Nano492 Tech LLC v. LG Electronics Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Nano492 Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: LG Electronics Inc. (South Korea) and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
• Case Identification: 1:16-cv-01203, D. Del., 12/15/2016
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendants conduct business in the district, the alleged infringement occurs in the district, and Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that various LG smartphones featuring touchscreen keyboards infringe a patent related to methods for selecting alternate characters associated with a virtual key.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns user interface methods for efficient text entry on devices with virtual keyboards, a foundational element of the modern smartphone user experience.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The patent is a continuation of a prior U.S. application.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,319,733 ("the '733 Patent"), "Electronic Device System Utilizing a Character Input Method," issued November 27, 2012. (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency of text input on devices with limited keypads where multiple letters are mapped to a single key. It notes that inputting a character that is not first in a key's sequence (e.g., inputting "C" from an "ABC" key) requires multiple, rapid key presses, a process described as "troublesome and time consuming" and "liable to lead to mistakes." ('733 Patent, col. 1:25-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where an initial key press starts an "operation period." During this period, subsequent user actions—such as short presses, long presses, or touch gestures—can be used to navigate a sequence of "character candidates" associated with the key. ('733 Patent, Abstract). The system can distinguish between input patterns (e.g., short vs. long press) to trigger different behaviors, such as traversing characters in a default order ("abc") or a reversed order ("cba"). ('733 Patent, col. 5:15-33). The solution also involves displaying these character candidates in a graphical user interface, or menu, with a "focus" to indicate the currently selected option. ('733 Patent, col. 9:36-51, FIG. 8A).
• Technical Importance: The described methods aim to make character input on virtual or constrained keyboards faster and more intuitive by providing alternative, gesture-based selection mechanisms beyond simple repetitive tapping. ('733 Patent, col. 1:33-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 27 and dependent claims 30, 31, 34, 35, and 36. (Compl. ¶12).
• Independent Claim 27 recites a character input method with the following essential elements:
  • Receiving a "first operation on a first key" which initiates an "operation period" that is extendable.
  • The key is a "toggle key" associated with a "sequence of character candidates."
  • Presenting a first character from the sequence in response to a "first instance of short press on the first key."
  • Displaying a "graphical user interface" (GUI) to present the sequence of candidates, with a "focus" to indicate the currently selected character.
  • Receiving and classifying a "touch movement" on a touch-sensitive device into a "forward" or "backward" direction.
  • Allowing the focus to move forward or backward through the character candidates in response to the direction of the touch movement.
  • Finally, "entering the currently selected character to a text area... upon expiration of the operation period."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names a wide range of LG smartphones, including models from the LG Optimus, Tribute, V20, G5, Stylo, and K series, collectively referred to as the "Infringing Instrumentalities." (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused smartphones implement an infringing character input method on their virtual keyboards. (Compl. ¶12). Specifically, when a user performs an operation such as a long press on a key, a GUI menu appears displaying alternative characters. (Compl. p. 9). The complaint provides an image showing a finger initiating a long press on the "e" key, causing a pop-up menu with "3", "e", and "€" to appear. (Compl. p. 9). The user can then allegedly slide their finger across the menu to highlight and select a desired character for input. (Compl. pp. 12-14). The complaint does not provide further detail for analysis of the products' market positioning beyond listing them as commercially available devices.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'733 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 27 requires presenting a first character in response to a "first instance of short press," but the complaint's allegations and visual evidence appear to rely on a long press to initiate the GUI (Compl. ¶15-16, alleging infringement of dependent claim 30 which recites a long press). This raises the question of whether the accused functionality, which seems to be a single, continuous long-press-and-slide gesture, can satisfy the claim's sequence of a "first operation" followed by a "short press" and a "touch movement."
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product's continuous slide gesture performs the function of cycling through characters via discrete "instances of short press" as required by one part of claim 27? The claim separately recites a "touch movement" for moving the focus, raising the question of whether a single slide gesture can meet both limitations, or if there is a functional mismatch between the accused method and the claimed steps.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "short press"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because Claim 27 requires certain actions to occur in response to "instances of short press." The infringement theory appears to rely on a long-press-and-slide gesture. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the accused continuous gesture can be mapped to the claim's discrete action.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a rigid definition, referring to it generally as an operation with a duration "less than the time interval t." (col. 4:47-49). This could support a reading that encompasses any brief user interaction that is not a "long press."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently contrasts "short press" with "long press" as two distinct input patterns triggering different behaviors (e.g., default vs. reversed character sequence). ('733 Patent, FIG. 3C; col. 7:10-24). This may support a narrower construction limited to a discrete tap-and-release action, distinct from a continuous press-and-slide.
• The Term: "operation period"
  • Context and Importance: The claim requires that character selection and GUI display occur "during the operation period," and that character entry occurs upon its "expiration." The start, end, and extension conditions of this period are central to the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The period could be construed as the entire duration from the initial key touch until input is finalized or cancelled, as it is "extendable by one or more operations." (col. 15:10-14).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification links the "expiration" of the operation period to the automatic entry of the displayed character if no further input is received within a set time. ('733 Patent, col. 4:5-8, S39). A defendant may argue that if the accused product requires a specific user action to finalize input (e.g., lifting the finger) rather than a timeout, it does not operate with an "operation period" that "expires" in the manner claimed.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include a specific count for willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and an award of attorneys' fees. (Compl. p. 25, ¶C). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patent or egregious conduct that might form the basis for such a finding.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope and the sequence of operations: Can the accused method, which appears to be a single, continuous gesture of a long press followed by a slide, be mapped onto the specific, sequential limitations of Claim 27? The claim recites a "first operation," followed by "instances of short press" for cycling characters, and a separate "touch movement" for moving a focus, raising a potential mismatch with the accused functionality.
• A key dispute will be one of claim construction: The viability of the infringement case will likely depend on whether the term "short press" can be construed broadly enough to read on the sliding gesture shown in the accused products, or if it is limited to a discrete tap-and-release action. Similarly, the definition of "operation period" and its "expiration" will be critical in determining if the accused timeout-independent system infringes.