Floatron Systems LLC v. Splashtop Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Floatron Systems LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Splashtop Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce; RABICOFF LAW LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01649, D. Del., 09/04/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Personal Remote Access system infringes a patent related to a supplemental hardware unit that enhances the computing capabilities of portable wireless devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for offloading computationally intensive tasks from resource-constrained portable devices (like tablets) to a more powerful, dedicated local hardware unit.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,307,014 - Supplemental capacity unit for portable wireless devices, issued April 5, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes that portable wireless devices like tablets, while popular, lack the processing power, memory, storage, and software capabilities of traditional personal computers and laptops, limiting them to running "small apps" rather than full-featured applications (’014 Patent, col. 1:41-2:11). This creates a "clearly felt need" for a way to augment their capabilities (’014 Patent, col. 2:12-18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a physical "wireless device control unit" that serves as a computational accessory for a portable device (’014 Patent, Abstract). The portable device downloads and installs a "communication software program" from the control unit; this software then enables the portable device to offload tasks and use the control unit's superior resources—its processor, memory, and storage—to run demanding applications like CAD software or intensive games (’014 Patent, col. 4:5-14; Fig. 5). The portable device effectively acts as a "virtual window" to the operations being performed by the more powerful supplemental unit (’014 Patent, col. 6:7-8).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide users with the portability and ease-of-use of a tablet while granting them access to the full computing power previously exclusive to desktop or laptop computers (’014 Patent, col. 2:46-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A supplemental capacity unit for a portable wireless device.
  • An electronic control board with wireless communication and at least one connection port for interfacing with an additional device to increase computational power for tasks like computer-aided design.
  • A communication software program accessible by the control board.
  • The software program is installed on the portable wireless device via wireless communication.
  • The software program enables the portable device to use the computing power of the control board.
  • The portable device is capable of accessing the increased computational power of the additional device.
  • The control board provides a specific, significant increase in floating-point performance relative to the portable device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "Splashtop's Personal Remote Access system" as the accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides very little detail on the specific functionality or architecture of the accused system. It is identified as a "Personal Remote Access system," which suggests a software product that allows one device to remotely access and control another, but no further technical description is offered in the complaint itself (Compl. ¶11). The complaint makes no specific allegations regarding the product's market position or commercial importance.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused Splashtop products "practice the technology claimed by the '014 Patent" (Compl. ¶17). It states that claim charts demonstrating this infringement are attached as Exhibit 2, and it incorporates these charts by reference (Compl. ¶¶17-18). However, the complaint itself does not contain a narrative, element-by-element breakdown of its infringement theory. As the referenced exhibit is not provided with the complaint document, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The core of the infringement allegation appears to be that the Splashtop system functions as a "supplemental capacity unit" by allowing a local device to leverage the resources of a remote computer, thereby satisfying the elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Structural Questions: A primary issue may be whether the accused "Personal Remote Access system," which is likely a software-based service for connecting two general-purpose computers, meets the claim requirement for a "supplemental capacity unit." The patent repeatedly illustrates this unit as a dedicated, standalone hardware device with a specific physical housing and internal components (’014 Patent, Figs. 1, 6, 7). The infringement allegation raises the question of whether the claims can be construed to read on a system where the "supplemental capacity" is provided by another user's personal computer rather than a dedicated accessory device.
  • Functional Questions: The complaint's theory will depend on proving that the Splashtop system performs the specific functions as claimed. This raises the question of whether the accused system's software is "installed on" the portable device in a manner that "enables the at least one portable wireless device to use computing power of said electronic control board" as described in the patent (’014 Patent, col. 6:29-34). The specific mechanism of resource offloading and control will be a central technical question.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "supplemental capacity unit"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the invention itself. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the patent covers only dedicated hardware accessories, as depicted, or also extends to software-based remote access systems that connect two standard computers. The dispute may hinge on whether Splashtop's system, which facilitates access to a remote PC, can be considered a "supplemental capacity unit" for a local device.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "wireless device control unit" as a physical object with a "housing," "case," "front panel," and internal hardware like a "hard drive" and "power supply" (’014 Patent, col. 4:1-4, 20-22; Fig. 7). This could support an argument that the term is limited to a tangible, standalone hardware accessory.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is functional. A party might argue that any external system, whether a dedicated box or a remote general-purpose computer, that "supplements" the "capacity" of a portable device falls within the plain meaning of the term, regardless of its specific physical form.

• The Term: "communication software program being... installed on at least one portable wireless device"

  • Context and Importance: This term is key to the mechanism of infringement. The nature of the "installation" could be a significant point of contention. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern remote access tools may use thin clients, browser plugins, or temporary applets, which may or may not meet a specific definition of "installed."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent details a specific sequence where the software is downloaded and an "INSTALLATION COMMENCE, or setup is initialized by the portable wireless device" occurs, after which the "communication software program 16 is installed on the portable wireless device" (’014 Patent, col. 5:61-66; Fig. 8). This may suggest a permanent, conventional software installation process.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "installed" without further qualification. A party could argue this term should be given its broad, ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing the loading of any executable code that enables the claimed functionality, even if temporary.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Splashtop distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging that Splashtop sells the products knowing they will be used to infringe (Compl. ¶16).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks a finding of willfulness but bases its allegation of knowledge solely on the filing of the lawsuit itself, stating that "service of this Complaint... constitutes actual knowledge" (Compl. ¶13). This appears to be a claim for post-suit, rather than pre-suit, willful infringement.

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

1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "supplemental capacity unit," which the patent specification and figures depict as a discrete physical hardware accessory, be construed to cover a remote access software system where the "supplemental" resource is another general-purpose computer? The outcome of this claim construction question may be dispositive.
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Assuming the claim scope is found to be broad enough, does the Splashtop software architecture function in the specific manner required by the claims? In particular, does it involve a "communication software program" being "installed" on a local device to enable it to "use the computing power" of the remote machine in the way the patent describes, including the claimed increases in performance? The complaint's lack of technical detail leaves this as a primary open question for discovery.