DCT

1:10-cv-00867

Motorola Mobility Inc v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:10-cv-00867, D. Del., 12/28/2011
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant transacts business in the district, has purposefully directed activities there, and has initiated prior infringement suits in the same district involving the same patents-in-suit.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its Android-based mobile phone products do not infringe, and that the claims are invalid, for eleven patents owned by Defendant relating to object-oriented software, operating systems, and user interfaces.
  • Technical Context: The patents cover foundational concepts in mobile computing, including graphics systems, operating system architecture, and event handling, which are central to the functionality of modern smartphone platforms like Android.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant has previously asserted the patents-in-suit against another Android device manufacturer, HTC, in the same district and at the International Trade Commission. Plaintiff also references prior confidential licensing negotiations with Defendant, which collectively form the basis for its stated "reasonable apprehension" of an infringement suit, a jurisdictional prerequisite for a declaratory judgment action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1992-12-23 ’354 Patent Priority Date
1993-07-19 ’867 Patent Priority Date
1993-11-02 ’599 Patent Priority Date
1994-05-13 ’337 Patent Priority Date
1994-08-02 ’263 Patent Priority Date
1994-09-26 ’705 Patent Priority Date
1995-05-05 ’131 Patent Priority Date
1995-05-05 ’852 Patent Priority Date
1995-05-05 RE ’486 Patent Priority Date
1995-08-29 ’983 Patent Priority Date
1995-10-03 ’599 Patent Issued
1996-02-01 ’647 Patent Priority Date
1996-05-21 ’867 Patent Issued
1996-10-15 ’337 Patent Issued
1999-06-22 ’131 Patent Issued
1999-07-27 ’852 Patent Issued
1999-08-31 ’647 Patent Issued
1999-10-19 ’705 Patent Issued
2001-08-14 ’983 Patent Issued
2002-01-29 ’263 Patent Issued
2002-07-23 ’354 Patent Issued
2007-02-06 RE '486 Patent Issued
2011-12-28 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,455,599 - Object-Oriented Graphic System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,455,599, "Object-Oriented Graphic System," issued October 3, 1995.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a more robust and extensible graphics system beyond the conventional, non-extensible systems that were dedicated to specific applications and image types (’599 Patent, col. 2:40-54). The proliferation of different graphic data types and pixel memory organizations required a more flexible framework (’599 Patent, col. 2:7-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an object-oriented graphic system architecture. A central "grafport object" acts as an application-level interface that encapsulates the application's state and routes drawing calls to appropriate "polymorphic graphic device objects" (’599 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:36–44). These device objects manage specific hardware or software renderers, such as graphic accelerators or vector engines, allowing the system to be extended to new devices without altering the core application logic (’599 Patent, FIG. 17).
  • Technical Importance: This object-oriented approach provided a flexible framework allowing developers to add new graphics capabilities without being constrained by a rigid, standard pixel representation (’599 Patent, col. 2:57–64).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • As a declaratory judgment action, the complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity for all claims without specifying which are at issue (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 16). Independent claim 1 is representative:
  • Claim 1 Elements:
    • An object-oriented graphic system, comprising:
    • a processor;
    • a storage under the control of and attached to the processor;
    • one or more graphic devices under the control of and attached to the processor;
    • a "grafport object" in the storage;
    • a "graphic device object" in the storage for managing one of the one or more graphic devices;
    • a "graphic object" in the storage for managing graphic processing; and
    • "means for connecting" the graphic device object to the grafport object to output graphic information.

U.S. Patent No. 5,519,867 - Object-Oriented Multitasking System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,519,867, "Object-Oriented Multitasking System," issued May 21, 1996.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the loss of modularity, maintainability, and reusability when an object-oriented application must interact with a procedural operating system through its native procedural interface (’867 Patent, col. 3:15–25).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses an "object-oriented wrapper," which is an object-oriented class library that serves as an intermediary between an object-oriented application and a procedural operating system (’867 Patent, Abstract). The application makes calls to objects within the library, and the methods in those library objects translate the requests into procedural function calls compatible with the underlying operating system, effectively hiding the procedural nature of the OS from the application (’867 Patent, col. 3:45–55, FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This wrapper architecture enabled the development and execution of object-oriented applications on top of existing procedural operating systems (such as the Mach kernel mentioned in the patent) without sacrificing the benefits of the object-oriented paradigm (’867 Patent, col. 4:5-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity for all claims without specifying any particular claims (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 25). Independent claim 1 is representative:

  • Claim 1 Elements:

    • An apparatus for enabling an object-oriented application to access in an object-oriented manner a procedural operating system... said apparatus comprising:
    • a computer;
    • a memory component in said computer;
    • a "code library", stored in said memory component, comprising means for storing said executable program logic in an "object-oriented class library";
    • "means, in said computer, for processing said object-oriented statements" by executing methods from said object-oriented class library; and
    • "means, in said object-oriented class library", including "object-oriented thread classes", for enabling said application to access said services to spawn, control, and obtain information relating to a thread of execution.
      The complaint asserts claims against nine additional patents, which are summarized below.

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,566,337, "Method And Apparatus For Distributing Events In An Operating System," issued October 15, 1996.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an event management system for an operating system. It discloses a centralized event manager that receives events from "producer" entities and distributes them to "consumer" entities that have registered an interest in those events, facilitating communication between different software components (Compl. ¶ 29).
    • Accused Features: The complaint suggests that the activities of Motorola's Android-based products are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶ 29).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,915,131, "Method And Apparatus For Handling I/O Requests Utilizing Separate Programming Interfaces To Access Separate I/O Services," issued June 22, 1999.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to an I/O architecture where different categories of I/O services (e.g., file management, block storage) are organized into "families." Each family provides a distinct Application Programming Interface (API) tailored to its specific services, which applications use to make I/O requests (Compl. ¶ 38).
    • Accused Features: The complaint suggests that the activities of Motorola's Android-based products are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶ 38).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,929,852, "Encapsulated Network Entity Reference Of A Network Component System," issued July 27, 1999.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for accessing network resources by creating an "encapsulated network entity." This entity, which can be a visual object like an icon, contains a reference (e.g., a URL) to a network resource, allowing a user to access the resource by directly manipulating the object (Compl. ¶ 47).
    • Accused Features: The complaint suggests that the activities of Motorola's Android-based products are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶ 47).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647, "System And Method For Performing An Action On A Structure In Computer-Generated Data," issued August 31, 1999.

    • Technology Synopsis: The technology involves a system that automatically detects recognizable structures within data (such as phone numbers, dates, or email addresses). Upon detection, the system links candidate actions to the structure, allowing a user to select and perform an action (e.g., dial a number, create a calendar event) directly on the identified data (Compl. ¶ 56).
    • Accused Features: The complaint suggests that the activities of Motorola's Android-based products are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶ 56).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,969,705, "Message Protocol For Controlling A User Interface From An Inactive Application Program," issued October 19, 1999.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a messaging protocol that enables a background or "inactive" application program to control aspects of the user interface, which is managed by the foreground or "active" application. This allows background processes to provide user feedback, such as a progress bar for a file copy (Compl. ¶ 65).
    • Accused Features: The complaint suggests that the activities of Motorola's Android-based products are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶ 65).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,275,983, "Object-Oriented Operating System," issued August 14, 2001.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’867 patent, further describes an object-oriented wrapper for a procedural operating system. The invention provides an object-oriented class library that enables applications to access OS services like thread, task, and memory management in an object-oriented manner (Compl. ¶ 74).
    • Accused Features: The complaint suggests that the activities of Motorola's Android-based products are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶ 74).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263, "Real-Time Signal Processing System For Serially Transmitted Data," issued January 29, 2002.

    • Technology Synopsis: This invention relates to a system for processing real-time, isochronous data streams (e.g., voice, fax, video). It uses a real-time data engine and an abstracted interface to handle data from various network types, making the system flexible and independent of specific hardware (Compl. ¶ 83).
    • Accused Features: The complaint suggests that the activities of Motorola's Android-based products are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶ 83).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,424,354, "Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods," issued July 23, 2002.

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for propagating notifications about changes to objects. A "listener" object can register its "interest" in a "source" object, and the system automatically notifies the listener when a change occurs, allowing for dynamic updates to user interface elements or other dependent objects (Compl. ¶ 92).
    • Accused Features: The complaint suggests that the activities of Motorola's Android-based products are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶ 92).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. RE 39,486, "Extensible, Replaceable Network Component System," issued February 6, 2007.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a modular, component-based system for developing network navigation tools. The architecture allows components to be replaced or extended, enabling different network services (like Gopher and Web browsers) to interoperate and share functionalities within a common framework (Compl. ¶ 101).
    • Accused Features: The complaint suggests that the activities of Motorola's Android-based products are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶ 101).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies Motorola Mobility's "Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, i1 and Charm products" as the subject of Apple's assertions (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 20, 29).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these devices operate using the Android operating system (Compl. ¶¶ 4-5). No specific technical details of the Android OS or the devices' functionalities are provided. The complaint frames the dispute in the context of broader litigation between Apple and manufacturers of Android-based devices, noting that Apple has asserted the same patents against HTC's Android phones (Compl. ¶ 4). This positions the accused products as part of the competitive Android ecosystem that was challenging Apple's market position at the time.
    No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and does not contain infringement allegations or claim charts against which to analyze. It instead makes a blanket denial of infringement for all claims of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 22). If Defendant Apple were to counterclaim for infringement, the following points of contention may arise.

  • ’599 Patent Infringement Allegations

    • Identified Points of Contention:
      • Scope Questions: An analysis would question whether the Android graphics architecture, including components like the Skia graphics engine and SurfaceFlinger, constitutes the claimed "grafport object" connected to a "graphic device object." The definition of "polymorphic" processing would also be central, focusing on how Android's Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) for graphics maps to this limitation.
      • Technical Questions: A key technical question would be what evidence demonstrates that Android's software stack for rendering performs the specific functions of encapsulating application state and re-routing draw calls in the manner required by the claims, as opposed to operating as a more conventional, layered graphics pipeline.

  • ’867 Patent Infringement Allegations

    • Identified Points of Contention:
      • Scope Questions: The dispute would likely center on whether the Android Application Framework, which is object-oriented (Java-based), functions as the claimed "object-oriented class library" that acts as a "wrapper" for the underlying procedural Linux kernel. The construction of "procedural operating system" would be critical in determining if the Linux kernel falls within its scope as envisioned by the patent.
      • Technical Questions: A central question would be whether the communication mechanisms between the Java framework and native Linux services (e.g., the Binder IPC system) perform the claimed function of translating "object-oriented statements" into "procedural function calls" compatible with the OS.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • ’599 Patent

    • The Term: "grafport object" (from Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core architectural interface of the claimed graphics system. Its construction will be critical to determining if Android's graphics stack contains an equivalent structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is not a standard term of art and its meaning is rooted in the patent's specific disclosure, making its scope a central point of dispute.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the grafport functionally as an "application-level view that encapsulates the state of the application" and "re-routes any draw calls to an appropriate one of a number of possible devices" (’599 Patent, col. 8:36–41). This functional language may support an interpretation not limited to a specific implementation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific embodiment, TGrafPort, with a particular set of methods illustrated in a figure (’599 Patent, FIG. 1B). This could support a narrower construction tied to the disclosed structure and its explicit functions.

  • ’867 Patent

    • The Term: "object-oriented class library" (from Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term is the heart of the "wrapper" invention. The case may turn on whether the Android Application Framework and its APIs constitute the claimed "library." The term's scope will determine whether the relationship between Android's Java layer and its native Linux kernel is structurally equivalent to the patented invention.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a general definition, stating the library comprises "related object-oriented classes for enabling the application to access in an object-oriented manner services provided by the operating system" (’867 Patent, col. 3:48–52).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures illustrate a library with specific classes corresponding directly to the services of a procedural OS like Mach (e.g., "Thread Classes," "Task Classes," "IPC Classes") (’867 Patent, FIG. 4). This may support a narrower construction limited to a library that directly mirrors and wraps such procedural OS concepts.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a blanket denial of any direct or indirect infringement of the patents-in-suit but does not plead any specific facts related to the elements of knowledge or intent (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 22, etc.).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not alleged by Plaintiff. However, the factual basis for the declaratory judgment action—Defendant’s history of asserting the patents against other Android manufacturers and its engagement in licensing discussions with Plaintiff—suggests the possibility that Defendant, in a potential counterclaim, could allege that Plaintiff had pre-suit knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 4-5).

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural correspondence: Does the Android operating system, with its Java-based application framework and underlying Linux kernel, embody the specific architectural structures of a "grafport object" and an "object-oriented wrapper" as claimed in the '599 and '867 patents, respectively, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patented designs and Android's implementation?
  • A second key issue will be one of claim scope and technological evolution: Can the claims of patents drafted in the context of 1990s-era operating systems (like Taligent and Mach) be construed broadly enough to read on a modern, architecturally distinct system like Android, or are they limited by their specification to the specific problems and solutions of their time?