DCT

3:17-cv-01102

Cywee Group Ltd v. LG Ele

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:17-cv-01102, S.D. Cal., 10/06/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of California because Defendant LGEMU is incorporated in California, and LGEUSA and LGE maintain a regular and established place of business in the district through LGEMU as their agent and subsidiary.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones infringe two patents related to methods for processing data from multiple motion sensors to accurately determine a device's orientation in three-dimensional space.
  • Technical Context: The technology uses sensor fusion algorithms to combine data from accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers to overcome individual sensor inaccuracies (e.g., drift), enabling precise orientation tracking for applications like navigation, gaming, and augmented reality.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit and its infringement through confidential licensing discussions. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted independent claims of both patents-in-suit—claim 14 of the ’438 Patent and claim 10 of the ’978 Patent—were cancelled in separate inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-07-29 Alleged priority date for '438 Patent
2009-09-25 Alleged priority date for '978 Patent
2013-05-14 U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 issues
2013-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978 issues
2017-10-06 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 - “3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Movement Thereof”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 (“3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Movement Thereof”), issued May 14, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that prior art motion-sensing devices could not accurately calculate a device's true orientation (yaw, pitch, and roll) in 3D space, particularly in dynamic environments. These prior art systems were allegedly unable to properly distinguish gravitational acceleration from other forces or compensate for accumulated sensor errors like drift, leading to inaccurate mapping of 3D movements onto a 2D display (’438 Patent, col. 2:40-3:13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using a six-axis motion sensor (combining a rotation sensor and an accelerometer) and an enhanced comparison process to correct for errors. The method involves an iterative process using quaternions to represent the device's orientation, where a "previous state" is updated based on a "current state" and a "measured state." By comparing measured axial accelerations with predicted axial accelerations, the method calculates an "updated state" that represents a more accurate orientation, which is then converted into yaw, pitch, and roll angles (’438 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 7).
  • Technical Importance: This method claims to provide a more robust way to determine a device’s absolute orientation in 3D space, enabling more reliable control and interaction for applications on portable devices (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 14 ('438 Patent, Compl. ¶49).
  • The essential elements of claim 14 include:
    • Obtaining a "previous state" (a first quaternion) of a six-axis motion sensor module associated with previous angular velocities.
    • Obtaining a "current state" (a second quaternion) by obtaining measured angular velocities at a current time.
    • Obtaining a "measured state" by obtaining "measured axial accelerations" and calculating "predicted axial accelerations" based on the measured angular velocities, but "without using any derivatives" of them.
    • Obtaining an "updated state" by comparing the "current state" with the "measured state".
    • Calculating and converting the "updated state" to a "resulting deviation" comprising resultant angles.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶49).

U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978 - “3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Rotations of the 3D Pointing Device Thereof”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978 (“3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Rotations of the 3D Pointing Device Thereof”), issued October 8, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses similar issues as the ’438 Patent but further highlights the challenge of establishing an absolute frame of reference. While accelerometers and gyroscopes can track relative motion, they are prone to drift and cannot easily determine a device's absolute heading (e.g., relative to magnetic north) (’978 Patent, col. 2:41-66).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention enhances the six-axis system by adding a magnetometer to create a "nine-axis motion sensor module." It generates two key outputs: an "orientation output" tied to a global reference frame (Earth's magnetic field) and a "rotation output" tied to the device's local spatial frame. A computing processor uses both outputs to generate a "transformed output" for a display, providing orientation data that is corrected for drift and anchored to a real-world direction (’978 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:15-44).
  • Technical Importance: The integration of a magnetometer provides an absolute directional reference, which is critical for correcting gyroscope drift and enabling applications like map navigation to accurately align with cardinal directions (Compl. ¶¶25, 29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 10 (’978 Patent, Compl. ¶213).
  • The essential elements of claim 10 include:
    • Generating an "orientation output" associated with a "global reference frame associated with Earth".
    • Generating a "first signal set" (axial accelerations) and a "second signal set" (Earth's magnetism).
    • Generating a "rotation output" associated with the device's "spatial reference frame".
    • Generating the final orientation output based on the first signal set, second signal set, and rotation output.
    • Using the orientation and rotation outputs to generate a "transformed output" for a "display device".
    • Wherein the outputs are generated by a "nine-axis motion sensor module".
    • Obtaining a "resultant deviation" using "measured magnetisms" and "predicted magnetism".
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶213).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Various LG smartphones, including the LG V20, LG Stylo 3, LG G5, and LG G6 (Compl. ¶¶48, 212).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused smartphones contain the hardware necessary to practice the claimed inventions, including 3-axis accelerometers, 3-axis gyroscopes, and 3-axis geomagnetic sensors (Compl. ¶¶54-55, 71-72, 216, 226).
  • These devices run the Android operating system, which allegedly implements sensor fusion algorithms that use data from these sensors to calculate the device's "attitude" or orientation (Compl. ¶¶68, 220). The complaint cites Android developer documentation describing the "Sensor Coordinate System" that defines the device's axes (Compl. ¶¶61, 218).
  • This orientation-sensing functionality is alleged to be used in applications that rely on device motion, such as controlling racing games or providing direction-aware navigation maps (Compl. ¶¶222-223).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,441,438 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a claim chart in Exhibit A that maps elements of claim 14 to the functionality of the LG V20, primarily by referencing source code for the Android operating system. The chart includes a figure from Android's developer documentation illustrating the standard 3-axis coordinate system relative to a device's screen (Compl. Ex. A, p. 2).

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for obtaining a resulting deviation... in a spatial pointer reference frame of a three-dimensional (3D) pointing device utilizing a six-axis motion sensor module... The LG V20 is alleged to be a 3D pointing device containing a six-axis motion sensor module (3-axis accelerometer and 3-axis gyroscope). ¶¶54-55; Ex. A, pp. 2-3 col. 5:1-14
obtaining a previous state of the six-axis motion sensor module; wherein the previous state includes an initial-value set associated with previous angular velocities... The Android predict() function allegedly uses a global variable x0 representing the previous state (a quaternion) from time T-1. Ex. A, p. 4 col. 11:1-8
obtaining a current state... by obtaining measured angular velocities... at a current time T; The Android predict() function allegedly uses measured angular velocities w to update the global variable x0 to a current state. Ex. A, p. 5 col. 11:9-14
obtaining a measured state... by obtaining measured axial accelerations... and calculating predicted axial accelerations... without using any derivatives of the measured angular velocities The Android update() function allegedly uses measured axial accelerations (z) and calculates predicted axial accelerations (Bb) based on the current state without using derivatives of the angular velocities. Ex. A, p. 6 col. 11:15-24
obtaining an updated state... by comparing the current state with the measured state...; and The Android update() function allegedly compares the current state with the measured state to obtain an updated state by normalizing the quaternion x0. Ex. A, p. 8 col. 11:43-46
calculating and converting the updated state... to said resulting deviation comprising said resultant angles... Android's getOrientation() function allegedly converts the updated state (quaternion x0) into resultant angles (Azimuth, Pitch, and Roll). Ex. A, p. 9 col. 11:47-52
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central question is whether the functions within Android's Fusion.cpp source code perform the specific sequence of calculations required by claim 14. For instance, does the calculation of the vector Bb in the code constitute "calculating predicted axial accelerations" in the manner contemplated by the patent?
    • Scope Questions: The negative limitation "without using any derivatives of the measured angular velocities" may be a key point of dispute. The analysis will question whether the accused Android algorithm, in its entirety, meets this limitation, or if it implicitly relies on information that could be construed as being derived from the angular velocities.

8,552,978 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint's Exhibit B provides a claim chart for claim 10, again relying on Android documentation and source code. The chart presents a screenshot from Android documentation showing that the "Orientation" sensor type uses an accelerometer, magnetometer, and gyroscope, which corresponds to the claimed nine-axis module (Compl. Ex. B, p. 12).

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
generating an orientation output associated with... a global reference frame associated with Earth; The Android "Orientation" sensor is alleged to generate an output (azimuth, pitch, roll) relative to the magnetic North Pole, which is associated with Earth. ¶¶220-221; Ex. B, p. 12 col. 7:16-21
generating a first signal set comprising axial accelerations... in the spatial reference frame; The device's 3-axis accelerometer is alleged to generate the first signal set in the device's local spatial reference frame. ¶¶54, 61; Ex. B, p. 13 col. 7:22-26
generating a second signal set associated with Earth's magnetism; The device's 3-axis magnetometer is alleged to generate the second signal set by measuring the geomagnetic field. ¶¶216, 218; Ex. B, p. 14 col. 7:27-29
generating a rotation output associated with... a spatial reference frame associated with the 3D pointing device; The device's 3-axis gyroscope is alleged to generate the rotation output in the device's local spatial reference frame. ¶¶55, 62; Ex. B, p. 18 col. 7:30-32
using the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a transformed output associated with a fixed reference frame associated with a display device, The Android remapCoordinateSystem() function is alleged to use the orientation and rotation data to transform it for the display's 2D coordinate system. ¶221; Ex. B, pp. 19-20 col. 7:39-44
wherein the... output is generated by a nine-axis motion sensor module; The combination of the device's 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis gyroscope, and 3-axis magnetometer is alleged to form the claimed nine-axis module. ¶¶54, 55, 216; Ex. B, p. 21 col. 7:45-47
obtaining one or more resultant deviation... using a plurality of measured magnetisms... and a plurality of predicted magnetism... The Android update() function allegedly uses measured (z) and predicted (Bb) magnetism vectors to calculate the orientation, which is then converted into deviation angles. Ex. B, pp. 22-25 col. 7:48-55
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the argument that the standard Android sensor fusion algorithm directly maps to the method steps of claim 10. A likely point of dispute will be whether the accused algorithm's use of vectors z and Bb satisfies the claim requirement of using a "plurality of measured magnetisms" and a "plurality of predicted magnetism."
    • Scope Questions: The construction of "nine-axis motion sensor module" will be relevant. The dispute may focus on whether the combination of three discrete sensor components on a PCB, whose data is fused in software, meets the definition of a "module" as intended by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "without using any derivatives of the measured angular velocities" (’438 Patent, claim 14)

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is critical to distinguishing the claimed invention from prior art and is central to the infringement allegation. The defendant may argue that the accused algorithm implicitly uses information derived from angular velocities (e.g., through integration over time) in a way that falls outside the claim scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim suggests any method of calculating predicted accelerations is acceptable as long as it does not directly compute or use a mathematical derivative of the angular velocity signals.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification criticizes prior art that fails to properly compensate for dynamic movements (’438 Patent, col. 2:55-62). A party could argue the term should be construed to exclude any predictive calculation that is not functionally independent of the rotational motion data, thereby narrowing its scope to the specific improvement disclosed.

  • Term: "nine-axis motion sensor module" (’978 Patent, claim 10)

    • Context and Importance: The infringement case depends on this term covering the physical arrangement in the accused LG phones, where separate accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer chips are present on a circuit board. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue that a "module" requires a higher level of physical integration into a single package.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification's Figure 4 depicts the rotation sensor (342), accelerometer (344), and magnetometer (345) as distinct functional blocks that together form the sensor module (302), suggesting "module" refers to a functional grouping rather than a single physical package (’978 Patent, Fig. 4).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that in the context of miniaturized electronics, a "module" implies a single, physically integrated component, and might point to industry usage of the term to support a narrower definition that excludes a collection of discrete chips on a board.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While the complaint’s factual allegations focus on direct infringement, the prayer for relief seeks judgment for both direct and indirect infringement (Compl. p. 36, ¶A). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged to have been established during "confidential pre-suit licensing discussions," while post-suit knowledge is based on the filing of the complaints, which included detailed claim charts (Compl. ¶17).

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

The resolution of this dispute, as framed by the First Amended Complaint, appears to depend on three central questions. However, the first is a post-filing development that is likely dispositive.

  • Claim Validity: A threshold, and likely fatal, issue for the plaintiff is that the asserted independent claims—claim 14 of the ’438 Patent and claim 10 of the ’978 Patent—were cancelled in inter partes review proceedings after this complaint was filed. This presents a fundamental challenge to the viability of the infringement claims as currently pleaded.
  • Technical Implementation: Assuming the claims were valid, a key evidentiary question would be one of algorithmic correspondence: does the accused Android sensor fusion source code implement the exact, multi-step methods recited in the claims, or are there material functional differences in how the accused software calculates and updates a device's orientation?
  • Definitional Scope: The case would also involve a question of definitional scope: can the term "module" be construed to cover a functional grouping of separate sensor chips on a circuit board, and do the vectors used in the accused algorithm satisfy the claim requirement for a "plurality" of measured and predicted magnetisms?