DCT

4:22-cv-06064

Abramson v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:22-cv-06064, N.D. Cal., 11/29/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California because Samsung transacts business, offers products for sale, committed acts of infringement, and maintains regular and established places of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ecosystem of smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, and wireless earbuds infringes a patent related to technology for the automatic loss prevention of mobile devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves a tethering system that triggers an immediate alarm on a mobile device when a paired secondary item, such as a keychain fob or wearable, is moved beyond a predefined, short distance.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the "inventive concept" of the patent was recognized during prosecution, quoting from the USPTO's Notice of Allowance. It also alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent via an email sent on September 23, 2022.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-05-19 Patent Priority Date ('575 Provisional)
2018-10-30 '292 Patent Issue Date
2022-09-23 Alleged Pre-Suit Notice to Samsung
2022-10-14 Original Complaint Filing Date
2022-11-29 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,115,292 - "System and Method for automatic loss prevention of mobile communication devices", Issued October 30, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of mobile device theft or loss, noting that by the time a user realizes a device is missing, thieves may have already disabled after-the-fact tracking features. It also identifies that conventional long-range Bluetooth alerts are ineffective because the device is already too far away to be recovered when the signal is finally lost (’292 Patent, col. 1:7-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part system: an "Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Software" ('ALPAS') on a mobile device and a separate "Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Trigger" ('ALPAT'). The ALPAS monitors the proximity of the ALPAT, and if the ALPAT moves beyond a short, user-defined distance, the system is configured to trigger an immediate audio and visual alarm on the mobile device, the ALPAT, or both, to alert the owner instantly (’292 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:28-48). The operational flow is depicted in a flowchart in the patent’s Figure 3 (’292 Patent, Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: The described solution shifts the paradigm from post-loss recovery to immediate loss prevention by providing an instantaneous, localized alert at the moment of separation (’292 Patent, col. 2:28-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 6 (Compl. ¶30). The complaint notes that infringement of "one or more of the claims" has occurred, which may suggest an intent to assert other claims, including dependent ones, later in the proceedings (Compl. ¶36).
  • Independent Claim 1 (System) requires:
    • A mobile device with a processor and memory.
    • "Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Software ('ALPAS')" installed on the mobile device.
    • A device which functions as an "Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Trigger ('ALPAT')".
    • An owner-defined distance for alarm activation.
    • The ALPAS having the ability to detect when the ALPAT has moved away at the owner-defined distance.
    • The ALPAS having the ability to activate an alarm (flashing screen and repeated audio message).
    • The ALPAT having the ability to play audio at a fixed decibel.
    • Several "wherein" clauses defining the mobile device, owner-only deactivation, the nature of the ALPAT, and customizable audio.
    • An "at home safe zone" option and a "sync to activate" option.
    • Logic for alarm deactivation in the "at home safe zone" and alarm reactivation based on the "sync-to-activate" option.
  • Independent Claim 6 (Method) requires:
    • Installing ALPAS on a mobile device.
    • The ALPAS communicating with an ALPAT.
    • The ALPAS constantly analyzing whether the ALPAT has moved away at an owner-defined distance.
    • Activating a specific alarm (flashing screen and repeated audio) if the ALPAT moves away.
    • The method includes the same series of "wherein" and functional option clauses as system claim 1.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a wide range of Samsung products, categorized as "Samsung Galaxy smartphones and tablets running Android 8 or later," "Galaxy Watch devices running Tizen 5.5 or later," and "Galaxy Buds+, Galaxy Buds Pro and Galaxy Buds Live" (Compl. ¶30). Specific device families mentioned include the Galaxy S series (S7 through S22), Note series, Z Fold, Z Flip, Tab tablets, and various Galaxy Watch models (Compl. ¶30). These are collectively termed the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the specific technical functionality of the Accused Products that allegedly infringes. The infringement theory appears to rely on the combined operation of a Samsung smartphone or tablet (as the "mobile device") with a Samsung wearable such as a Galaxy Watch or Galaxy Buds (as the "ALPAT") (Compl. ¶30). The complaint asserts that Samsung is one of the world's largest manufacturers of wireless devices and that the United States is a critical market for its products (Compl. ¶3). The complaint also points to Samsung's physical presence and R&D activities in the district, providing a photograph of a Samsung office in Mountain View, California, where labs allegedly develop solutions for its mobile devices (Compl. ¶¶6-7). This photograph shows a large building with a prominent Samsung logo (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Samsung directly and indirectly infringes at least claims 1 and 6 of the ’292 Patent (Compl. ¶30). The complaint states that a chart "providing exemplary evidence of infringement" is attached as Exhibit 4; however, this exhibit was not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶36). The narrative infringement theory, inferred from the asserted claims and the list of accused products, is that Samsung’s ecosystem of devices creates the claimed loss-prevention system. Under this theory, a Samsung smartphone or tablet running the ALPAS software (allegedly part of Samsung's operating system or a pre-installed application) communicates with a paired Samsung wearable (e.g., Galaxy Watch or Buds) functioning as the ALPAT. When the wearable is separated from the phone beyond a set distance, an alarm is triggered on one or both devices, thereby practicing the patented method (Compl. ¶¶30, 35).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question is whether a general-purpose, multi-function consumer wearable (e.g., a Galaxy Watch) can be considered "a device which functions as an Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Trigger ('ALPAT')" as that term is used in the patent. The defense may argue the accused wearables have a different primary purpose and do not meet the specific identity of an "ALPAT" as contemplated by the inventor.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint emphasizes the "sync-to-activate" feature as part of the patent's "inventive concept" (Compl. ¶¶20, 27). A key technical question will be whether the complaint can show that the accused Samsung products perform this specific function: reactivating the loss-prevention alarm system when the "ALPAT" returns to within the defined distance after having been separated. The complaint provides no specific evidence on how the accused products actually operate in this scenario.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "device which functions as an Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Trigger (“ALPAT”)"

  • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement case may depend on the construction of this term. The plaintiff’s theory requires this term to be broad enough to encompass multi-function consumer electronics like smartwatches and earbuds. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused Galaxy Watch and Buds products can be considered an "ALPAT".

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself states, "wherein the ALPAT can be... an app on a wearable device" (’292 Patent, col. 8:51-52). This language provides direct support for a construction that includes devices like the accused smartwatches.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the ALPAT in more limited terms, stating it "can be in the form of a small device that a person can keep with them and optionally secure to a keychain" (’292 Patent, col. 2:36-39). A defendant could argue that the term’s identity is tied to a device whose primary function is loss prevention, rather than a general-purpose wearable that has a tethering alert as an ancillary feature.

  • The Term: "the ALPAS is configured to reactivate if the “sync-to-activate” option is turned on"

  • Context and Importance: Plaintiff highlights this functionality as a key part of the invention (Compl. ¶¶20, 27). The infringement analysis for this limitation will be highly fact-specific. Practitioners may focus on this term because proving that the accused products "reactivate" in the claimed manner is crucial, especially given its prominence in the complaint's narrative.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language describes a functional outcome: upon the ALPAT's return, the ALPAS "reactivat[es]" if an option is on (’292 Patent, col. 8:62-67). This could be interpreted broadly to cover any software logic that re-enables a proximity alert after a device reconnects.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this as a specific "system" (e.g., "the 'sync-to-activate' system" in Fig. 3, step 307 and col. 5:20-25). A defendant might argue that its standard Bluetooth re-pairing protocol does not constitute a specific "reactivation" of a loss prevention alarm system as described, but is merely a re-establishment of a general-purpose connection.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Samsung knowingly encourages infringement by "providing customers with instructions and/or manuals for using the Accused Products" and by promoting them online (Compl. ¶40). It also makes a conclusory allegation of contributory infringement (Compl. ¶41).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’292 Patent. The complaint states that an email notifying Samsung of the patent was sent to specific employees and outside counsel on September 23, 2022 (Compl. ¶23). The complaint further alleges that infringement has continued post-notice and will continue post-service of the complaint, justifying enhanced damages (Compl. ¶38).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Trigger ('ALPAT')," which is described in the patent with language suggesting a purpose-built device, be construed to cover general-purpose, multi-function consumer wearables like the accused Samsung Galaxy Watch and Galaxy Buds?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: does the accused Samsung product ecosystem actually perform the specific "sync-to-activate" reactivation logic recited in the asserted claims? The complaint highlights this feature as a core inventive concept, but the provided pleading lacks specific factual allegations detailing how Samsung's products meet this limitation.