DCT
1:18-cv-00571
Cywee Group Ltd v. Google LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CyWee Group Ltd. (British Virgin Islands)
- Defendant: Google, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Shore Chan DePumpo LLP
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00571, D. Del., 04/16/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Google, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Google Pixel line of smartphones infringes two patents related to methods for processing data from multiple motion sensors to accurately determine a device's orientation in three-dimensional space.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue combines data from accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers to compensate for inherent inaccuracies and drift in each sensor, enabling precise motion tracking for applications such as augmented reality, virtual reality, and motion-based user interface controls.
- Key Procedural History: Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted claims of both patents-in-suit were subject to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The IPR certificates indicate that claim 14 of the ’438 patent and claim 10 of the ’978 patent, the lead claims asserted in the complaint, have been cancelled. This development fundamentally impacts the viability of the infringement contentions as originally pleaded.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-07-29 | Alleged priority date for certain claims of the ’438 Patent based on reduction to practice |
| 2009-09-25 | Alleged priority date for certain claims of both patents based on reduction to practice |
| 2010-01-06 | Priority Date (Provisional Application filing for both patents) |
| 2013-05-14 | U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 Issued |
| 2013-10-08 | U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978 Issued |
| 2018-04-16 | Complaint Filed |
| 2023-09-15 | IPR Certificate Issued for U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978 (cancelling asserted claim 10) |
| 2024-08-21 | IPR Certificate Issued for U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 (cancelling asserted claim 14) |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 - 3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Movement Thereof, issued May 14, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes that prior art motion-sensing devices were deficient in dynamic environments. They could not accurately account for sensor drift or gravitational effects, were incapable of outputting true yaw, pitch, and roll angles, and failed to properly map movements when a pointing device moved beyond the boundary of a display, leading to uncompensated errors (Compl. ¶30; ’438 Patent, col. 2:55-3:51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and device using a "six-axis" motion sensor module, which combines a rotation sensor (e.g., a gyroscope) and an accelerometer. The core of the solution is a "comparison method" where signals from the rotation sensor (angular velocities) are compared with signals from the accelerometer (axial accelerations) to calculate an "updated state." This process is designed to eliminate accumulated errors and output an accurate, absolute deviation (yaw, pitch, and roll) in a 3D reference frame (’438 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-19, Fig. 7).
- Technical Importance: The patented method aimed to provide more reliable 3D orientation data for portable devices, which is a foundational requirement for stable and immersive user experiences in navigation, gaming, and early augmented/virtual reality applications (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 14 and incorporates a claim chart for it, though the chart itself is not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶112).
- Essential elements of claim 14 include:
- Obtaining a previous state of the six-axis motion sensor module associated with previous angular velocities at a time T-1.
- Obtaining a current state by measuring angular velocities at a time T.
- Obtaining a measured state by measuring axial accelerations and calculating predicted axial accelerations based on the current state's angular velocities, "without using any derivatives of the first signal set."
- Obtaining an updated state by "comparing the current state with the measured state."
- Calculating and converting the updated state into a resulting deviation (e.g., yaw, pitch, roll angles) in a spatial pointer reference frame.
- The complaint alleges infringement of other claims "in a similar manner" but does not specify them (Compl. ¶112).
U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978 - 3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Rotations of the 3D Pointing Device Thereof, issued October 8, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technological hurdles as the ’438 patent, namely the inherent inaccuracies of motion sensors when used in portable devices, which leads to errors in tracking orientation in 3D space (Compl. ¶30; ’978 Patent, col. 2:58-3:13).
- The Patented Solution: The ’978 patent enhances the system by adding a magnetometer to create a "nine-axis" sensor module. The invention uses an "orientation output" (derived from sensors including the magnetometer, which provides a reference to the Earth's magnetic field) and a "rotation output" (from a gyroscope) to generate a "transformed output" for a display. This use of a magnetic sensor is intended to provide a stable, absolute heading reference to correct for gyroscope drift and other errors more effectively (’978 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:14-30).
- Technical Importance: By integrating a magnetometer, the technology provides a more robust solution for absolute orientation tracking, which is critical for applications like map navigation (to know which direction the user is facing) and augmented reality (to overlay graphics correctly onto the real world) (Compl. ¶132).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 10 and incorporates a claim chart for it, though the chart is not attached (Compl. ¶160).
- Essential elements of claim 10 include:
- Generating an "orientation output" associated with the device's orientation relative to the Earth (implicating the magnetometer).
- Generating a "rotation output" associated with the device's rotation in its own spatial reference frame (implicating the gyroscope).
- Using both the orientation and rotation outputs to generate a "transformed output" for a display device.
- The method is performed by a nine-axis motion sensor module and involves obtaining a resultant deviation by using a plurality of measured magnetisms and a plurality of predicted magnetisms.
- The complaint alleges infringement of other claims "in a similar manner" without specification (Compl. ¶161).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Google’s Pixel, Pixel XL, Pixel 2, and Pixel 2 XL smartphones (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶¶38, 122). The complaint provides images of the accused products (Compl. p. 17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are alleged to contain the necessary hardware for infringement, including a 3-axis accelerometer, a 3-axis gyroscope, and a 3-axis geomagnetic sensor (magnetometer) (Compl. ¶¶42, 43, 125). The complaint alleges that the Android operating system running on these devices uses measurements from these sensors in combination to calculate the device's "attitude" or orientation (Compl. ¶¶56, 129, 130). This sensor fusion capability is alleged to enable various features, including motion-based gestures (e.g., "lift to check phone"), orientation-aware navigation applications, and virtual and augmented reality experiences, such as with the Google Daydream View accessory (Compl. ¶¶109, 110, 131, 132, 158).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’438 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| obtaining a previous state of the six-axis motion sensor module... | The complaint alleges the Android OS running on the Accused Products performs this step as part of calculating device attitude, but provides no specific facts on how a "previous state" is obtained or used. | ¶56 | col. 21:14-19 |
| obtaining a current state... by obtaining measured angular velocities... | The Accused Products include a 3-axis gyroscope that measures rotation rates, and the Android OS uses these measurements. | ¶¶43, 48, 55 | col. 21:20-24 |
| obtaining a measured state... by obtaining measured axial accelerations... and calculating predicted axial accelerations... | The Accused Products include a 3-axis accelerometer that measures accelerations. The complaint does not explicitly allege that the Android OS calculates "predicted axial accelerations." | ¶¶42, 47, 54, 56 | col. 21:25-33 |
| obtaining an updated state... by comparing the current state with the measured state... | The Android OS allegedly "uses the measurement from a 3-axis accelerometer and the measurement from a 3-axis gyroscope to calculate an attitude of the device," which constitutes the alleged comparison. | ¶56 | col. 21:39-42 |
| calculating and converting the updated state... to said resulting deviation... | The calculated "attitude of the device" is alleged to be the resulting deviation. | ¶56 | col. 21:43-47 |
’978 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| generating an orientation output associated with... Earth... | The Accused Products contain a 3-axis geomagnetic sensor, and the Android OS uses its measurements to calculate device attitude, which provides an orientation relative to the Earth's magnetic field. | ¶¶125, 128, 129 | col. 35:65-col. 36:3 |
| generating a rotation output... | The Accused Products contain a 3-axis gyroscope, and the Android OS uses its measurements to generate rotation data. | ¶¶43, 55, 129 | col. 36:4-8 |
| using the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a transformed output... | The Android OS allegedly uses measurements from the accelerometer, geomagnetic sensor, and gyroscope to calculate a device attitude represented by azimuth, pitch, and roll angles. | ¶¶129, 130 | col. 36:9-12 |
| obtaining one or more resultant deviation... using a plurality of measured magnetisms... and a plurality of predicted magnetism... | The Android OS uses measurements from the geomagnetic sensor. The complaint does not explicitly allege that the Android OS calculates "predicted magnetism." | ¶¶125, 128, 129 | col. 36:13-19 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary technical question is whether the sensor fusion algorithms in the Android OS perform the specific steps recited in the claims. The complaint does not provide evidence that the Accused Products calculate "predicted axial accelerations" (required by '438 claim 14) or "predicted magnetism" (required by '978 claim 10). The allegations are largely conclusory, stating that the OS "uses" sensor data to "calculate an attitude" (Compl. ¶¶56, 129).
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of the claim terms themselves. For example, does the general process of combining sensor data to correct for errors meet the specific "comparing the current state with the measured state" limitation of the ’438 patent, or is a more specific mathematical operation required?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "calculating predicted axial accelerations" ('438 patent, claim 14)
- Context and Importance: This term is a specific computational step at the heart of the claimed method. The absence of a direct allegation that Google's products perform this step makes its definition critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because proving infringement requires showing that the accused system performs this exact calculation, not just a generic error-correction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this phrase should cover any forward-looking estimation of acceleration derived from gyroscope data, even if not explicitly labeled as "predicted" in the accused system's source code. The patent describes this as part of a general comparison method to correct errors (Compl. ¶35; '438 Patent, col. 4:5-19).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed mathematical embodiments using quaternions (see equations 2, 3, and 4) to derive predicted accelerations from a device's rotational state (’438 Patent, col. 13:16-24). A party may argue the term should be limited to this specific mathematical process, which involves converting a quaternion representation of orientation into a predicted gravity vector.
Term: "predicted magnetism" ('978 patent, claim 10)
- Context and Importance: Similar to the term above, this is a specific required input for the claimed method, and the complaint lacks a factual allegation that the accused Android OS calculates it. The construction of this term could be dispositive for the infringement analysis of the ’978 patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: One could argue that any algorithm that uses a device's estimated orientation to anticipate the expected magnetic field reading, and then uses the difference to refine that orientation, would meet this limitation in spirit. The patent describes this as part of a system to obtain a resultant deviation (’978 Patent, col. 36:13-19).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses explicit mathematical formulas (equations 18, 19, and 20) for calculating "predicted magnetism" based on a quaternion state and a known "dip angle" (λ) of the Earth's magnetic field (’978 Patent, col. 24:65-col. 25:2). A party will likely argue that the term requires performing this specific, complex calculation, which is not alleged in the complaint.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against Google. It asserts that Google provides product manuals, online support documents, and marketing materials that instruct and encourage end-users to perform infringing acts (Compl. ¶¶108, 156). Specific examples cited include instructions for motion gestures like lifting the phone to check notifications and using the "double-twist gesture" to open the camera, as well as marketing for the "Swivel and Play" feature of the Google Daydream VR accessory (Compl. ¶¶109, 110, 157, 158).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Google's knowledge of the patents "at least as a result of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶39, 108, 124, 156). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge, focusing the willfulness claim on post-filing conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Viability of Asserted Claims: The most immediate and critical question is the viability of the lawsuit as pleaded. Given that the specific independent claims forming the basis of the complaint's infringement counts (claim 14 of the ’438 patent and claim 10 of the ’978 patent) were subsequently cancelled in IPR proceedings, Plaintiff cannot prevail on these claims. The case's survival depends on whether Plaintiff can amend its complaint to assert other, surviving claims from the patents-in-suit and plausibly allege their infringement.
Evidentiary Burden and Functional Specificity: Assuming the case proceeds on other claims, a core issue will be one of evidentiary proof. Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the general-purpose sensor fusion algorithms within the Android OS perform the highly specific, multi-step computational methods recited in the patents? The dispute will likely focus on whether Google's code implements the exact functions of, for example, "calculating predicted axial accelerations" or using "predicted magnetism," or whether it uses a technically distinct method to achieve a similar outcome.
Claim Scope and the Embodiments: A central legal question will be one of claim construction. Will key terms like "comparing" and "predicted" values be interpreted broadly to cover any algorithm that fuses sensor data to correct for errors, or will they be narrowed to the specific quaternion-based mathematical formulas detailed in the patents' specifications? The outcome of this question will define the scope of the invention and likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.