DCT

5:18-cv-06146

Cypress Lake Software Inc v. ZTE USA Inc

Key Events

Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cypress Lake Software, Inc. (Texas)
- Defendant: HP Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
Case Identification: 6:17-cv-300, E.D. Tex., 12/14/2017
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant HP maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically a corporate campus in Plano, Texas, in use since at least 2010.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Chromebook laptops, which utilize the Google Chrome operating system, infringe seven U.S. patents related to coordinating media stream playback and navigating graphical user interfaces.
Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the management of simultaneous media playback and application windows in modern multi-tasking operating systems, a function critical to user experience on computers and mobile devices.
Key Procedural History: The complaint notes a prior lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Defendant in October 2016, which asserted some of the same patents against HP products running the Microsoft Windows operating system. Following a settlement between Plaintiff and Microsoft, Defendant was dismissed from that suit. Plaintiff alleges this history establishes Defendant's pre-suit knowledge of several of the patents asserted in the current action, which targets products running Google's Chrome OS.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-01-21	Priority Date for ’858, ’299, ’731, ’264, and ’558 Patents
2010-08-26	Priority Date for ’361 Patent
2010-11-30	Priority Date for ’954 Patent
2013-04-16	U.S. Patent No. 8,422,858 Issued
2014-02-25	U.S. Patent No. 8,661,361 Issued
2014-07-15	U.S. Patent No. 8,781,299 Issued
2014-07-22	U.S. Patent No. 8,787,731 Issued
2015-03-17	U.S. Patent No. 8,983,264 Issued
2016-08-23	U.S. Patent No. 9,423,954 Issued
2016-10-22	Prior lawsuit filed against HP, providing notice of related patents
2017-11-14	U.S. Patent No. 9,817,558 Issued
2017-12-14	First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,422,858 - Methods, systems, and computer program products for coordinating playing of media streams, Issued April 16, 2013

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the "unpleasant listening experience" and user confusion that occurs when multiple applications on a device attempt to play audio or video streams simultaneously without any coordination, such as when background browser tabs play audio over a user's primary music stream (’858 Patent, col. 1:8-28).
The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a system for managing media playback through an attribute called "presentation focus." A media player application must obtain this focus to be permitted to play its stream on a presentation device like a screen or speaker. The system, comprising a "focus director" and "focus state" component, detects an application's request to play media, determines if it has focus, and indicates whether playback is allowed, thereby preventing multiple streams from playing at once (’858 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-62).
Technical Importance: This technology provides a centralized software framework for arbitrating access to output devices in multitasking environments, preventing chaotic and overlapping media playback from degrading the user experience (’858 Patent, col. 1:12-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶19).
Essential elements of Claim 14 include executable instructions for:
- detecting a first media player's access to a presentation device;
- accessing "presentation focus information" to determine the player's status;
- determining the player does not have presentation focus;
- indicating, in response, that the player is not allowed to play;
- detecting a change in the presentation focus information;
- determining, based on the change, that the player now has presentation focus; and
- indicating, in response, that the player is now allowed to play.

U.S. Patent No. 8,781,299 - Methods, systems, and computer program products for coordinating playing of media streams, Issued July 15, 2014

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’858 Patent: uncoordinated, simultaneous playback of media streams by different applications (’299 Patent, col. 1:21-41).
The Patented Solution: This invention extends the "presentation focus" concept to a multi-device environment, managing media playback between a first device with a touchscreen (e.g., a laptop) and a second presentation device (e.g., a television). The system includes code for indicating whether a media player is permitted to play its stream on the first device, the second device, or both simultaneously, based on the current presentation focus. This focus can be changed by various triggers, including user input, which enables functionality like "casting" media from the first device to the second (’299 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:18-61).
Technical Importance: This approach provides a software architecture for managing media playback across multiple screens in a connected ecosystem, a foundational concept for modern "casting" and second-screen functionalities (’299 Patent, col. 6:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
Essential elements of Claim 1 include code for:
- working with a first presentation device (with a touchscreen) that can communicate with a second presentation device over a wireless network;
- detecting a media player's access to play a video stream;
- indicating permission to play on the first device, if it is to be utilized;
- indicating permission to play on the second device, if it is to be utilized;
- indicating permission to play on both devices, if both are to be utilized; and
- making the system operable such that a change in presentation focus can be based on at least one of a list of triggers (e.g., user input, a change in a UI element's attribute).

U.S. Patent No. 8,787,731 - Methods, systems, and computer program products for coordinating playing of media streams, Issued July 22, 2014

Technology Synopsis: This patent continues to build on the "presentation focus" concept. It specifically addresses a scenario where a second media player attempts to access a presentation device while a first media player is active. The invention describes code for detecting the second player's access and, upon a change in focus information, indicating that the second player is allowed to play its stream (’731 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Chrome OS's ability to manage and switch playback between different media players, such as when a user chooses to "Cast" a video from one application while another is potentially active (Compl. ¶42-44).

U.S. Patent No. 8,983,264 - Methods, systems, and computer program products for coordinating playing of media streams, Issued March 17, 2015

Technology Synopsis: Belonging to the same family, this patent claims a computer program product for coordinating media streams between a primary device with a touchscreen and a secondary display device. The claim structure is very similar to the ’299 Patent, focusing on the software code that indicates whether a media player is allowed to present on the first device and/or the second device, based on accessible presentation focus information (’264 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: Independent claim 61 (Compl. ¶52).
Accused Features: The "cast" functionality in the accused Chromebooks is targeted, whereby the operating system allegedly uses presentation focus to determine whether to play media on the Chromebook's own screen or on a secondary device like a television (Compl. ¶53-56).

U.S. Patent No. 9,423,954 - Graphical user interface methods, systems, and computer program products, Issued August 23, 2016

Technology Synopsis: This patent shifts focus to graphical user interface management, specifically for creating and manipulating adjacent application windows. The invention describes an apparatus that responds to a sequence of user inputs to first display one window, then create a second window adjacent to it, and finally change the size of both windows simultaneously while they remain adjacent and non-overlapping (’954 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: Independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶64).
Accused Features: The window-snapping or "split-screen" feature of Chrome OS is accused. The complaint alleges that users can use commands to move a window to one half of the screen, pull a browser tab into the other half to create an adjacent window, and then drag the shared border to resize both windows concurrently (Compl. ¶66-68).

U.S. Patent No. 9,817,558 - Methods, systems, and computer program products for coordinating playing of media streams, Issued November 14, 2017

Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a first presentation device (e.g., a laptop) comprising a memory, touchscreen, and processors. The processors execute instructions to provide access to multiple media players and to manage media playback permissions based on user selections of input controls (like play/pause), allowing a stream to be presented on the first device and/or a second wirelessly connected device (’558 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: Independent claim 24 (Compl. ¶76).
Accused Features: The accused features are the hardware and software of the HP Chromebooks that provide the "cast" functionality. The complaint alleges the operating system detects user selections and permits a change in presentation focus to control where media is displayed (Compl. ¶77-80).

U.S. Patent No. 8,661,361 - Methods, systems, and computer program products for navigating between visual components, Issued February 25, 2014

Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for navigating between different network applications within a unified presentation space. The invention involves presenting a "navigation control" (e.g., an icon grid) whose location is determined based on a visual component of a first application. This control allows a user to navigate to a visual component of a second, different network application (’361 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: Independent claim 68 (Compl. ¶88).
Accused Features: The "Apps Grid" feature associated with Google Search in Chrome OS is accused. This grid is presented within the Google Search interface and allegedly functions as the claimed navigation control to launch other Google network applications like Gmail, Drive, and YouTube (Compl. ¶89-91).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

HP "Chromebook" laptops and laptop computers that employ the Google Chrome operating system (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint targets functionalities inherent to the Chrome OS running on the accused HP devices. The relevant features include the operating system's ability to manage media playback across the device's own screen and external displays through "casting" technology, and its graphical user interface features for managing application windows in a "split-screen" mode and for navigating between web-based applications via an "Apps Grid" (Compl. ¶30, 66-68, 89-91). Plaintiff alleges that HP designs, develops, manufactures, and sells these devices in the United States, generating revenue from their sale (Compl. ¶13, 18).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,422,858 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
detecting a first media player access to a first presentation device to play a first media stream	An Accused Device's operating system can tell when a user wishes to play a video or movie using a particular program.	¶20	col. 2:45-47
accessing first presentation focus information for determining whether the first media player has first presentation focus...	The operating system accesses information to determine if a media player has priority to cast.	¶20	col. 2:47-50
determining based on the first presentation focus information that the first media player does not have first presentation focus	The operating system contains code for determining that the first media player does not have presentation focus.	¶20	col. 10:50-53
in response... indicating that the first media player is not allowed to play the first media stream	If a media player does not have presentation focus, the device indicates that it is not allowed to play the media stream.	¶21	col. 10:53-58
detecting a change in the first presentation focus information	An Accused Device can tell the user whether the video can be played on the television or other display.	¶21	col. 10:60-63
determining, based on the detected change, that the first media player has first presentation focus	The device can tell the user whether the video can be played on the device itself, which contains code for determining the player has focus.	¶21	col. 2:50-53
indicating, in response... that the first media player is allowed to play the first media stream via the first presentation device	The operating system allows the media player with presentation focus to play the media stream on the device.	¶19	col. 2:53-56

Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the general process prioritization within Chrome OS qualifies as the specific "presentation focus information" system described in the patent. The defense could argue that any modern OS manages competing processes, and this does not equate to the patent's more structured "focus director" and "focus state" architecture.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires a sequence of determining a player does not have focus, indicating it is not allowed to play, and then later determining it does have focus. The complaint's allegations are conclusory. An issue for the court will be whether the accused OS actually performs these discrete steps, particularly the explicit "not allowed" indication, or if it achieves a similar result through a different mechanism, such as a non-prioritized application simply failing to execute.

U.S. Patent No. 8,781,299 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
code for working in association with a first presentation device having a touchscreen... capable of communication with a second presentation device... via a wireless local area network...	The Accused Devices have a touchscreen and communicate with external displays like televisions over a wireless network, and the OS provides access to multiple applications including at least two media players.	¶30	col. 11:18-28
code for detecting access to the first media player to play a first media stream that includes video	The OS can tell when a user wishes to play a video or movie with a particular program.	¶31	col. 11:29-31
code for indicating, if the first presentation device is to be utilized... that the first media player is allowed to play the first media stream via the first presentation device	The OS can tell the user whether the video can be played on the device itself.	¶31	col. 11:32-36
code for indicating, if the second presentation device is to be utilized... that the first media player is allowed to play the first media stream via the second presentation device	The OS can tell the user whether the video can be played on the television or other display.	¶32	col. 11:37-41
code for indicating, if both... are to be utilized... that the first media player is allowed to play the first media stream via both...	The OS can tell the user whether the video can be played on both the device and the television.	¶32	col. 11:42-47
wherein the computer program product is operable such that a change in presentation focus is capable of being based on at least one of [a list of triggers]	The OS can switch where a video is displayed based on inputs like choosing "Cast" or a higher-priority video popping up.	¶33	col. 11:48-61

Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The term "code for indicating" may be a key point of dispute. The complaint alleges the OS "can tell the user" where media can be played. The question for the court will be whether this refers to an actual underlying software function that grants permission for each of the three scenarios (device 1, device 2, both), as required by the claim, or merely a user-facing notification that lacks the claimed functionality.
- Technical Questions: The complaint maps the broad "change in presentation focus" clause to the user action of choosing "Cast." The technical question will be whether the accused "Cast" function operates according to the logic described in the patent specification or if it is a distinct technology that achieves a similar outcome through a non-infringing method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "presentation focus" (from ’858 Patent, Claim 14 and others)
- Context and Importance: This is the central technical term across the majority of the asserted patents. Its construction will be critical. If construed broadly, it could read on standard operating system resource and process management; if construed narrowly, it may require the specific software architecture disclosed in the patent, making infringement more difficult to prove.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the term as "an attribute associated with a media player, directly and/or indirectly, indicating whether the media player is allowed to access one or more presentation devices" (’858 Patent, col. 9:15-20). This language could support an interpretation covering any system flag or priority level that governs media playback permission.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the invention's operation through a specific system of components: a "presentation access component," a "focus state component," and a "focus director component" (’858 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 2:56-62). A defendant may argue that "presentation focus" cannot be divorced from this disclosed structure and must be construed as an attribute managed by such a system, not just any generic OS priority scheme.
The Term: "An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor configured for..." (from ’954 Patent, Claim 14)
- Context and Importance: Claim 14 is an apparatus claim directed at a processor configured to perform a series of steps for window management. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused HP Chromebooks, which are physical devices containing processors, are the infringing "apparatus," or if the infringement lies with the Chrome OS software, which is not itself a physical apparatus. Practitioners may focus on this term because the form of the claim (apparatus) versus the accused functionality (largely software-driven) creates a potential point of contention.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim preamble is broad, simply requiring "an apparatus" with "at least one processor." An HP Chromebook is an apparatus containing a processor, and when loaded with Chrome OS, that processor is configured to perform the claimed functions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the invention does not focus on specific hardware configurations but on the logic of the user interface. A defendant might argue that the patent is truly directed to a software method, and that accusing the entire physical laptop apparatus is an improper application of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that HP's advertising and user manuals instruct end-users on how to perform the claimed methods (e.g., using the "Cast" feature or managing windows) (Compl. ¶22, 34, 45). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused products have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶22, 34, 45).
Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The claims are based on Defendant's alleged knowledge stemming from the prior lawsuit filed in October 2016 (which asserted the ’299, ’361, and ’954 patents) and from routine freedom-to-operate analyses conducted by Defendant (Compl. ¶23, 35, 46).

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

A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "presentation focus," which is described in the patents in the context of a specific software architecture, be construed broadly enough to cover the general resource management and process prioritization functions of the accused Google Chrome OS?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the complaint provide sufficient factual support to show that the accused "Cast" and window-management features of Chrome OS perform the specific, multi-part logical steps required by the asserted claims, or do they represent fundamentally different software methods that achieve a similar high-level result?
A third question will be one of infringing entity: for the apparatus claims (e.g., in the ’954 patent), can Plaintiff successfully argue that the entire physical HP Chromebook is the infringing "apparatus," or will the analysis focus more narrowly on the potentially non-infringing nature of the hardware versus the accused software that runs on it?