DCT

1:23-cv-00122

LiTL LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00122, D. Del., 10/16/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because LiTL LLC initiated the underlying action in this district, thereby submitting to the court's jurisdiction.
  • Core Dispute: Intervenor-Plaintiff Microsoft seeks a declaratory judgment that its Windows Operating System does not infringe five patents owned by LiTL, following LiTL's lawsuit against Microsoft's customer, ASUS, which alleges infringement by ASUS devices running Windows.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to the mechanical configurations of portable computers and methods for streamlining graphical user interfaces, technologies central to the market for modern laptops, tablets, and 2-in-1 convertible devices.
  • Key Procedural History: LiTL LLC filed its original complaint against ASUS on February 1, 2023. Microsoft, citing defense and indemnity obligations to its customer, filed this complaint in intervention to seek a declaration of non-infringement for its Windows Operating System. Post-filing administrative proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have impacted at least two of the patents-in-suit: an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the '888' patent resulted in the disclaimer of the sole asserted claim, while an Ex Parte Reexamination of the '154' patent confirmed the patentability of the asserted claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-04-01 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2013-12-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888 Issues
2015-04-07 U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315 Issues
2018-01-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715 Issues
2019-05-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,289,154 Issues
2020-02-18 U.S. Patent No. 10,564,818 Issues
2023-02-01 LiTL LLC Files Original Complaint Against ASUS
2023-10-16 Microsoft Corporation Files Complaint in Intervention
2025-02-07 Reexamination Certificate for '154 Patent Confirms Claims
2025-04-23 Inter Partes Review Certificate for '888 Patent Disclaims Claim 27

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,289,154 - "Portable Computer with Multiple Display Configurations"

  • Issued: May 14, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the functional limitations of conventional "clam-shell" portable computers and notes that existing hybrid tablet computers often require "an arm assembly, nor multiple, different hinge assemblies" to switch between modes (US 10,289,154 B2, col. 2:27-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable computer with a display and a base coupled by a hinge assembly that permits rotation about a single longitudinal axis. This allows the device to be configured between a standard "laptop mode" and an "easel mode," where the computer stands upright in an inverted "V" shape, without complex mechanical parts (US 10,289,154 B2, col. 2:16-25; Abstract). The system also uses an orientation sensor to automatically adjust the display content when the mode is changed (US 10,289,154 B2, col. 8:55-63).
  • Technical Importance: The design sought to create a more seamless and flexible user experience, allowing a single device to easily transition between productivity-oriented (laptop) and media-consumption-oriented (easel) physical configurations (US 10,289,154 B2, col. 6:9-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint states that LiTL has asserted independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 11 include:
    • A portable computer configurable between a first mode (e.g., laptop), a second mode (e.g., easel), and a third mode (e.g., frame).
    • A display component with a display screen and a camera.
    • A base with a keyboard, touchpad, and power button.
    • A hinge assembly that rotatably couples the base and display, permitting rotation up to at least 270 degrees from a closed position.
    • An orientation sensor that generates orientation information.
    • A display manager configured to detect the current display mode based on the orientation information 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."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,564,818 - "System and Method for Streamlining User Interaction with Electronic Content"

  • Issued: February 18, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies user frustration with "feature packing," where the complexity and sheer volume of features on computers and online services hampers usability and adoption by typical users (US 10,564,818 B2, col. 1:53-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a streamlined graphical user interface that organizes interface elements into different "modes of content" (e.g., media, web, channels) and presents them in different "views" (e.g., home view, channel view). This interface is designed to be responsive to the physical configuration of the device, simplifying user interaction by reducing the number of options a user must navigate (US 10,564,818 B2, col. 2:49-62; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to create a more holistic and less confusing user experience by providing a consistent, simplified interface that adapts to the user's context, contrasting with traditional desktop interfaces that can be overwhelming (US 10,564,818 B2, col. 2:21-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint states that LiTL has asserted independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A method performed by a processor comprising steps of:
    • displaying a plurality of views of visual representations of computer content;
    • detecting a current computer system configuration from at least a first configuration (e.g., laptop) and a second configuration (e.g., easel or frame) where the keyboard is respectively operable or inoperable;
    • selecting one of the plurality of views for display in response to the detected configuration;
    • transitioning to the selected view; and
    • displaying the selected view.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315, "System and Method for Streamlining User Interaction with Electronic Content," issued April 7, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a graphical user interface that organizes content into different views and modes. The system is designed to be responsive to the device's physical configuration and aims to simplify user interaction by presenting a summarized view of available actions and content (US 9,003,315 B2, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 17 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Accused Features: The user interface features of the Windows Operating System are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶13).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715

  • 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: Similar to the '315 and '818 patents, this patent discloses a graphical user interface that organizes content into views and modes to simplify user interaction. The interface is described as being responsive to the device's physical configuration to provide a more streamlined user experience (US 9,880,715 B2, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Accused Features: The user interface features of the Windows Operating System are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶14).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888, "Method and Apparatus for Managing Digital Media Content," issued December 17, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a streamlined computer device and user interface tailored for managing digital media content. The system provides for different views of the media content and transitions between those views in response to user selection of different I/O profiles, which may be tied to the device's physical configuration (US 8,612,888 B2, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 27 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Accused Features: The user interface features of the Windows Operating System are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: Microsoft's Windows Operating System (Compl. ¶8).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that graphical user interface features of the Windows Operating System, when incorporated into computer products sold by Microsoft's customer ASUS, form the basis of LiTL's infringement claims (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 11). The allegations implicate core functionalities of the Windows OS, such as its ability to adapt the user interface when a device's physical configuration changes (e.g., a 2-in-1 laptop converting to a tablet or tent mode) and its general methods for organizing and presenting applications and content to the user (Compl. ¶11). The Windows Operating System is a dominant product in the personal computing market.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not contain affirmative infringement allegations or claim charts. It asserts that LiTL's infringement claims against ASUS, which are based on the functionality of the Windows Operating System, create a justiciable controversy between Microsoft and LiTL (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19). The analysis below summarizes LiTL's likely infringement theory as can be inferred from Microsoft's complaint.

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,289,154 Infringement Allegations

    • LiTL's infringement theory, as relayed in the complaint, appears to be that the combination of ASUS hardware and the Windows Operating System meets the limitations of claim 11 of the '154 patent (Compl. ¶12). A central element of this theory may be that when a convertible ASUS device is physically changed from a laptop mode to a different configuration (such as a tent or tablet mode), the Windows OS acts as the claimed "display manager." This would involve Windows using data from an "orientation sensor" to detect the mode change and automatically altering the display, which LiTL would argue constitutes "enlarg[ing] at least some computer content" as required by the claim (Compl. ¶12).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,564,818 Infringement Allegations

    • The complaint indicates that LiTL's infringement theory for the '818 patent relies on the user interface features of the Windows Operating System (Compl. ¶15). This theory likely contends that the Windows UI itself—including features like the Desktop, Start Menu, and Tablet Mode—constitutes the claimed method of displaying a "plurality of views." The infringement allegation would further assert that Windows' functionality for detecting a change in the physical configuration of a device (e.g., from laptop to tablet mode) and automatically switching the UI paradigm satisfies the claim elements of "detecting a current computer system configuration" and "selecting one of the plurality of views for display in response" (Compl. ¶15).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: A central question for the '154 patent will be one of definitional scope: do the various operational modes of modern convertible devices running Windows, such as "tablet mode" or "tent mode," fall within the patent's definition of a "second mode" or "third mode" (e.g., "easel mode," "frame mode"). For the '818, '315, and '715 patents, a key question is whether the organizational structures of the Windows UI, such as the Desktop or Start Menu, can be mapped onto the patents' specific concepts of a "home view" that organizes distinct "modes of content."
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for the '154 patent will be whether the Windows OS performs the specific function of "enlarg[ing] at least some computer content" when a device's mode changes. Does a switch to a touch-optimized interface with potentially larger icons meet this limitation, or does the claim require a more literal magnification of pre-existing content? For the patents on streamlining user interaction, a technical question is whether Windows' mode-switching is merely a change in input method (touch vs. keyboard) or if it constitutes the claimed "transitioning to [a] selected one of the plurality of views."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "enlarge at least some computer content" ('154 Patent, claim 11)
  • Context and Importance: The resolution of the infringement question for the '154 patent may turn on the construction of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because Microsoft's non-infringement argument could be that the Windows OS reconfigures or rearranges content for a different mode (e.g., tablet mode) but does not necessarily "enlarge" it in the manner required by the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses providing "different display formats and functionality in the different modes" and a "holistic user experience" (US 10,289,154 B2, col. 6:17-21), which could support a construction where any UI adjustment that makes content more suitable for a new mode, such as making touch targets larger, constitutes "enlarging."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example where, in easel mode, the display "automatically adjust[s] to 'full screen view' (i.e., the displayed image or video is displayed on the full screen size, rather than in a window)" (US 10,289,154 B2, col. 14:63-67). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific change in content size, such as moving from a windowed to a full-screen display.
  • The Term: "home view" ('818 Patent, claim 5, dependent on claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The infringement analysis for the '818 patent family will likely depend on whether any component of the Windows UI, such as the Desktop or the Start Menu, meets the definition of the claimed "home view." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent appears to describe a specific UI paradigm that may be structurally different from that of Windows.
  • 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" (US 10,564,818 B2, col. 11:63-64), language which could plausibly be argued to describe the function of the Windows Desktop.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 12 of the patent depicts a specific "home" screen organized as a series of bars labeled "Apps," "Media," "Connect," "Web," and "Channels" (US 10,564,818 B2, Fig. 12; col. 12:55-57). This specific embodiment could be used to argue that the term "home view" is limited to this particular organizational structure, which is not present in the standard Windows UI.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration that Microsoft does not infringe "either directly or indirectly" (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 27, 31, 35, 39). The complaint does not, however, allege specific facts that would form the basis of a potential indirect infringement claim by LiTL.

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

  • A core issue will be one of functional equivalence: does the Windows Operating System's behavior when a convertible device changes its physical posture—such as switching to Tablet Mode—perform the specific functions required by the claims, particularly the "enlarging" of content in the '154 patent and the "transitioning" between distinct "views" in the '818 patent family?
  • A second key issue will be one of definitional mapping: can the structural and organizational elements of the patents' user interfaces, such as the "easel mode" and the "home view," be construed to read on the actual functionalities and UI paradigms implemented in the accused Windows Operating System, or is there a fundamental architectural mismatch?
  • A threshold question for the '888 patent will be claim viability: given that an Inter Partes Review certificate disclaimed the sole asserted claim (Claim 27) after the filing of this complaint, the court will need to address whether any case or controversy regarding infringement of this patent remains.