DCT

3:17-cv-02130

Cywee Group Ltd v. ZTE Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:17-cv-02130, S.D. Cal., 10/17/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper for ZTE Corp. as a foreign entity, and for ZTE (USA) and ZTE (TX) based on their having regular and established places of business within the Southern District of California and committing alleged acts of infringement therein.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Android-based smartphones infringe two patents related to using multi-axis sensor data to accurately determine a device's 3D orientation and compensate for movement errors.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of accurately tracking a handheld device's position and orientation in three-dimensional space, a foundational capability for modern mobile applications such as augmented reality, virtual reality, and motion-controlled gaming.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a conception and reduction to practice of the inventions prior to the formal priority dates, through a "JIL Game Phone" project in 2009. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, both patents-in-suit underwent Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. These proceedings resulted in the cancellation of all claims asserted in this complaint: claim 14 of the ’438 patent and claim 10 of the ’978 patent. This procedural development fundamentally impacts the viability of the infringement action as originally pleaded.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-07-29 Alleged priority date for '438 patent based on "JIL Phone" project
2009-09-25 Alleged priority date for '978 patent based on "JIL Phone" project
2010-01-06 Priority date based on U.S. Provisional Application 61/292,558
2013-05-14 U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 Issued
2013-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978 Issued
2017-10-17 Complaint Filed
2018-06-14 IPR filed against '438 and '978 patents (IPR2018-01258)
2023-09-15 IPR Certificate issued cancelling claim 10 of the '978 patent
2024-08-21 IPR Certificate issued cancelling claim 14 of the '438 patent

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 prior art motion-sensing devices as being limited in their ability to track 3D movement accurately. Specifically, they could not properly account for rotation on all three axes (i.e., yaw, pitch, and roll) and were susceptible to errors when the device was in motion, as they could not distinguish gravitational forces from other accelerations like user movement ('438 Patent, col. 2:47-3:15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system using a six-axis motion sensor (combining a rotation sensor and an accelerometer) and a specific "comparison method." This method involves generating a "current state" from the rotation sensor's angular velocity data and a "measured state" from the accelerometer's data. By comparing these states, including a step of calculating "predicted axial accelerations," the system can derive an "updated state" that more accurately reflects the device's true orientation in 3D space, even in dynamic environments ('438 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 7).
  • Technical Importance: This method was intended to enable more reliable and absolute 3D orientation tracking for handheld devices, a necessary advancement for sophisticated applications beyond simple 2D pointing, such as immersive gaming or augmented reality (Compl. ¶¶20, 28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts method claim 14 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶113).
  • Independent Claim 14 includes the following essential steps:
    • obtaining a previous state of a six-axis motion sensor module;
    • obtaining a current state of the module by measuring angular velocities;
    • obtaining a measured state by measuring axial accelerations and calculating predicted axial accelerations "without using any derivatives of the measured angular velocities";
    • obtaining an updated state by comparing the current state with the measured state; and
    • calculating and converting the updated state into a resultant deviation including yaw, pitch, and roll angles.

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: Building on the problems described in the '438 patent, the '978 patent acknowledges that even with improved sensor fusion, external interferences and inherent sensor drift remain significant challenges, particularly for applications needing a stable, absolute directional reference ('978 Patent, col. 3:42-53).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention expands the sensor suite to a nine-axis motion sensor module by adding a magnetometer to the accelerometer and gyroscope. The magnetometer provides a stable orientation output relative to the Earth's magnetic field. The system uses a multi-stage comparison and update method, which can use the magnetometer data to correct for errors and provide a more robust and drift-free calculation of the device's orientation ('978 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:46-6:11).
  • Technical Importance: The inclusion of a magnetometer to create a nine-axis system provides an absolute heading reference, similar to a compass, which is critical for overcoming gyroscope drift and enabling reliable turn-by-turn navigation and orientation-aware applications on mobile devices (Compl. ¶¶130, 133).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts apparatus claim 10 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶158).
  • Independent Claim 10 includes the following essential elements:
    • a housing;
    • a printed circuit board (PCB);
    • a six-axis motion sensor module (with a rotation sensor and an accelerometer) attached to the PCB;
    • a processing and transmitting module with a computing processor that calculates a resulting deviation by utilizing a comparison to compare signals from the sensors;
    • the processor further comprises a "mapping program" for translating the resulting deviation angles to a movement pattern on a display.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the ZTE Axon 7, ZTE Axon 7 Mini, ZTE ZMax Pro, and ZTE Blade Spark smartphones (Compl. ¶¶43, 124).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these devices are smartphones that run the Android operating system and contain the hardware necessary for 3D motion sensing, including 3-axis accelerometers, 3-axis gyroscopes, and 3-axis geomagnetic sensors (Compl. ¶¶47, 48, 126). The functionality at issue is the processing of data from these sensors by the Android OS's "Sensor Coordinate System" to determine the device's attitude, or orientation (Compl. ¶¶61, 130). This capability is allegedly used in applications that allow for motion-based controls, such as games, and for orientation-aware features, such as in navigation applications (Compl. ¶¶132-133). The complaint provides an image of the accused ZTE Axon 7 smartphone, which is alleged to contain the infringing hardware and software (Compl. p. 18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided. The infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

'438 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused ZTE products, by running the Android operating system, perform the method of asserted claim 14 (Compl. ¶113). The infringement theory posits that the phones' 3-axis accelerometer and 3-axis gyroscope constitute the claimed "six-axis motion sensor module" (Compl. ¶¶47, 48). It is alleged that the Android OS processes the data from these sensors to "calculate an attitude of the device" (Compl. ¶61), and that this process inherently performs the claimed steps of obtaining previous, current, and measured states, calculating predicted accelerations, comparing them, and converting the result into device orientation angles. The allegations rely on public Android developer documentation as evidence of the underlying sensor processing framework (Compl. ¶55).

'978 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused ZTE products directly infringe apparatus claim 10 (Compl. ¶158). The theory maps the elements of the claim to the physical components of the smartphones: the "housing," "PCB," and the "six-axis motion sensor module" (comprising the accelerometer and gyroscope) (Compl. ¶¶79-87). The "processing and transmitting module" is alleged to be the device processor running the Android OS, which calculates the device attitude (Compl. ¶¶91-95). The "mapping program" limitation is allegedly met by the ability of the Android OS to support applications that translate the calculated orientation into on-screen actions, such as controlling a vehicle in a racing game by tilting the phone (Compl. ¶¶148, 156).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Threshold Issue of Claim Viability: A dispositive issue, arising from events after the complaint was filed, is the legal status of the asserted claims. Public USPTO records included with the case documents confirm that claim 14 of the ’438 patent and claim 10 of the ’978 patent were cancelled during inter partes review. This raises the fundamental question of whether a viable cause of action for infringement of these specific claims remains.
  • Technical Scope: Assuming the claims were viable, a key dispute would concern whether the general-purpose sensor fusion algorithms in the standard Android OS perform the specific steps of the patented "comparison method." This would involve a technical analysis of whether Android's process includes, for example, "calculating predicted axial accelerations... without using any derivatives of the measured angular velocities," as explicitly required by claim 14 of the ’438 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "comparison" ('438 Patent, cl. 14)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core of the patented method. Its construction is critical to determining whether infringement is limited to the specific quaternion-based algorithm in the specification or could cover a broader class of sensor fusion techniques, such as those potentially used in the accused Android OS.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the processing module utilizes "a comparison to compare the first signal set with the second signal set" ('438 Patent, col. 19:12-14), which a party could argue supports a broad, plain-meaning interpretation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue the term is defined by its implementation. The specification details an "enhanced comparison method" involving a multi-step, quaternion-based calculation ('438 Patent, col. 10:20-21) and provides a series of complex equations (Eq. 1-11) to implement it, suggesting "comparison" is a term of art limited to this disclosed process.

The Term: "calculating predicted axial accelerations... without using any derivatives of the measured angular velocities" ('438 Patent, cl. 14)

  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is highly specific and technical, placing a clear constraint on the nature of the "calculating" step. Infringement hinges on whether the accused system's prediction algorithm avoids using derivatives of the gyroscope data.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent provides an exemplary method for this calculation that relies on quaternion mathematics ('438 Patent, col. 13:1-22; Eqs. 2-4). The dispute would likely center on evidence regarding how the accused Android system actually works and whether its method, even if different, is technically equivalent to a process that avoids using such derivatives. The complaint itself does not provide this level of detail.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that ZTE provides product manuals, instructions, and marketing materials that encourage distributors, resellers, and end users to use the accused motion-sensing features, thereby infringing the patents (Compl. ¶¶44, 125).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is pleaded based on knowledge of the patents occurring "at least as a result of the filing of this action," indicating an allegation of post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶44, 125).

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

  • Claim Viability: The primary threshold question for the court is one of legal finality. Given that the asserted claims—claim 14 of the ’438 patent and claim 10 of the ’978 patent—were cancelled by the USPTO in IPR proceedings subsequent to the filing of the complaint, can the plaintiff continue to maintain a cause of action for infringement of these now-defunct claims?
  • Technical Equivalence: Should the case proceed on other, un-asserted claims, a central issue will be one of technical specificity. Does the accused Android operating system's general-purpose sensor fusion functionality perform the specific, multi-step "comparison" and "update" methods required by the patent claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patented invention and the accused implementation?
  • Evidentiary Proof: The case would depend on a question of evidentiary demonstration. What technical evidence can be adduced to prove that the accused software performs the highly specific steps of the claims, such as "calculating predicted axial accelerations... without using any derivatives of the measured angular velocities," a precise limitation at the core of the asserted method?