DCT

1:17-cv-01133

Cypress Lake Software Inc v. LG Electronics USA Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01133, D. Del., 08/11/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's incorporation in the State of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Android-based smartphones and tablets infringe ten U.S. patents related to graphical user interfaces, management of concurrent media streams, and context-aware device operation.
  • Technical Context: The patents address software-level challenges in modern mobile operating systems, including managing application windows, arbitrating access to device outputs like screens and speakers, and restricting device functionality in specific contexts like driving.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff previously sued LG in the Eastern District of Texas over related technologies in devices running the Windows 10 operating system. That case was dismissed as to LG in August 2017 following a settlement between Plaintiff and Microsoft. Plaintiff alleges this new lawsuit, focused on Android products, was filed to accommodate LG's request to litigate the Android-based infringement allegations separately, a fact that may be material to the claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-08-16 U.S. Patent No. 9,195,765 Priority Date
2010-01-21 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,422,858, 8,781,299, 8,787,731, 8,983,264 Priority Date
2010-08-26 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,661,361, 9,423,923, 9,423,938, 9,423,954 Priority Date
2011-02-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,902,054 Priority Date
2013-04-16 U.S. Patent No. 8,422,858 Issued
2014-02-25 U.S. Patent No. 8,661,361 Issued
2014-07-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,781,299 Issued
2014-07-22 U.S. Patent No. 8,787,731 Issued
2014-12-02 U.S. Patent No. 8,902,054 Issued
2015-03-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,983,264 Issued
2015-11-24 U.S. Patent No. 9,195,765 Issued
2016-08-23 U.S. Patent Nos. 9,423,923, 9,423,938, 9,423,954 Issued
2016-10-28 Plaintiff allegedly provided LG notice of infringement in prior E.D. Tex. lawsuit
2017-01-05 Summons filed in prior E.D. Tex. lawsuit
2017-08-11 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,422,858 - Methods, systems, and computer program products for coordinating playing of media streams, Issued April 16, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the common problem of multiple applications attempting to play media streams (e.g., audio, video) simultaneously, resulting in interference and an "unpleasant listening experience" for the user (’858 Patent, col. 1:8-19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system for managing "presentation focus," an attribute that determines whether a media player is allowed to access an output device like a screen or speaker. The system detects when a player requests access, determines if it has focus based on "presentation focus information," and indicates whether the player is allowed to play its stream, thereby preventing conflicts between applications (’858 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-8).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for arbitrating access to shared output resources, a foundational requirement for modern multitasking operating systems on media-centric devices (’858 Patent, col. 1:29-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 14 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Essential elements of Claim 14, a non-transitory computer readable medium, include executable instructions for:
    • detecting a first media player access to a first presentation device;
    • accessing first presentation focus information to determine if the player has focus;
    • determining the player does not have focus and, in response, indicating it is not allowed to play;
    • detecting a change in the focus information;
    • determining, based on the change, that the player now has focus; and
    • in response, indicating the player is allowed to play its media stream.

U.S. Patent No. 8,661,361 - Methods, systems, and computer program products for navigating between visual components, Issued February 25, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency of navigating among multiple application windows on a cluttered desktop, which often requires repetitive user movements to access a standard, fixed user interface element like a task bar (’361 Patent, col. 1:8-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that presents a dynamic "navigation control" for switching between applications. This control appears in a "navigation region" whose position is determined based on the location of the currently active application's visual component, as well as its "parent" and "child" visual components. This places navigation options in context, close to the user's area of focus (’361 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-53).
  • Technical Importance: This technique provides a context-aware paradigm for application switching, designed to reduce the input overhead associated with multitasking in graphical user interfaces (’361 Patent, col. 1:20-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 199 (Compl. ¶21).
  • Essential elements of Claim 199, a computer program product, include code for:
    • presenting a first visual component of a first application in a first application region;
    • presenting a first navigation control in a first navigation region determined based on the location of the first visual component, its parent, and its child, with the control including a representation of a second visual component;
    • detecting user input corresponding to the navigation control; and
    • sending navigation information to navigate to the second visual component in response.

U.S. Patent No. 8,781,299 - Methods, systems, and computer program products for coordinating playing of media streams, Issued July 15, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent extends the "presentation focus" concept to scenarios involving a first presentation device (e.g., a smartphone) and a second presentation device (e.g., a TV) connected over a wireless network. The system determines whether a media player is permitted to play a video stream on the first device, the second device, or both, based on the execution environment's presentation focus information (Compl. ¶¶ 31-33).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Accused Features: The ability of the Accused Devices to "cast" audio and video to external devices like televisions is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶13).

U.S. Patent No. 8,787,731 - Methods, systems, and computer program products for coordinating playing of media streams, Issued July 22, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses a specific scenario within the "presentation focus" framework: detecting a second media player's access to play a stream while it does not have presentation focus (because a first player does). The system then indicates that the second player is allowed to play only after a change in the presentation focus information grants it focus (Compl. ¶42).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Accused Features: The operating system's ability to manage and switch between multiple media players (e.g., Google Play Movies, YouTube) attempting to stream content is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 43-44).

U.S. Patent No. 8,902,054 - Methods, systems, and computer program products for managing operation of a portable electronic device, Issued December 2, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: The technology relates to managing a portable device's functionality when connected to an automotive vehicle. Based on a set of policies and the detection of a communicative coupling to the vehicle, the system automatically prevents certain aspects of text messages and calls (Compl. ¶51).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: The "Android Auto" mode in the Accused Smartphone Devices, which restricts messages and calls when the device is connected to a vehicle via Bluetooth, is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 51-53).

U.S. Patent No. 8,983,264 - Methods, systems, and computer program products for coordinating playing of media streams, Issued March 17, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is another relative of the ’299 Patent, covering a system for coordinating media playback between a primary and secondary presentation device. It describes a computer program product that uses presentation focus information to determine whether a media stream is allowed to be presented on the first device, the second device, or both, and is operable to change focus based on various user inputs or system events (Compl. ¶60).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 61 (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The "cast" functionality of the Accused Devices is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 60, 63).

U.S. Patent No. 9,195,765 - Method and apparatus for presenting content, Issued November 24, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system on a mobile device for presenting content based on location and other event criteria. The device is configured to display and manage a plurality of third-party "packages" (e.g., digital loyalty cards), where each package includes rules with event criteria. The system uses a location sensor to identify an event and presents a message in response (Compl. ¶71).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶71).
  • Accused Features: The "Android Pay" feature is alleged to infringe, specifically its ability to display loyalty or gift cards from third parties and present notifications based on the device's proximity to a predetermined location (Compl. ¶¶ 71-74).

U.S. Patent No. 9,423,923 - Navigation methods, systems, and computer program products, Issued August 23, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an apparatus for navigating between application windows. When a user provides input to move or resize a first window, the apparatus is configured to display a menu of other open applications in a location outside the first window. This facilitates selecting a second application to display in a split-screen arrangement (Compl. ¶81).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 4 (Compl. ¶81).
  • Accused Features: The "split screen" feature in the Android Nougat operating system is alleged to infringe. Specifically, the action of long-pressing the "Overview" button to move an application window, which then displays a menu of other applications for selection, is accused (Compl. ¶¶ 82-83).

U.S. Patent No. 9,423,938 - Methods, systems, and computer program products for navigating between visual components, Issued August 23, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a computer program product with code for performing a multi-window navigation method similar to that of the ’923 Patent. The code is configured to, in response to a user input, display a menu of other operating applications in a location outside the first application's window, allowing for split-screen navigation (Compl. ¶94).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The "split screen" functionality in Android Nougat, as described for the ’923 patent, is accused of infringing (Compl. ¶¶ 96-98).

U.S. Patent No. 9,423,954 - Graphical user interface methods, systems, and computer program products, Issued August 23, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an apparatus with a processor and touchscreen for managing a graphical user interface. In response to a second user input on a user interface element (e.g., a tab) of a first window, the system creates and presents a second window adjacent to and not overlapping the first. In response to a third input, the system changes the size of both windows while maintaining their adjacent, non-overlapping relationship (Compl. ¶108).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 14 (Compl. ¶108).
  • Accused Features: The split-screen functionality in Android, particularly the alleged ability to "pull" a tab out of a first application window (e.g., Chrome) to create a second, adjacent window, and then resize the two windows via a vertical border, is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 109-111).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are a wide range of LG smartphones and tablets that employ the Android Operating System, including the Android Nougat version (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 21). These are collectively referred to as the "Accused Devices" (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint targets core software functionalities of the Android operating system that are central to the user experience on the Accused Devices. These functionalities include:
    • Media Casting: The ability to stream video or audio from the device to an external display, such as a television, using features like Google's "Cast" technology (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14, 33).
    • Split-Screen Multitasking: A feature introduced in Android Nougat that allows two applications to be displayed on the screen simultaneously. The complaint alleges that activating this mode by moving one application window causes a menu of other running applications to appear, from which a user can select the second application for the split view (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 82-83).
    • Automotive Integration: The "Android Auto" feature, which provides a simplified interface for use in a vehicle and restricts certain functions like text messaging based on policies when connected via Bluetooth (Compl. ¶¶ 51-53).
    • Mobile Payments and Loyalty: The "Android Pay" system, which allows the device to present digital versions of third-party loyalty cards and trigger notifications based on the device's location (Compl. ¶¶ 72-73).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,422,858 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
detecting a first media player access to a first presentation device to play a first media stream; The operating system detects when a user attempts to play media (e.g., a video) using a specific application (e.g., YouTube). ¶13 col. 2:45-46
accessing first presentation focus information for determining whether the first media player has first presentation focus...; The operating system accesses information to determine if the selected media player has priority to cast its content. ¶13 col. 2:47-50
determining based on the first presentation focus information that the first media player does not have first presentation focus; The system determines that the selected media player does not have priority to cast its content. ¶13 col. 6:49-54
in response... indicating that the first media player is not allowed to play the first media stream; If a media player like YouTube does not have focus, the device indicates which player (e.g., Google Play Video) does have focus. ¶14 col. 9:55-61
detecting a change in the first presentation focus information; The device detects a change in circumstance, such as a user input or system event, that alters which player has focus. ¶14 col. 5:4-10
determining, based on the detected change, that the first media player has first presentation focus; and The device determines that the media player is now permitted to play on the device itself. ¶14 col. 10:65-11:2
indicating, in response... that the first media player is allowed to play the first media stream via the first presentation device. The device tells the user that the video can be played on the device itself. ¶14 col. 2:51-55
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the Android OS's media casting management system functions as a "presentation focus" system as claimed. The complaint makes conclusory statements that the OS "can tell whether a media player has priority to cast" and that this corresponds to "presentation focus information" (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14), but provides no specific details on the underlying technical mechanism. The dispute may center on whether Android's architecture includes a distinct "focus state component" and "focus director" or their equivalents, as described in the patent (’858 Patent, Fig. 3), or achieves a similar outcome through different means.

8,661,361 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 199) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
code for presenting, in a first application region... a first visual component of a first application...; The Android Nougat OS presents a window of an open application in an area of the device's display. ¶21 col. 2:42-45
code for presenting a first navigation control, in a first navigation region determined based on the first application region... wherein the first navigation region is determined based on a location of at least one of the first visual component, a parent visual component... and a child visual component... the first navigation control including a representation of the second visual component; The OS displays a "split screen menu" containing thumbnails of other open applications in an area of the screen opposite the first application's window. ¶22 col. 2:45-53
code for detecting a user input corresponding to the first navigation control; and The OS detects a user's selection of a thumbnail from the split screen menu. ¶23 col. 2:54-56
code for sending, in response... navigation information to navigate to the second visual component. In response to the user's selection, the OS displays the second application's window in the remaining space on the screen. ¶23 col. 2:57-60
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the phrase "determined based on a location of at least one of the first visual component, a parent visual component... and a child visual component" can be construed to read on the way Android Nougat positions its split-screen menu. The defendant may argue that this claim language requires a specific, hierarchical analysis of GUI components that is not performed by the accused OS, raising a critical claim construction dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from ’858 Patent: "presentation focus information"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the ’858 patent family. The outcome of the infringement analysis for multiple asserted patents will depend on whether the data structures and logic used by the Android OS to manage media casting and playback qualify as "presentation focus information." Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegations map it to the high-level concept of "priority to cast" without detailing the technical implementation (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the information as enabling "the identification of one or more media players and whether the media players have presentation focus," which could be interpreted broadly to cover any system that tracks which application has the right to use an output device (’858 Patent, col. 8:60-63).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and detailed description disclose a specific architecture with a "focus state component (354)" that accesses the information and a "focus director component (356)" that makes determinations based on it (’858 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 6:1-8). This may support a narrower construction requiring a system with analogous discrete components.

  • Term from ’361 Patent: "navigation region is determined based on a location of at least one of the first visual component, a parent visual component... and a child visual component"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific technical manner in which the claimed navigation control is positioned. Infringement of the ’361 Patent and its relatives hinges on whether the accused "split screen menu" is positioned using this tripartite spatial logic. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a precise technical requirement that may not be met by the accused functionality as described.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that in the context of a GUI, any containing window can be seen as a "parent" and any interactive element within it a "child," allowing for a more flexible application of the claim language to different UI architectures. The patent's overall goal is described as navigating between visual components, suggesting the specific mechanism is just one embodiment (’361 Patent, Abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language explicitly requires the determination to be "based on a location of at least one of" all three component types (the visual component itself, its parent, and its child). This suggests that the locations of three distinct hierarchical elements must be inputs to the positioning algorithm, potentially narrowing the claim scope to exclude systems that, for instance, only consider the location of the primary window.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement on the grounds that Defendant's Accused Devices are used by end-customers to directly infringe, and that the devices have no substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 15, 24, 35).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,661,361, 8,781,299, 8,983,264, 9,423,923, 9,423,938, and 9,423,954. The allegations are based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from a prior lawsuit Plaintiff filed against LG on October 28, 2016 (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 37, 66, 89, 103, 114). For the remaining patents, the complaint alleges knowledge "at least as early as the service of this complaint," supporting only a claim for post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 45, 54, 75).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: for the patents concerning "presentation focus" (e.g., the ’858, ’299, ’731 patents), does the Android "Cast" functionality operate using the specific information management and decision-making architecture described and claimed, or does it achieve a similar result through a fundamentally different method? The case may depend on evidence from the Android source code compared to the patent's disclosed embodiments.
  • A second central issue will be one of definitional scope: for the GUI patents (e.g., the ’361, ’923, ’938 patents), can the claim language requiring the positioning of a navigation menu based on the locations of a "parent" and "child" visual component be construed to cover the behavior of the Android Nougat split-screen interface? This will likely be a dispositive issue of claim construction.
  • A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness: what was the precise scope of the notice provided to LG in the October 2016 lawsuit, and does it establish that LG acted with objective recklessness by continuing to sell its Android products? The history of prior litigation and the alleged request by LG for a separate lawsuit for its Android products will be central to this inquiry.