DCT

1:18-cv-01216

Sentius Intl LLC v. HTC Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01216, D. Del., 11/26/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant has placed infringing products into the stream of commerce through an established distribution channel that includes sales in Delaware, maintains a regular and established place of business in the U.S. through a wholly-owned subsidiary, and has derived substantial revenue from sales in the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones, which include a spell-check feature, infringe a patent related to a system and method for linking displayed text to external reference materials.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to user interface software for electronic devices that allows users to select a portion of text and receive linked information, such as dictionary definitions or translations.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE43,633, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,822,720. The complaint alleges that the Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement since at least February 9, 2016.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1994-02-16 ’633 Patent Priority Date
2012-09-04 ’633 Patent Issue Date
2016-02-09 Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge of infringement
2018-11-26 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE43,633 - "System and Method for Linking Streams of Multimedia Data to Reference Material for Display"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE43,633, issued September 4, 2012.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty and inefficiency faced by individuals learning a new language, particularly one with an ideographic alphabet like Japanese. A significant hurdle is the time-consuming process of looking up unfamiliar characters or words in a dictionary, which disrupts the flow of reading and hinders vocabulary acquisition (’633 Patent, col. 2:46-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an electronic system that allows a user to read a text on a display and, by selecting a word or phrase (e.g., with a mouse click), instantly view linked reference information like pronunciation, translation, or other notes in a pop-up window (’633 Patent, col. 4:22-29). Critically, the system uses an indexing method that maps a location in the displayed text (an "offset value") to a look-up table containing links to external reference materials, avoiding the need to embed hyperlink data directly within the source text itself (’633 Patent, col. 6:38-51).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide a more efficient and integrated method for accessing reference information while reading, thereby lowering the barrier to learning complex languages and understanding difficult materials (’633 Patent, col. 3:40-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 17, 62, 101, and 146. Independent claim 17, a system claim, is detailed most extensively.
  • Independent Claim 17 (System Claim) essential elements:
    • means for determining a beginning position address of a textual source material stored in an electronic database;
    • means for cutting the textual source material into a plurality of discrete pieces;
    • means for determining starting point addresses and an ending point addresses of the plurality of discrete pieces based upon the beginning position address;
    • means for recording in a look-up table the starting and ending point addresses;
    • means for linking the plurality of discrete pieces to external reference materials by recording links in the look-up table;
    • means for selecting a discrete portion of an image of the source material;
    • means for determining a display address of the selected discrete portion;
    • means for converting the display address to an offset value;
    • means for comparing the offset value with the recorded addresses to identify a discrete piece;
    • means for selecting one of the external reference materials corresponding to the identified discrete piece; and
    • means for displaying on a computer the selected external reference material.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claim 18 and reserves the right to assert other claims (’633 Patent, col. 15:20-23; Compl. ¶14, 27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "HTC Smartphones and other electronic devices" such as the "HTC One X" and "HTC DROID DNA," including their "built-in applications such as HTC Email, Notes and Messages" (Compl. ¶7, 14, 29).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products contain a "spell check feature" (Compl. ¶15). This feature is alleged to function by identifying potentially misspelled words, determining their start and end positions, and recording these addresses in a "look-up table" along with a link to a "spell check dictionary" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint describes how the feature visually identifies a misspelled word to the user, for example by highlighting it with a "red squiggly underline" (Compl. ¶15, 19). When a user selects the highlighted word, the system allegedly retrieves and displays suggested corrections from the dictionary (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’633 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
means for determining a beginning position address of a textual source material stored in an electronic database The document editor in the accused applications assigns a zero position address to the first character of the document text. ¶16 col. 6:18-24
means for cutting the textual source material into a plurality of discrete pieces A "spell check parser" parses the document to cut the text into individual words and phrases, identified as discrete character strings. ¶17 col. 5:22-24
means for determining starting point addresses and an ending point addresses of the plurality of discrete pieces... The spell check parser identifies the beginning and ending character position offsets for misspelled words relative to the document's beginning position address. ¶18 col. 6:57-61
means for recording in a look-up table the starting and ending point addresses The accused software maintains a look-up table that stores the beginning and ending character offsets for the potential misspelled word. ¶19 col. 6:1-3
means for linking the plurality of discrete pieces to external reference materials... The software stores links in the look-up table that point to a "spell check dictionary," which contains correctly spelled replacement words. ¶20 col. 6:62-65
means for selecting a discrete portion of an image of the source material The touch interface allows a user to click on the highlighted, misspelled word. The visual identification is described as a "red squiggly underline." ¶21 col. 6:50-54
means for determining a display address of the selected discrete portion Software instructions identify the horizontal and vertical coordinates on the display where the user's touch input was received. ¶22 col. 7:22-24
means for converting the display address...to an offset value... Software instructions identify the character position offset value corresponding to the coordinates of the user's touch input. ¶23 col. 6:54-57
means for comparing the offset value with the starting and ending point addresses recorded in the look-up table... The software determines if the identified character position is present in the look-up table by comparing the offset to the stored address entries. ¶24 col. 7:46-49
means for selecting one of the external reference materials... The software retrieves one or more corresponding correctly spelled words from the spell check dictionary for the identified entry. ¶25 col. 8:55-58
means for displaying on a computer the selected one of the...external reference materials The retrieved character string (suggested correction) is passed from a buffer to the document editor to be displayed to the user. ¶26 col. 6:20-25
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 17 is written entirely in means-plus-function format. A central dispute will be identifying the corresponding structure in the '633 patent's specification for each "means for..." element and determining whether the accused HTC software contains that structure or its equivalent. For instance, the analysis will question whether the "grammar parser" (23) described in the patent (’633 Patent, col. 5:22-24) is structurally equivalent to the "spell check parser" alleged to be in the accused devices (Compl. ¶17).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused spell-checker links misspelled words to a "spell check dictionary" (Compl. ¶15, 20). The patent, however, was developed in the context of language learning and describes linking to a broad range of "external multi-media references" ('633 Patent, Abstract). A key question will be whether the function and structure for linking to a simple dictionary of correct spellings is equivalent to the system disclosed in the patent for linking to richer, contextual reference materials.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "means for linking the plurality of discrete pieces to external reference materials"

    • Context and Importance: This is a central limitation of the asserted claims. Its construction will determine what type of connection and what type of "reference material" falls within the patent's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute hinges on whether a standard spell-check function (linking a misspelled word to a dictionary) performs the same function, in the same way, with the same structure as the language-learning tool described in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, referring to "external reference materials comprising any of textual, audio, video, and picture information" (’633 Patent, col. 15:1-4). This could support an argument that any form of linked data, including a simple text-based dictionary, is covered.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The corresponding structure described in the specification is a "link engine" (22) that works with an "index" (21) and a "relational database" (12) to connect text to various multimedia "linkable entities" (16, 17, 18) (’633 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 5:22-28). The specific embodiment focuses on providing rich contextual information for language learning, not just corrective spellings. This detailed implementation could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to that specific structural configuration or its close equivalent.

  • The Term: "discrete pieces"

    • Context and Importance: The system and method operate on "discrete pieces" of text. The definition of this term will affect the scope of the pre-processing steps of the claims. The infringement theory depends on these "pieces" being individual words parsed by a spell-checker.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent frequently discusses linking individual "words" and "phrases," supporting the complaint's allegation that "discrete pieces" can be words (’633 Patent, col. 3:30; col. 4:14). The term itself is general and not explicitly defined.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "word cutting process" is described as using a "visual editor" and a "grammar parser" to divide text (’633 Patent, col. 5:17-24; col. 7:4-14). An argument could be made that a "discrete piece" must be the output of this specific disclosed process, potentially requiring more than simple whitespace tokenization typical of some spell-checkers.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that HTC is responsible for infringement by its users because it "directs and/or controls the user's performance," provides "instructions, user manuals, advertising, and/or marketing materials," and makes the spell-check functionality's benefits "conditioned on the user's performance" of the claimed steps (Compl. ¶9, 35). These allegations support a claim for induced infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a specific allegation of knowledge, stating that "Defendant has had knowledge of infringement of the '633 patent at least by February 9, 2016" (Compl. ¶33). This assertion of pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for the claim of willful infringement and the request for enhanced damages.

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural equivalence under § 112(f): As the asserted system claim is composed entirely of means-plus-function limitations, the case will likely turn on whether the accused HTC spell-check software—alleged to be implemented with a "parser" and "look-up table"—contains the specific structures (or their equivalents) disclosed in the '633 patent specification for performing the claimed functions, such as the "link engine," "grammar parser," and "relational database."
  • A key question of functional scope will be central: Does the accused functionality of linking a misspelled word to a local "spell check dictionary" for correction perform the substantially same function as the patented system, which is described in the context of providing rich, contextual, and often multimedia reference materials to aid in language learning?
  • An evidentiary question will concern knowledge and intent: To support its willfulness and indirect infringement claims, Plaintiff will need to produce evidence demonstrating not only that HTC had knowledge of the '633 patent as of the alleged 2016 date, but also that it specifically intended for its users to infringe the patent by providing instructions for the spell-check feature.