DCT
1:23-cv-00121
LiTL LLC v. Dell Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
- Defendant: LiTL LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perkins Coie LLP; Richards Layton & Finger, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00121, D. Del., 10/16/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because LiTL LLC initiated the underlying litigation by filing its original complaint in this district.
- Core Dispute: Microsoft, as Intervenor-Plaintiff, seeks a declaratory judgment that its Windows Operating System does not infringe five patents asserted by LiTL LLC against Microsoft's customer, Dell Inc., which relate to convertible laptop computers and graphical user interfaces.
- Technical Context: The patents address both the mechanical hardware configurations of convertible laptops and the graphical user interface (GUI) elements for interacting with content on such devices, a technology area central to the modern portable computing market.
- Key Procedural History: This action arises from a prior lawsuit filed by LiTL against Dell. Microsoft has intervened, citing its defense and indemnity obligations to Dell for the accused Windows Operating System. Several of the patents-in-suit have a significant post-grant history: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,289,154 and 8,289,688 have undergone ex parte reexamination, with claims being confirmed. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,612,888 and 8,624,844 have been subject to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, resulting in the disclaimer of numerous claims, which may narrow the scope of the remaining asserted claims in this litigation. All asserted patents are also subject to terminal disclaimers.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-04-01 | Earliest Priority Date for all five patents-in-suit (’154, ’818, ’715, ’315, ’888) |
| 2012-10-16 | U.S. Patent 8289688 Issues |
| 2013-12-17 | U.S. Patent 8612888 Issues |
| 2014-01-07 | U.S. Patent 8624844 Issues |
| 2015-04-07 | U.S. Patent 9,003,315 Issues |
| 2018-01-30 | U.S. Patent 9,880,715 Issues |
| 2019-05-14 | U.S. Patent 10289154 Issues |
| 2020-02-18 | U.S. Patent 10,564,818 Issues |
| 2023-02-01 | LiTL LLC files original complaint against Dell |
| 2023-05-08 | LiTL LLC files First Amended Complaint against Dell |
| 2023-10-16 | Microsoft Corporation files Complaint in Intervention |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,289,154 - "Portable computer with multiple display configurations"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional "clam-shell" laptops as having limited positional modes. It notes that prior hybrid tablet computers often required complex "arm assembly" or multiple, different hinge mechanisms to switch between laptop and tablet configurations (’154 Patent, col. 1:43-66; col. 2:1-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable computer that can be configured between a traditional laptop mode and an "easel mode," where the base and display form an inverted "V" shape (’154 Patent, Abstract). This is accomplished using a single hinge assembly that permits the display to rotate about a longitudinal axis more than 180 degrees relative to the base (’154 Patent, col. 2:16-34). The solution also includes an orientation sensor that automatically reorients the display content when the device is changed to easel mode, ensuring the content appears right-side up to the user (’154 Patent, col. 8:46-64).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to simplify the mechanical design of convertible computers, making them more robust and intuitive to transform between different use modes.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint notes that LiTL’s underlying action against Dell asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’154 Patent (Compl. ¶12). Microsoft seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any claim, including claim 11 (Compl. ¶23). Claim 1 is the asserted independent claim.
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
- A portable computer configurable between a first mode and a second mode.
- A display component with a screen, and a base with a keyboard and touchpad.
- A hinge assembly coupling the base and display, permitting rotation up to at least 270 degrees from a closed position.
- An orientation sensor to generate orientation information.
- A display manager that detects the current display mode and enlarges computer content when transitioning from the first to the second mode.
- The display component is in a first position in the first mode and a different second position in the second mode.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315 - "System and method for streamlining user interaction with electronic content"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses user frustration with the increasing complexity and "myriad configurations and options" of modern computer systems and online services, which can hamper adoption and usability by ordinary users (’818 Patent, col. 1:43-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a streamlined graphical user interface (GUI) to simplify user interaction. It organizes content and applications into a "map based user interface" composed of a "plurality of views" containing "visual representations" (e.g., cards or tiles) of content (’315 Patent, col. 3:1-15). This hierarchical structure is intended to reduce the number of options a user must navigate at any one time, providing a more intuitive overview of the computing environment (’315 Patent, col. 21:1-15).
- Technical Importance: This patent describes a GUI paradigm focused on simplifying navigation, a central design goal in operating systems aiming for broader consumer accessibility.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts that Microsoft seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of Claims 1 and 17 (Compl. ¶27).
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
- A computer system with a display, processor, and user interface.
- A first user interface component to display a plurality of views of visual representations of computer content.
- A second user interface component to display the visual representations themselves.
- An execution component to transition the display between the plurality of views.
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 17 (Method Claim):
- A method for presenting a customized user interface.
- Displaying a graphical user interface with a plurality of views of visual representations.
- Executing a transition in the display between the plurality of views in response to a computer system configuration or user interaction.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
Multi-Patent Capsule Analysis
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715, "System and method for streamlining user interaction with electronic content," issued January 30, 2018.
Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’315 Patent, describes a streamlined GUI that organizes computer functions into different "views" and "modes" of content. The system aims to simplify user interaction by presenting a summarized view of available actions and content, and is designed to be responsive to the physical configuration of the device (e.g., laptop versus easel mode).
Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶14).
Accused Features: Graphical user interface features of the Windows Operating System (Compl. ¶14).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,564,818, "System and method for streamlining user interaction with electronic content," issued February 18, 2020.
Technology Synopsis: This patent, also related to the ’315 Patent, discloses a GUI that organizes interface elements into different "modes of content" presented in various "views." The system is designed to be responsive to the device's physical configuration and user activity, simplifying the interface to reduce the number of options a user must navigate.
Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
Accused Features: Graphical user interface features of the Windows Operating System (Compl. ¶15).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888, "Method and apparatus for managing digital media content," issued December 17, 2013.
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a GUI for managing digital media libraries on a streamlined computing device. The interface provides different "views" (e.g., an album view and a timeline view) to organize and present media content. The system is tailored to the device's specific input/output profile to simplify user interaction with media.
Asserted Claims: Claim 27 (Compl. ¶16).
Accused Features: Graphical user interface features of the Windows Operating System (Compl. ¶16).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: Microsoft's Windows Operating System (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 17).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that certain "graphical user interface features" of the Windows Operating System, when running on Dell computer products, perform the functions claimed by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 17). The complaint does not specify which versions of the Windows Operating System or which particular user interface features are accused. The Windows Operating System is the dominant operating system for personal computers globally, and its user interface is the primary means by which users interact with their devices.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'154 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A portable computer configurable between a plurality of display modes comprising a first mode and a second mode, the portable computer comprising: | Functionality provided by the Windows Operating System as incorporated into Dell computer products. | ¶12, ¶17 | col. 17:10-13 |
| a display component comprising a display screen; a base comprising a keyboard and a touchpad; | Functionality provided by the Windows Operating System as incorporated into Dell computer products. | ¶12, ¶17 | col. 17:14-15 |
| a hinge assembly that rotatably couples the base to the display component, the hinge assembly being configured to permit the display component to rotate relative to the base up to at least 270 degrees from a closed position where the display screen faces the keyboard; | Functionality provided by the Windows Operating System as incorporated into Dell computer products. | ¶12, ¶17 | col. 17:16-21 |
| an orientation sensor configured to generate orientation information indicative of an orientation of at least part of the portable computer; and | Functionality provided by the Windows Operating System as incorporated into Dell computer products. | ¶12, ¶17 | col. 17:22-25 |
| a display manager configured to detect a current display mode...and enlarge at least some computer content displayed on the display screen when the current display mode transitions from the first mode to the second mode... | User interface features of the Windows Operating System, which allegedly respond to device configuration changes. | ¶11, ¶12 | col. 17:26-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether Microsoft, as a software provider, can be held liable for direct infringement of a claim that includes explicit hardware elements such as a "hinge assembly" and an "orientation sensor." The allegations against Microsoft's software for these hardware-specific limitations suggest a potential mismatch between the accused instrumentality and the claimed invention, which may raise issues of divided infringement.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how the Windows "display manager" is alleged to meet the specific "enlarge at least some computer content" limitation upon transitioning between modes.
'315 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| In a computer system comprising a computer display, a processor, and a user interface for streamlining user interaction with electronic content, a method comprising: | User interface features of the Windows Operating System. | ¶11, ¶13 | col. 70:39-42 |
| displaying... a first user interface component configured to display a plurality of views of a plurality of visual representations of computer content... | User interface features of the Windows Operating System. | ¶11, ¶13 | col. 70:43-46 |
| displaying... a second user interface component configured to display the plurality of visual representations of computer content on the computer display... | User interface features of the Windows Operating System. | ¶11, ¶13 | col. 70:47-50 |
| executing, by the at least one processor, an execution component... configured to execute a transition in the computer system display between the plurality of views... responsive to at least one of a computer system configuration... | User interface features of the Windows Operating System. | ¶11, ¶13 | col. 70:51-57 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute will likely focus on whether the user interface architecture of Windows falls within the scope of the patent's specific terminology. Questions will be raised as to whether standard Windows elements like the Start Menu, Task View, or application windows constitute a "map based user interface" with a "plurality of views" of "visual representations" as those terms are used and defined within the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify which features of Windows are alleged to function as the claimed "first user interface component," "second user interface component," and "execution component," making it difficult to assess the technical merits of the infringement theory.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "display manager" (’154 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term appears to be the primary software-based element in an otherwise hardware-reciting claim. Its construction will be critical in determining whether Microsoft's Windows OS can be liable for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether software that responds to hardware signals (from an "orientation sensor") can satisfy a limitation for an integrated system.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition, which may suggest the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the display manager to perform the specific functions of detecting a display mode and enlarging content upon a transition. The patent links this function to an "orientation (or mode) sensor" that detects if the device is in laptop or easel mode and adjusts the display "accordingly" (’154 Patent, col. 8:55-64). This linkage to the physical sensor could support a narrower construction tied to the specific hardware context described.
The Term: "map based user interface" (’315 Patent, Claim 1, preamble)
Context and Importance: This term defines the overall architecture of the claimed GUI. The central dispute for the GUI patents will likely be whether the Windows interface, which was developed independently, fits this specific "map based" paradigm. The patentability of the claims may rely on this specific architecture distinguishing it from prior art GUIs.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the "map user interface provides a clear overview of the entire computing environment" (’315 Patent, col. 21:1-3), which could be argued to describe any modern GUI home screen.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the interface as a "hierarchical mode that reduces the number of items to select amongst at any stage of navigation" (’315 Patent, col. 21:9-12) and provides specific diagrams (e.g., FIG. 11) showing a "home" screen leading to distinct "modes of content." This suggests a specific, structured hierarchy, which could be used to argue that the more flexible and varied Windows interface does not meet this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that Microsoft has not infringed "directly or indirectly" (Compl. ¶19). While Microsoft does not detail LiTL's indirect infringement theory, the act of suing the OS supplier for infringement occurring on a customer's device inherently suggests that theories of induced or contributory infringement are at issue in the underlying litigation.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not mention allegations of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of entity scope: can a software provider be held directly liable for infringing apparatus claims that recite specific, physically distinct hardware elements like a "hinge assembly" and an "orientation sensor"? This raises fundamental questions about whether the infringement allegations against Microsoft for the '154 patent are properly targeted or if they implicate unresolved issues of divided infringement.
- A key question of definitional scope will be central to the GUI patents: can the patents' specific "map based user interface" architecture, with its described hierarchy of "views" and "modes," be construed to cover the features and organizational principles of the Microsoft Windows Operating System, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their respective designs?
- An evidentiary question of technical operation remains open: the complaint provides no detail on which specific features of the Windows OS are accused of performing the functions of the claimed "display manager" or the various "user interface components." The viability of the infringement claims will depend on whether evidence shows a direct correspondence between the functionality of accused Windows features and the specific functions required by the patent claims.