DCT

4:20-cv-03898

Apple Inc v. Zeroclick LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:20-cv-03898, N.D. Cal., 06/12/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Plaintiff’s principal place of business being within the district and Defendant’s alleged contacts with the district, including prior litigation involving the same patents and communications directed to Plaintiff by Defendant's sole member.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s patents related to graphical user interface controls are invalid and/or unpatentable.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for activating functions in a graphical user interface (GUI) through specified pointer movements, as an alternative to conventional physical mouse clicks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patents-in-suit were previously asserted against Plaintiff by a prior entity ("Zeroclick 1") in a litigation that was dismissed for lack of standing on June 11, 2020. The current Defendant ("Zeroclick 2"), which acquired the patents in January 2020, had sought to substitute into the prior litigation, which Plaintiff alleges creates an actual controversy regarding the patents' validity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-05-11 Priority Date for ’691 and ’443 Patents
2002-01-01 Inventor allegedly sends fax to Apple regarding patents
2010-10-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,818,691 Issues
2013-10-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,549,443 Issues
2014-01-01 Inventor allegedly sends emails to Apple regarding patents
2015-09-25 "Zeroclick 1 Litigation" filed against Apple
2017-08-01 Zeroclick 1 transfers patent rights to inventor Dr. Nes Irvine
2017-12-01 Zeroclick 1 entity is terminated
2019-11-06 Defendant Zeroclick 2 is formed
2020-01-01 Dr. Irvine transfers patent rights to Defendant Zeroclick 2
2020-06-11 "Zeroclick 1 Litigation" is dismissed
2020-06-12 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,818,691 - "ZEROCLICK"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the conventional programming model for GUIs, which requires a pointer movement to locate a control, followed by a separate physical action like a button press or click to activate its function (’691 Patent, col. 3:1-13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to activate GUI functions using only pointer movement. This is achieved through a two-step process: first, the user moves a pointer into contact with a "control area," which does not by itself trigger the function; second, the user performs a "subsequent movement" along a specific, "predetermined path" related to that control area, which generates a simulated ""click" event" to activate the function (’691 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to create a more ergonomic and potentially faster user interface by eliminating the need for physical clicks, enabling full software control through pointer movement alone (’691 Patent, col. 3:14-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims were asserted in the prior litigation. Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention’s core method.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A method of operating a GUI where a specified pointer movement generates a "click" event.
    • The movement requires a first step of positioning a pointer within a "control area" and a second step of a "subsequent movement" of the pointer within a "predetermined path area."
    • Critically, the first step of the pointer passing within the control area does not generate the "click" event.
    • The second step, the subsequent movement within the predetermined path, does generate the "click" event, simulating a direct click and triggering the control's function.

U.S. Patent No. 8,549,443 - "ZEROCLICK"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The problem is identical to that described in the ’691 Patent: the reliance on a two-part system of pointer location followed by a physical click (’443 Patent, col. 3:1-13).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’443 Patent claims the Zeroclick concept as a device, specifically one with a touch-sensitive screen. The solution involves detecting an initial touching and an "initial subsequent movement" of a user's finger, which activates the screen to detect "one or more additional movements" that determine a "selected operation." This is accomplished "without requiring an exertion of pressure on the screen" (’443 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: This patent adapts the core click-less interaction concept to touch-screen devices, which were becoming a dominant computing paradigm at the time of its prosecution.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims were asserted in the prior litigation. Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented device.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A device comprising a touch-sensitive screen, a processor, and executable user interface code.
    • The screen is configured to detect touch "without requiring an exertion of pressure."
    • The code detects an initial touching and an "initial subsequent movement" of a finger.
    • This initial sequence activates the screen to detect "one or more additional movements."
    • These additional movements determine the "selected operation" to be performed.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint, an action for declaratory judgment of invalidity, does not contain direct infringement allegations or identify accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶1). It notes, however, that a prior litigation involving the same patents accused Apple of infringement (Compl. ¶2). The complaint does not specify which Apple products or services were accused in the prior litigation, nor does it describe their specific functionality.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain infringement allegations or an associated claim chart, as its claims are for declaratory judgment of invalidity.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: ""click" event" (’691 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the asserted method. The dispute will likely center on whether an accused functionality generates an event that meets the definition of a simulated click as claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the boundary between merely interacting with an interface and performing the specific two-step function-triggering event required by the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the event "simulates direct clicking of the control" (’691 Patent, Abstract; col. 17:41-44), which may support an interpretation that it covers any software-recognized event that serves the function of a physical click.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the "click" event to be generated specifically by "the subsequent movement of the pointer within said predetermined path area" (’691 Patent, col. 81:1-5). This language could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, predefined path, as opposed to any generic gesture.

  • The Term: "without requiring an exertion of pressure" (’443 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is critical for distinguishing the claimed device from technologies that rely on pressure sensitivity. Practitioners may focus on this term as it directly relates to the capabilities of modern touch screens, some of which incorporate pressure-sensing features.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A broad reading would suggest the claimed device cannot use any pressure-sensing data to determine the user's intent, relying solely on touch location, movement, and timing as captured by a standard capacitive screen.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification does not define what constitutes an "exertion of pressure." A party could argue that even standard touch screens require some minimal physical force for a capacitive touch to register, raising the question of where mere contact ends and a "requiring" of pressure begins.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not make any new allegations of infringement. It notes that the prior "Zeroclick 1 Litigation" accused Apple of direct, contributory, and induced infringement (Compl. ¶2).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain any allegations related to willful infringement.

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

This declaratory judgment action will likely focus on the validity of the asserted patents rather than on infringement. Based on the complaint, the key questions for the court are likely to be:

  • A central issue will be one of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101: As raised in the complaint, are the claims directed to the abstract idea of activating a function based on user movement, and if so, do they add a sufficient "inventive concept" tied to a specific technological improvement to be patent-eligible? (Compl. ¶¶20, 28).
  • A second question will address indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112: Does the complaint’s assertion that claim terms are tantamount to means-plus-function language without disclosure of a "sufficiently definite corresponding structure" in the specification render those claims invalid as indefinite? (Compl. ¶¶22, 30).
  • A threshold legal question will be one of justiciability: Does the history of the prior litigation and Defendant Zeroclick 2's actions create a sufficiently "actual and justiciable controversy" to give Apple standing to seek a declaratory judgment of invalidity? (Compl. ¶¶6, 8, 14).