DCT
3:17-cv-02403
Qualcomm Inc v. Apple Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Qualcomm Inc (Delaware)
- Defendant: Apple Inc (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Jones Day; Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
- Case Identification: 3:17-cv-02403, S.D. Cal., 11/29/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the Southern District of California because Apple is a California corporation and has committed acts of infringement in the district, including sales at specified Apple Store locations in San Diego.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s iPhone and iPad products infringe five patents related to mobile device user interfaces and functionality, including multitasking, camera operations, touch gestures, and call management.
- Technical Context: The technologies at issue govern fundamental user experience features in modern smartphones, such as managing multiple running applications, using a touchscreen to focus a camera, and interacting with the device via a multi-function power button.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed amidst broader litigation between the parties, referencing a prior suit initiated by Apple against Qualcomm in the same district. The asserted patents originate from both internal development and acquisitions from mobile technology pioneers Palm and TouchTable. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, all five patents-in-suit were challenged in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, resulting in the cancellation of all asserted claims for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,665,239 and 9,203,940, and the cancellation of several asserted claims for U.S. Patent No. 8,497,928.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-06-11 | Priority Date for ’940 Patent |
| 2004-08-06 | Priority Date for ’239 Patent |
| 2005-08-08 | Priority Date for ’037 Patent |
| 2007-01-09 | Apple iPhone first announced |
| 2007-07-31 | Priority Date for ’928 Patent |
| 2008-05-23 | Priority Date for ’362 Patent |
| 2009-01-01 | Palm WebOS operating system debuts |
| 2010-11-30 | ’037 Patent Issued |
| 2013-06-01 | Qualcomm invests in TouchTable patent portfolio |
| 2013-07-30 | ’928 Patent Issued |
| 2013-09-18 | Apple releases iOS 7 |
| 2014-01-01 | Qualcomm invests in Palm patent portfolio |
| 2014-03-04 | ’239 Patent Issued |
| 2014-03-25 | ’362 Patent Issued |
| 2015-12-01 | ’940 Patent Issued |
| 2017-01-20 | Apple files suit against Qualcomm (3:17-cv-00108) |
| 2017-11-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,683,362 - "Card Metaphor for Activities in a Computing Device"
Issued March 25, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of managing and navigating between multiple applications on computing devices with limited screen space, where conventional overlapping windows can obscure content and complicate task-switching (Compl. ¶27; ’362 Patent, col. 2:4-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a user interface based on a "card metaphor," where running applications are displayed as a sequence of cards. A card with focus is fully visible, while adjacent cards in the sequence are partially visible, allowing a user to scroll through the sequence to switch focus between applications ('362 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:9-24). Applications can be dismissed by moving their corresponding card in a different direction (e.g., upwards) (Compl. ¶41).
- Technical Importance: This interface paradigm, which the complaint alleges was pioneered by Palm's webOS, offered a more intuitive method for multitasking on early smartphones compared to desktop-style window management (Compl. ¶¶27-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A computer system with a physical button, processor, and touch-sensitive display.
- A "full-screen mode" for displaying a single application.
- A "windowed mode" that displays a first application card and a portion of a second application card.
- The system responds to a "directional contact" in a first direction (e.g., horizontal) to change the position of the cards.
- The system responds to a "directional contact" in a second, different direction (e.g., vertical) to dismiss a selected card.
- The physical button is used to transition between the full-screen and windowed modes.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶54).
U.S. Patent No. 8,497,928 - "Techniques to Automatically Focus a Digital Camera"
Issued July 30, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent notes that while digital cameras provide autofocus, users often need to select a specific area of a photograph to focus on, and prior methods for doing so involved "convoluted user interaction" ('928 Patent, col. 1:15-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention allows a user to select a new focal point on a camera's live preview by touching the desired location on a touchscreen. The system then refocuses the lens to that point. Additionally, the system selects a flash intensity level based on the lighting conditions at the newly selected focal point and captures the image in response to a second, different user input ('928 Patent, Abstract, col. 9:8-21).
- Technical Importance: This "tap-to-focus" functionality simplified camera operation on mobile devices, making user control over image composition more direct and intuitive (Compl. ¶29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 7.
- Essential elements of claim 1 (device) and claim 7 (method) include:
- Displaying an image with a first focal point on a touchscreen.
- Receiving a "first type of user input" to select a second focal point on the image.
- Focusing the lens component on the second focal point.
- Selecting a "flash level value" based on the second focal point.
- Capturing the image, based on the selected flash level, in response to a "second type of user input" that is "different than the first type of user input."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶68).
U.S. Patent No. 8,665,239 - "Method and Apparatus Continuing Action of User Gestures Performed Upon a Touch Sensitive Interactive Display in Simulation of Inertia"
- Issued: March 4, 2014 (Compl. ¶44).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a touch-sensitive display that recognizes user gestures and performs operations where the degree of the operation depends on the "magnitude" (e.g., force, speed, or length) of the user's touch. This allows for more nuanced control, such as varying the speed of a scroll based on the speed of the user's swipe (Compl. ¶45).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 3 are asserted (Compl. ¶86).
- Accused Features: The "3D Touch" feature in Apple devices, which allows the operating system to perform different operations based on the determined magnitude (e.g., force) of a user's touch input (Compl. ¶¶85-86).
U.S. Patent No. 9,203,940 - "Integrated Personal Digital Assistant Device"
- Issued: December 1, 2015 (Compl. ¶46).
- Technology Synopsis: The technology describes a multi-use power button on a mobile device that controls both computing and telephony functions. A single press of the button can silence an incoming call ring without turning the device off, while a press when no call is active can turn on the display's backlight (Compl. ¶¶47, 97).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 12 are asserted (Compl. ¶98).
- Accused Features: The power button function on iPhones and iPads that allows a user to silence a ring with a single press during an incoming call and to activate the backlight with a single press when not receiving a call (Compl. ¶99).
U.S. Patent No. 7,844,037 - "Method and Device for Enabling Message Responses to Incoming Phone Calls"
- Issued: November 30, 2010 (Compl. ¶48).
- Technology Synopsis: The invention provides a method for a user of a mobile device to respond to an incoming phone call with a pre-set or custom message instead of answering or declining the call. The system presents a messaging option on the incoming call screen (Compl. ¶¶49, 116; ’037 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶115).
- Accused Features: The feature in iOS that displays a "Message" option on the incoming call screen, allowing the user to send a stock or custom iMessage or text message to the caller (Compl. ¶¶116-117).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are Apple mobile devices running iOS 7 and later, including various models of the iPhone and iPad (Compl. ¶¶52, 67, 84, 96, 115).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint targets several core user interface and hardware functionalities. The "app switching" interface allows users to view and navigate between concurrently running applications by swiping through a series of "cards" (Compl. ¶54). The "tap/touch to focus" camera feature allows users to set a focal point by tapping on the screen (Compl. ¶67). "3D Touch" enables pressure-sensitive interactions (Compl. ¶85). The physical power button is used to both manage incoming calls and control the display backlight (Compl. ¶97). Finally, the incoming call screen provides an option to send a message to the caller (Compl. ¶116).
- The complaint alleges that these features are central to the user experience and commercial appeal of Apple's products, which it describes as belonging to the most profitable mobile devices in the world (Compl. ¶¶5, 26). The complaint provides a figure from the '362 patent illustrating running applications represented as a series of cards labeled A through E on a mobile device screen (Compl. p. 10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,683,362 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A computer system comprising: a physical button; a processor...; a touch-sensitive display screen... | Apple's iOS devices are handheld mobile computing devices comprised of a Home button, an application processor, and a touch-sensitive display screen. | ¶54 | col. 9:43-50 |
| in a full-screen mode, the processor provides... a user interface for only one of either the at least first application or the second application... | The normal application interface displays a single application in full screen mode. | ¶54 | col. 3:9-14 |
| in a windowed mode, the processor: provides... a first card corresponding to the first application, and a first portion of a second card... | The "app switching" interface displays a card for one application and portions of cards for other concurrently running applications. | ¶54 | col. 3:15-19 |
| responds to a directional contact along a first direction... by changing a position of the first card... | Users may scroll through the cards corresponding to concurrently running applications in a first direction, i.e., left or right. | ¶54 | col. 9:36-40 |
| responds to a directional contact... along a second direction that is different than the first direction... by... dismissing the selected... card... | Users may dismiss one of the applications by moving or dragging its corresponding card in a second direction, upwards, which is different from the first direction. | ¶54 | col. 12:11-20 |
| the processor, in response to receiving user input via the physical button, transitions the computer system at least... from the full-screen mode to the windowed mode, or... from the windowed mode to the full-screen mode. | A user may switch between the normal application interface (full-screen mode) and the app switching interface (windowed mode) by double-tapping the Home button. | ¶54 | col. 4:1-5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused "app switching" interface, which displays a central focused card and portions of cards to its left and right, meets the claim limitation of "a first card... and a first portion of a second card." While the complaint alleges this maps, a defendant could argue the claim contemplates a simpler, two-card-only view.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges a "double-tap" on the Home button satisfies the "receiving user input via the physical button" limitation for transitioning modes. The court may need to determine if a double-tap constitutes the type of "user input" contemplated by the patent.
U.S. Patent No. 8,497,928 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a touchscreen display to display an image having a first focal point | The iOS camera application displays a real-time image with a default first focal point, highlighted by a yellow square. | ¶68 | col. 9:1-4 |
| a focal point selection module to receive a user input of a first type to select a second focal point... | The user can tap on a location on the displayed real-time image to autofocus on that point, which selects and maintains a new focal point. | ¶68 | col. 9:6-10 |
| a focus control module... to cause the lens position component to focus the lens component from the first focal point to the second focal point... | The iPhone takes the user's touch input and controls the focus of the camera to achieve focus at the desired location in the image. | ¶69 | col. 9:20-24 |
| a flash control module is configured to select a flash level value... based on the second focal point | The iPhone adjusts flash intensity based on the user-selected focal point; the flash activates for a dark location but not a bright one. | p. 22:3-9 | col. 10:19-22 |
| wherein the one or more processors captures the image, based on the flash level value, in response to a second type of user input on the touchscreen display, the second type of user input being different than the first type... | Images are captured in response to user inputs such as pressing a capture icon on the touchscreen display. | p. 22:11-12 | col. 7:22-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires capturing the image in response to a "second type of user input" that is "different than the first type" used to select focus. A key issue will be whether a user tapping the screen to focus and then tapping a virtual shutter button on the same screen constitutes two "different" types of input, or if they are both the same "type" (a screen tap).
- Technical Questions: Does the accused device's "Exposure control" functionality, which determines whether to fire the flash based on overall scene brightness, meet the more specific limitation of selecting a "flash level value... based on the second focal point"? The analysis may hinge on whether the flash decision is directly and causally linked to the specific coordinates of the user-selected focus point, as opposed to a more general metering of the scene.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For U.S. Patent No. 8,683,362
- The Term: "windowed mode"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory. Its definition must encompass Apple's "app switching" interface for the claim to read on the accused product. Practitioners may focus on whether the claim's description of "a first card" and "a portion of a second card" is a structural requirement or merely an example of a mode where multiple applications are visible but not full-screen.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the mode as one where "at least two cards are presented, at least one of which is only partially visible" ('362 Patent, col. 8:25-27), which could support a reading on any interface showing one full card and any number of partial cards.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific language of claim 1 recites "a first card... and a first portion of a second card," which could be argued to limit the scope to a two-card view, potentially distinguishing it from Apple's interface which can show portions of three or more applications simultaneously.
For U.S. Patent No. 8,497,928
- The Term: "a second type of user input being different than the first type of user input"
- Context and Importance: The infringement case for the asserted independent claims depends on this limitation. If a "tap" to focus is considered the same "type" of input as a "tap" on a virtual shutter button, the infringement theory may fail. Practitioners may focus on how broadly "type" should be construed—is it about the physical gesture (tapping) or the logical function (setting focus vs. capturing image)?
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not explicitly define "type of user input." A plaintiff may argue that inputs that trigger different software functions (focus vs. capture) are inherently different "types," regardless of the physical gesture.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 16 of the patent distinguishes between a "single tap" (as the first type) and a "double tap" (as the second type) ('928 Patent, col. 16:15-18). A defendant could argue this shows the patentee distinguished input "types" based on the physical gesture itself, suggesting that two separate single taps might be considered the same "type."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all patents, asserting that Apple's user manuals and instructions encourage and teach end-users to perform the infringing actions (e.g., Compl. ¶¶61, 78). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that the accused devices and their software components are especially made or adapted for infringement and are not suitable for substantial non-infringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶¶62, 79).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges that Apple has known of the patents "at least since the time this complaint was filed and served on Apple," which may support a claim for post-filing, but not pre-filing, enhanced damages (e.g., Compl. ¶¶61, 78).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Given the subsequent cancellation of many asserted claims in IPR proceedings, the scope of the dispute has been significantly narrowed from the initial complaint. For the remaining claims, the case will likely turn on the following questions:
- A primary issue will be one of definitional scope: For the '362 patent, can the term "windowed mode", as defined in the claims, be construed to cover the multi-card "app switching" interface of iOS, or is it limited to a simpler two-card view?
- A critical question of claim construction will arise for the '928 patent: does a user's tap on a screen to set focus and a subsequent tap on a virtual shutter icon constitute two "different types of user input" as required by the claim, or are they fundamentally the same type of interaction?
- An underlying evidentiary question will be one of causality: For the '928 patent's flash-related limitations, can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused devices select a flash value because of the specific location of the user-selected focal point, rather than as part of a general, scene-wide exposure calculation?