DCT
3:25-cv-11014
Ginko LLC v. Apple Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ginko, LLC (Michigan)
- Defendant: Apple, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Scheef & Stone LLP; Husch Blackwell LLP; The Simon Law Firm, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01279, W.D. Tex., 02/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas based on Defendant’s regular and established places of business in the district, including a large Austin campus with R&D functions and multiple retail stores.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s NameDrop feature, available on iPhones and Apple Watches, infringes a patent related to proximity-based methods for sharing contact data between electronic devices.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the digital exchange of contact information between individuals in close physical proximity, a common function for modern smartphones and wearable devices.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint, superseding an initial complaint filed on October 24, 2024. Plaintiff alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit due to Ginko's public promotion of its technology at industry events beginning in 2018, potentially supporting a claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-07-22 | ’573 Patent Priority Date |
| 2021-06-01 | ’573 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-09-18 | Accused NameDrop feature launched on iPhones with iOS 17 |
| 2023-10-25 | Accused NameDrop feature launched on Apple Watches with watchOS 10.1 |
| 2024-10-24 | Initial Complaint Filing Date |
| 2025-02-03 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,025,573 - *“Method and Apparatus for Data Sharing”*
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a method to exchange digital contact information immediately in situations like live meetings, while also allowing users to control what information is shared and manage future access to that data (’573 Patent, col. 1:28-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user's device can identify a "potential contact" when their devices are in proximity. The user can then send a request to the potential contact to initiate a data exchange. This request includes a "permission setting" that dictates what subset of the user's data can be viewed by the other person. Upon acceptance, the devices establish a mutual contact relationship based on the specified permissions (’573 Patent, col. 1:33-2:22). The system is designed to facilitate these exchanges based on location detection, which can include both specific geolocations and proximity detected via peer-to-peer signals (’573 Patent, col. 6:21-24).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for secure, permission-based contact exchange triggered by physical proximity, automating a process that previously relied on manual entry or less secure methods. (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 10, 11, and 14. Claim 10 is the sole independent claim asserted (’573 Patent, col. 18:1-30; Compl. ¶50).
- Essential elements of independent claim 10 (a system claim) include:
- A processor and a memory with computer-executable instructions.
- Identifying, for a user associated with a user device, a potential contact.
- Receiving, from the user device, a request for the user to become a contact with the potential contact.
- The request must comprise a "first permission setting" indicating that a "subset of user data... is to be shared."
- Sending a communication to the potential contact to initiate a data exchange.
- In response to receiving an acceptance, setting the user as a contact of the potential contact (making the data subset viewable) and setting the potential contact as a contact of the user.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are various models of the Apple iPhone and Apple Watch (collectively, "Infringing Devices") that incorporate the "NameDrop" feature, made available through iOS 17 and watchOS 10.1 software updates (Compl. ¶1, ¶26-28).
Functionality and Market Context
The NameDrop feature allows users to exchange contact information by bringing their respective iPhone or Apple Watch devices within a few centimeters of each other (Compl. ¶29, ¶32). This proximity triggers a user interface on both devices, prompting the users to confirm the data exchange (Compl. ¶32). The feature uses short-range wireless technologies such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), peer-to-peer Wi-Fi, and potentially Ultra-Wideband (UWB) to detect nearby devices and facilitate the transfer (Compl. ¶35).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Claim Chart Summary
11,025,573 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifying, for a user associated with a user device, a potential contact... | NameDrop activates when a primary user holds their device "a few centimeters from another user's iPhone or Apple Watch," thereby identifying the other user as a potential contact. | ¶32, ¶33 | col. 2:6-12 |
| receiving, from the user device of the user, a request for the user to become a contact with the potential contact, the request comprises a first permission setting... indicating that a subset of user data... is to be shared... | When NameDrop appears on both screens, users are prompted to share contact information. The user's affirmative action to proceed with the exchange constitutes the request, which implicitly includes the permission to share their selected contact card data. | ¶32, ¶33 | col. 18:13-19 |
| sending, based on the request, a communication to the potential contact to initiate a data exchange... | The primary user's device transmits communications to the other device to initiate the data exchange process. | ¶33 | col. 18:20-22 |
| in response to receiving an acceptance of the communication: setting the user as a contact of the potential contact... and setting the potential contact as a contact of the user. | If the potential contact accepts the communication, "both users become contacts and share corresponding user data." | ¶33 | col. 18:23-30 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint emphasizes that the patent's definition of "location" is not limited to GPS coordinates and includes proximity detected via short-range signals like Bluetooth (Compl. ¶39). A central question may be whether NameDrop’s reliance on proximity sensing (e.g., being "a few centimeters" apart) meets the "location" limitations of the asserted dependent claims (e.g., claim 12, which requires a "geolocation that is proximate the first location").
- Technical Questions: Does the user's action of confirming a share in the NameDrop interface constitute a "request compris[ing] a first permission setting" as required by claim 10? The defense may argue that this binary choice is functionally different from the more granular "permission setting" contemplated by the patent's specification, which describes options such as sharing all data versus allowing chats only (’573 Patent, Fig. 6).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"location"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory, particularly for asserted dependent claims 11 and 12, which depend from independent claim 10. The plaintiff's case relies on this term covering proximity detection via short-range wireless signals, while the defendant may argue for a narrower definition tied to geographical coordinates.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a "location detection function that uses peer-to-peer signals with a user device of another user located within a proximity" may be used (’573 Patent, col. 6:21-24). This language may support an interpretation that includes proximity detection.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discloses that the "location component may include, for example, a global positioning system module or geolocation module" (’573 Patent, col. 4:15-16). This could be used to argue that the term implies a more precise coordinate-based system.
"permission setting"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the asserted independent claim 10. The analysis will question whether the act of confirming a pre-configured contact card share in NameDrop meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent figures depict more complex permission options than the accused product appears to offer.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires a request that "comprises a first permission setting... indicating that a subset of user data... is to be shared" (’573 Patent, col. 18:16-19). This may be read broadly to cover any user-initiated control over what data is shared, including a simple confirmation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 6 of the patent illustrates distinct user interface options for "Share all" versus "I'm shy, chat only" (’573 Patent, Fig. 6, element 614). This could support an argument that a "setting" requires more than a single, binary choice to share a default set of information.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Apple actively encourages infringement through its official user guides, support pages, promotional videos, and marketing campaigns that instruct users how to use NameDrop in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶43-45). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the NameDrop feature is especially designed for the infringing use and lacks substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶49).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willfulness based on two theories. First, it alleges pre-suit knowledge through "willful blindness," arguing that a sophisticated company like Apple should have been aware of the patent due to its own patent clearance practices and Ginko’s public promotion of the technology at major industry events since 2018 (Compl. ¶13-15, ¶19-22). Second, it alleges actual knowledge at least as of the filing of the initial complaint on October 24, 2024, making any subsequent infringement willful (Compl. ¶12, ¶48).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "location," as used in the patent, be construed to cover the relative proximity detected by the accused NameDrop feature's use of short-range wireless signals, or does it require a more specific system based on absolute geographic coordinates?
- A second key question will be one of functional correspondence: does the user’s confirmation of a data transfer in the NameDrop interface satisfy the claim requirement of a "request compris[ing] a first permission setting," or does the patent’s disclosure of more granular controls imply a narrower construction that the accused feature does not meet?
- For willfulness and damages, a significant evidentiary question will be whether the plaintiff's allegations of "willful blindness" based on industry awareness are sufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge, or whether liability for enhanced damages will be limited to conduct occurring after the date of the initial complaint.