DCT

3:17-cv-02402

Qualcomm Inc v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:17-cv-02402, S.D. Cal., 11/29/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated in California, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including sales of accused products at local Apple Store locations.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile electronic devices, including various models of the iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch, infringe six patents related to technologies for battery charging, biometric content delivery, machine learning, radio frequency receivers, image processing, and semiconductor circuit design.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue cover features central to the functionality and user experience of modern smartphones and wearable devices, such as power management and intelligent, context-aware software features.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts these patents are non-standard-essential patents that are not covered by existing licenses with Apple’s manufacturers. It further alleges that Plaintiff repeatedly offered to license the patents-in-suit to Defendant, but Defendant refused.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-02-16 ’591 Patent Priority Date
2008-03-21 ’043 Patent Priority Date
2009-12-09 ’132 Patent Priority Date
2010-11-16 ’591 Patent Issue Date
2011-01-19 ’865 Patent Priority Date
2011-06-21 ’861 Patent Priority Date
2012-06-01 Qualcomm acquires Summit Microelectronics
2012-07-24 ’043 Patent Issue Date
2012-09-01 iPhone 5 Launch (approximate)
2013-03-14 ’418 Patent Priority Date
2013-05-21 ’132 Patent Issue Date
2014-07-01 ’865 Patent Issue Date
2015-03-03 ’861 Patent Issue Date
2015-05-05 ’418 Patent Issue Date
2015-09-01 iPhone 6S Launch / iOS 9 Release (approximate)
2016-09-01 iPhone 7 Launch (approximate)
2016-10-01 iOS 10.1 Release (approximate)
2017-09-01 iPhone 8 / iPhone X Launch / iOS 11 Release (approximate)
2017-11-29 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,971,861 - "Relevant Content Delivery"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint notes that getting mobile devices to reliably "communicate" with one another to relay accurate information poses significant technical challenges (Compl. ¶38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a mobile device captures a user's physiological data (e.g., heart rate, skin temperature) via biomedical sensors, transmits it to a host computer system for analysis, and the host system then selects and relays specific content back to the mobile device based on that analysis (’861 Patent, Abstract; ’861 Patent, col. 5:6-19). This allows for content delivery tailored to the user's detected physiological state (Compl. ¶58).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables a more personalized and context-aware user experience by linking biometric data from wearable devices to responsive content, a foundational concept in the market for connected health and fitness ecosystems (Compl. ¶39-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 10 (system), 19 (non-transitory medium), and 26 (apparatus), among others (Compl. ¶74).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • receiving, by a host computer system, from a mobile device, physiological state data collected from a user;
    • analyzing the physiological state data;
    • selecting content from a plurality of predefined content based at least partially on the analysis; and
    • transmitting the selected content to the mobile device.
  • The complaint asserts numerous dependent claims that add limitations, such as receiving environmental data (e.g., motion data) and using it in the selection process (Compl. ¶76).

U.S. Patent No. 7,834,591 - "Switching Battery Charging Systems and Methods"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency and inflexibility of conventional battery chargers, noting that charging high-capacity batteries can take an inconveniently long time, while using higher voltages or currents can damage the battery or compromise safety (’591 Patent, col. 1:19-44; Compl. ¶27).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a USB-powered battery charger that employs a switching regulator. This configuration allows the charger to provide a current to the battery that is greater than the current it draws from the USB power source (’591 Patent, col. 17:34-37). It also enables the charging current to be reduced as the battery's voltage increases, which facilitates faster and safer charging cycles (’591 Patent, col. 18:60-62). The system can be configured with programmable parameters to optimize the charging process (’591 Patent, col. 4:8-16).
  • Technical Importance: This technology addresses the consumer demand for fast charging in mobile devices while preserving battery health and safety, a critical power management feature in the smartphone market (Compl. ¶29-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among other claims (Compl. ¶92).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A USB battery charger comprising a switching regulator coupled to a USB power source and a filter coupled to a battery.
    • The switching regulator is configured to receive a USB voltage and generate a switching signal.
    • A filtered current is generated to charge the battery, where the filtered current is greater than the input current from the USB power source.
    • The filtered current is reduced, in a "current control mode," as the voltage on the battery increases.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims that add limitations such as voltage and current controllers and specific operational modes (Compl. ¶94-96).

U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865 - "Learning Situations Via Pattern Matching"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,768,865, "Learning Situations Via Pattern Matching", issued July 1, 2014 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to machine learning for mobile devices. It describes a method for efficient pattern matching that improves the user experience by reducing a set of variables associated with a multi-dimensional sensor stream (e.g., from GPS, Bluetooth) to recognize patterns in user behavior (Compl. ¶43, ¶62).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Compl. ¶115).
  • Accused Features: The "Proactive Suggestions" functionality in iOS, which monitors signals from various sources to identify patterns (e.g., a user heading home from work) and provide suggestions (Compl. ¶115, ¶117).

U.S. Patent No. 8,229,043 - "Stepped Gain Mixer"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,229,043, "Stepped Gain Mixer", issued July 24, 2012 (Compl. ¶63).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a state-of-the-art amplified stepped gain mixer for a radio receiver. The invention improves the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) compared to conventional mixers, which in turn allows for higher data transmission rates to a mobile device (Compl. ¶46-48, ¶64).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 18 (Compl. ¶127).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that certain iPhones, including the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus, utilize this patented technology (Compl. ¶125).

U.S. Patent No. 8,447,132 - "Dynamic Range Correction Based on Image Content"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,447,132, "Dynamic Range Correction Based on Image Content", issued May 21, 2013 (Compl. ¶65).
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology relates to image processing, specifically a method for recognizing an object (such as a face) in an image and applying a specific correction to it, while applying a different correction to another part of the image. This "dynamic range correction" can adjust exposure to make a dark face bright and visible without overexposing the rest of the image (Compl. ¶49, ¶66).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 21, 22, and 23 (Compl. ¶142).
  • Accused Features: The "Portrait" mode feature in iPhone 7 Plus, 8 Plus, and X, which uses a depth map to enhance a foreground object while blurring the background, is accused of infringing (Compl. ¶141).

U.S. Patent No. 9,024,418 - "Local Interconnect Structures for High Density"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,024,418, "Local Interconnect Structures for High Density", issued May 5, 2015 (Compl. ¶67).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to semiconductor design, specifically improved local interconnect layouts. These layouts are designed to increase circuit density and performance by shortening the distance between circuits and eliminating unnecessary structures in high-density chip architecture (Compl. ¶51-52, ¶68).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 (Compl. ¶152).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Apple's A10 processors, found in certain iPhones, make use of these improved local interconnect structures (Compl. ¶53, ¶151).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are a wide range of Apple's mobile electronic devices, including the Apple Watch (when used with an iPhone 5 or later), iPhone models 6S, 6S Plus, SE, 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus, and X, various iPad models, and the 2015 MacBook (Compl. ¶71, ¶90, ¶113, ¶140, ¶151).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint targets core functionalities that are heavily marketed and central to the user experience of these devices. This includes the health and fitness tracking ecosystem enabled by the interaction between the Apple Watch and iPhone, which allegedly involves collecting and relaying physiological data to provide notifications (Compl. ¶72-73).
    • It also targets the "fast charge" capability of iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks, which relies on a USB battery charger to manage power delivery from a USB source to the device's battery (Compl. ¶91, ¶93).
    • The complaint alleges that these and other accused features are commercially important, driving consumer demand and contributing to Apple's position as the "world's most profitable seller of mobile devices" (Compl. ¶5).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,971,861 - Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving, by a host computer system, from a mobile device, physiological state data collected from a user of the mobile device The iPhone (host computer) receives physiological data, such as heart rate, from the Apple Watch (mobile device) (Compl. ¶73). ¶75 col. 5:6-10
analyzing, by the host computer system, the physiological state data The iPhone analyzes the received heart rate data to create summaries and determine if goals have been met (Compl. ¶73). ¶75 col. 1:36-39
selecting, by the host computer system, content from a plurality of predefined content to deliver to the mobile device, the content being selected based at least partially on the analysis of the physiological state data The iOS app uses the WatchConnectivity framework to select content (e.g., achievement notifications) from a plurality of predefined content (e.g., user goals) based on the heart rate analysis (Compl. ¶75). ¶75 col. 5:17-19
transmitting, by the host computer system, the selected content to the mobile device The iPhone transmits the selected notifications back to the Apple Watch for display to the user (Compl. ¶73). ¶75 col. 5:22-23
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system's act of triggering a pre-defined notification (e.g., "goal met") based on a heart rate value constitutes "analyzing" data and "selecting" content in the manner contemplated by the patent. The dispute could focus on whether the claim requires a more dynamic or sophisticated level of analysis and content selection than what is alleged.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that creating summaries and charts constitutes "analysis" (Compl. ¶75). The case may require evidence detailing how the WatchConnectivity framework and associated iOS apps technically operate to determine if their function maps to the claimed "selecting" and "analyzing" steps.

U.S. Patent No. 7,834,591 - Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a switching regulator having at least one switching transistor...wherein the first input of the switching transistor is coupled to a USB power source The accused devices contain a USB battery charger that includes an integrated circuit (IC) functioning as a switching regulator coupled to a USB power source (Compl. ¶93). ¶93 col. 2:5-9
a filter having a first input and a first output...and a battery coupled to the first output of the filter The charger circuit includes a filter positioned between the output of the switching regulator and the battery component (Compl. ¶91, ¶93). ¶93 col. 2:9-12
wherein the filtered current is greater than a first input current into the first input of the switching transistor The charger allegedly provides a filtered output current to the battery that is greater than the input current supplied to the switching regulator from the USB source (Compl. ¶91, ¶93). ¶93 col. 2:57-59
and the filtered current is reduced, in a current control mode, as a voltage on the battery increases When a discharged device is connected, it operates in a current control mode where the output current to the battery decreases as the battery's voltage rises (Compl. ¶93, ¶98). ¶93 col. 2:59-62
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary dispute will likely concern the claim limitation that the "filtered current is greater than a first input current." This alleges a "current boosting" capability that depends on the specific topology and operation of a switching regulator. The infringement analysis will turn on technical evidence demonstrating whether Apple's charging circuits actually operate in this manner.
    • Scope Questions: The definition of "current control mode" may become a point of contention. The analysis will require determining whether the operational phases of the accused chargers, as they transition between charging modes, fall within the scope of this term as it is used and defined within the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "analyzing...the physiological state data" ('861 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The scope of this term is critical. If construed broadly, it could cover simple threshold comparisons (e.g., determining if a heart rate exceeds a target). A narrower construction might require more complex data processing or inference. The viability of the infringement allegation against the Apple Watch/iPhone ecosystem depends heavily on this construction.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests analysis can be used for relatively simple outcomes, such as using sensor readings of dehydration or high heart rate to "suggest activities" (’861 Patent, col. 1:33-39). This may support a construction that does not require complex computation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description also refers to analyzing image data to "identify a characteristic of the image" (’861 Patent, Abstract), which could imply a more sophisticated form of pattern recognition or data interpretation is contemplated for the term "analyzing."

Term: "filtered current is greater than a first input current" ('591 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the core technical benefit of the invention—the ability to deliver more current to the battery than is drawn from the source, enabling faster charging. Infringement is contingent on a factual showing that the accused devices perform this function. Practitioners may focus on whether this function is inherent to the accused circuit's design or occurs only under specific, limited conditions.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is declarative and presents this as a defining characteristic of the claimed charger. The specification repeatedly highlights this capability as an advantage of the disclosed switching regulator system (’591 Patent, col. 7:1-3, col. 17:34-37).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains this phenomenon in the context of a "Buck" converter configuration where the input voltage is greater than the output voltage (’591 Patent, col. 17:41-49). A defendant may argue that the claim should be limited to the specific conditions or circuit topologies that enable this effect as described in the specification's embodiments.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The theory is that Apple knowingly encourages infringement by providing instructions to end users, such as in user manuals, that direct them to operate the accused devices in a manner that performs the claimed methods (Compl. ¶84, ¶107, ¶119, ¶134, ¶145, ¶163).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. For each count, it alleges that Apple has known of the patent "at least since the time this complaint was filed and served on Apple" (Compl. ¶84, ¶107, etc.). This pleading may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willfulness but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • Evidentiary Sufficiency: A central issue for the ’591 patent on battery charging will be one of technical proof: can Plaintiff produce evidence that Apple’s accused charging circuits, in their normal operation, actually deliver a "filtered current [that] is greater than a first input current," or will discovery show a fundamental mismatch with this key claim limitation?
  • Definitional Scope: For the ’861 patent on content delivery, the case will likely turn on a question of functional scope: does the accused Apple Watch/iPhone system’s process of using heart rate data to trigger a pre-programmed achievement notification constitute "analyzing" data and "selecting" content as those terms are understood in the context of the patent, or does the patent contemplate a more dynamic and computationally complex process?
  • System-Level Mapping: Across several of the asserted patents (’865, ’132, ’043, ’418), a recurring question will be one of technical correspondence: do Apple’s high-level, software-defined user features (e.g., "Proactive Suggestions," "Portrait Mode") and complex processors (e.g., A10) in fact operate according to the specific and often hardware-centric steps laid out in the patent claims, or is there a disconnect between the patented method and the accused system's actual implementation?