology disclosures under an NDA, and the subsequent launch of a similar feature will be a primary focus for determining whether any infringement was willful.