DCT
4:15-cv-04417
Zeroclick LLC v. Apple Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Zeroclick, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 5:15-cv-04417, N.D. Cal., 09/25/2015
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant Apple Inc. has its principal place of business in the district and has transacted business there, including the sale of the accused products.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s iOS-based devices, including the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch product lines, infringe patents related to user interface technology that enables "clickless" commands through specific movements on a touchscreen.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns gesture-based controls for graphical user interfaces (GUIs), a foundational element of modern touchscreen devices such as smartphones and tablets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the inventor, Dr. Nes Irvine, contacted Apple in July 2002 to explain the "Zeroclick" invention, but Apple never responded. It further alleges that Apple was placed on notice of the patents-in-suit no later than April 5, 2014, through a letter sent to a federal judge and copied to Apple's counsel in a separate litigation. The complaint also notes that Apple has cited one of the patents-in-suit in its own patent prosecution filings, which Plaintiff presents as evidence of Defendant's knowledge.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-05-11 | Earliest Priority Date (’443 and ’691 Patents) |
| 2002-07-XX | Inventor Dr. Irvine allegedly contacted Apple regarding the "Zeroclick" invention |
| 2010-10-19 | U.S. Patent No. 7,818,691 Issued |
| 2013-10-01 | U.S. Patent No. 8,549,443 Issued |
| 2014-04-05 | Plaintiff allegedly placed Defendant on notice of the patents-in-suit |
| 2015-09-25 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
U.S. Patent No. 8,549,443 - “Zeroclick,” issued October 1, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of the conventional graphical user interface (GUI) paradigm, which has historically relied on a two-step process of using a pointer for location and a physical button press or "click" for activation (’691 Patent, col. 3:1-13).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a device with a touch-sensitive interface that eliminates the need for a physical "click." It achieves this by configuring software to detect a user's finger movement across the screen to determine a selected operation. The software is also configured to deactivate certain functions while the user's finger is touching the screen, a feature which may be intended to prevent inadvertent commands during a gesture (’443 Patent, Abstract; ’691 Patent, col. 3:35-54).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to create more ergonomic and intuitive user interfaces by allowing full control through pointer movement alone, representing a departure from the established point-and-click model prevalent at the time of invention (’691 Patent, col. 3:45-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 19.
- The essential elements of independent claim 19 are:
- A device capable of executing software comprising:
- a touch-sensitive screen configured to detect touch without requiring pressure;
- a processor connected to the screen to receive information on touch locations;
- executable user interface code stored in a memory connected to the processor;
- the code configured to detect a finger movement on the screen and determine a selected operation therefrom; and
- the code further configured to cause one or more functions to deactivate while the user's finger is touching the screen.
U.S. Patent No. 7,818,691 - “Zeroclick,” issued October 19, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the related ’443 Patent, this invention addresses the conventional GUI reliance on a physical "click" for command execution (’691 Patent, col. 3:1-13).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method for generating a "click" event using a two-part gesture. First, a user moves a pointer into a "control area," which does not by itself trigger the click. Second, the user performs a subsequent, specified movement within a "predetermined path area" to generate the click event. This two-step process is designed to prevent accidental activation that might occur if merely passing over a control area triggered a function (’691 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This method provided a framework for creating gesture-based commands that are both intuitive and resistant to unintentional activation, a key challenge in designing clickless user interfaces (’691 Patent, col. 3:45-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶26).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A method of operating a GUI that generates a "click" event via a specified pointer movement.
- The click event is generated by first positioning the pointer in a "control area" and then making a subsequent movement within a "predetermined path area."
- A key condition is that when the pointer first enters the "control area," the click event is not generated.
- The subsequent movement within the "predetermined path area" is what generates the click event, simulating a direct click and triggering a related function.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "iOS" devices, including all devices in the "iPhone," "iPad," and "iPod Touch" product lines (Compl. ¶11, ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the touchscreen user interface of the accused devices as the infringing functionality. Specific examples cited include the "slide-to-unlock" feature, which requires a user to swipe a finger along a defined track to unlock the device, and other swiping gestures used to activate options, such as deleting contacts or emails (Compl. ¶11, ¶30).
- The complaint alleges that the "slide-to-unlock" feature was considered "pretty important" by an Apple executive and that consumers were "more willing to buy, and to pay more for, devices incorporating" it, suggesting its commercial significance (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
8,549,443 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a touch-sensitive screen configured to detect being touched by a user's finger without requiring an exertion of pressure on the screen... | The accused iOS devices include a touch-sensitive screen that detects a user's finger touch without pressure. | ¶15 | col. 2:61-64 |
| a processor connected to the touch-sensitive screen and configured to receive from the screen information regarding locations touched by the user's finger... | The accused iOS devices contain a processor connected to the screen that receives touch location information. | ¶15 | Fig. 1 |
| executable user interface code stored in a memory connected to the processor... | The accused iOS devices store and execute user interface code (iOS) in memory connected to the processor. | ¶15 | col. 3:14-21 |
| the user interface code being configured to detect one or more locations touched by a movement of the user's finger on the screen without requiring the exertion of pressure and determine therefrom a selected operation... | The iOS software on the accused devices is configured to detect finger movements (e.g., a swipe) and determine a selected operation (e.g., "unlock"). | ¶15 | col. 4:5-13 |
| the user interface code is further configured to cause one or more functions available to the user interface code of the device to deactivate while the user's finger is touching one or more locations on the screen. | The complaint alleges that the iOS software is configured to cause functions to deactivate while the user's finger is touching the screen. | ¶15 | col. 14:5-11 |
7,818,691 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method of operating a GUI that operates by an input of a movement of a pointer according to a specified movement to generate a ‘click’ event... | The iOS GUI operates by user input of finger movement (e.g., a swipe) to generate a "click" event (e.g., unlocking the device or deleting an email). | ¶26 | col. 3:35-44 |
| that is the generation of said click event by the completion of the movement of the pointer being first positioned or moving within an area...called a control area and then a subsequent movement...within a second area...called a predetermined path area... | The user first positions a finger on a control (e.g., the "slide-to-unlock" slider) and then completes a subsequent movement along a path (e.g., the slider track) to generate the event. | ¶26 | col. 4:5-13 |
| a) when the pointer is immediately adjacent or passes within said control area said click event is not generated... | Simply touching the "slide-to-unlock" slider or a swipeable email entry (the control area) does not generate the click event. | ¶26 | Abstract |
| b) whereby the subsequent movement of the pointer within said predetermined path area...generates said click event, which simulates direct clicking of a control... | The subsequent movement of the finger along the slider track or across the email entry generates the click event, triggering the associated function (unlocking or revealing delete options). | ¶26 | Abstract |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for the ’691 patent may be whether the initial touch point of a continuous gesture, such as "slide-to-unlock," qualifies as a "control area" as that term is used in the patent. Similarly, the analysis may focus on whether the swipe path constitutes a "predetermined path area."
- Technical Questions: For the ’443 patent, the infringement analysis may turn on the "deactivate" limitation. The complaint provides a conclusory allegation for this element but does not specify which "functions available to the user interface code" are allegedly deactivated in iOS devices while a user's finger is touching the screen. The defense may question whether the accused products perform this specific function as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "control area" (’691 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the two-step method of Claim 1. Its construction will determine whether the initial touchpoint of a gesture like "slide-to-unlock" or a swipe on a list item meets the claim limitation, or if the term requires a more discrete, pre-defined UI element like a button.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states a "control area may be any control or object in any existing program, which has the standard click to trigger any function" and can include "labels, edit boxes, list boxes," and "shapes" (’691 Patent, col. 15:37-52). This language may support a broad, functional definition covering any pointer-sensitive region that initiates a claimed gesture.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures consistently depict the "control area" (1) as a visually distinct, bounded element akin to a traditional button or icon (’691 Patent, Fig. 1). This could support an interpretation requiring a discrete, defined UI object rather than simply the starting point of a gesture on a generic surface.
The Term: "deactivate" (’443 Patent, Claim 19)
- Context and Importance: This term defines a specific, active function that the accused software must perform: causing other functions to become inactive while a user's finger is touching the screen. The plaintiff's ability to prove infringement may depend heavily on whether any feature in iOS meets this functional requirement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not cite any specific portion of the patent to support a broad definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's infringement allegation for this element is conclusory and lacks specific factual support.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ’691 patent specification, which shares a common lineage, describes an action where moving outside the predetermined path "resets the control to as if the pointer has never started along the predetermined path area" (’691 Patent, Abstract). This suggests "deactivate" could refer narrowly to the cancellation of the "Zeroclick" operation itself, rather than deactivating other, unrelated software functions.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendant’s alleged instructions to users to perform the claimed methods, such as using the "slide-to-unlock" feature or swiping on control areas (Compl. ¶18, ¶29-30). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that Defendant sells devices and software especially made for use in an infringing manner and not suitable for substantial noninfringing use (Compl. ¶19, ¶31).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It claims Defendant first learned of the inventions in July 2002 via a fax from the inventor (Compl. ¶16, ¶27). It alleges specific notice of the issued patents as of April 5, 2014, through a letter copied to Apple's counsel (Compl. ¶16, ¶27). Furthermore, it alleges that Defendant cited the ’691 patent in its own patent prosecution history, which it argues confirms earlier knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶27).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "control area," which is depicted in the patent’s figures as a discrete UI element, be construed to cover the initial touchpoint of a continuous swipe gesture on the touchscreen of the accused iOS devices?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will be presented to show that the accused iOS software performs the specific function of causing one or more available functions to "deactivate while the user's finger is touching one or more locations on the screen," as required by Claim 19 of the ’443 patent?
- The dispute over willfulness will likely focus on the legal effect of prior communications: what weight will be given to allegations of a 2002 fax, a 2014 letter to a judge in a separate case, and citations in Defendant’s own patent filings in establishing the knowledge and intent required for enhanced damages?