DCT

1:24-cv-01337

MyPort Tech Inc v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01337, D. Del., 10/10/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts that venue is proper because it is a Delaware corporation and Defendant Apple maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically citing the operation of an Apple retail store in Newark, Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones and tablets, including the iPhone and iPad product lines, infringe patents related to the automated capture of multimedia content and the generation of searchable metadata through speech-to-text and image recognition, which is then associated with the media for storage and retrieval.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of organizing and searching large digital photo and video libraries on personal devices by automatically creating contextual, searchable tags for media files.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the same patents-in-suit were previously asserted against Samsung, resulting in a license. In that litigation, a district court reportedly denied a summary judgment motion of patent ineligibility, finding "outstanding fact issues under Step 2 of Alice." Plaintiff also alleges it sent a notice letter with claim charts to Apple on October 13, 2020, and that the parties had engaged in licensing discussions regarding related patents as early as 2011.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-09-30 Earliest Priority Date for Patents-in-Suit
2013-03-13 Apple files patent application for "Voice-Based Image Tagging and Searching"
2014-09-19 Representative Accused Product Launch (iPhone 6)
2017-11-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,832,017 Issues
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,067 Issues
2020-07-21 U.S. Patent No. 10,721,066 Issues
2020-10-13 MyPort sends Notice Letter to Apple
2025-10-10 Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,832,017 - "Apparatus for personal voice assistant, location services, multi-media capture, transmission, speech to text conversion, photo/video image/object recognition, creation of searchable metatag(s)/ contextual tag(s), storage and search retrieval"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,832,017, "Apparatus for personal voice assistant, location services, multi-media capture, transmission, speech to text conversion, photo/video image/object recognition, creation of searchable metatag(s)/ contextual tag(s), storage and search retrieval," issued November 28, 2017 (the “'017 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the problem that the proliferation of digital media files on personal devices made it "nearly impossible to manually describe and index every media file" (’017 Patent, col. 2:31-35). Furthermore, when media files were transferred between devices, any associated metadata was often stripped, rendering large collections "effectively unsearchable" (’017 Patent, col. 2:49-59; Compl. ¶26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system within a capture device that automates the creation of searchable metadata. The system uses hardware like a microphone and camera to capture audio and image data, respectively (’017 Patent, Fig. 2). It then employs distinct "data converters" to process this information: a first converter processes and stores the raw audio and image data, while a second converter analyzes the content to generate searchable tags, such as converting speech to a "text context tag" and using image recognition to create an "image recognition searchable context tag" (’017 Patent, col. 11:25-33). These tags are then stored in association with the digital image, making the media library searchable by its content (’017 Patent, col. 3:35-58).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for automating the creation of durable, content-based metadata for media files, intended to solve the problems of manual organization and the loss of searchability when files are transferred (Compl. ¶¶21-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 13 and one or more of its dependents (Compl. ¶40).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 13 include:
    • A capture device with internal storage, a microphone, and a camera.
    • A "first data converter" for capturing external audio from the microphone and processing both the captured audio and image, storing them as digital audio and a digital image.
    • A "second data converter" for converting the stored digital audio into a "text context tag" and creating an "image recognition searchable context tag" from the digital image.
    • The second data converter "associating" the generated text and image tags with the digital image.
    • The internal storage storing the digital image "in association with" the text and image tags.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,067 - "Apparatus for voice assistant, location tagging, multi-media capture, transmission, speech to text conversion, photo/video image/object recognition, creation of searchable metatags/ contextual tags, storage and search retrieval"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,237,067, "Apparatus for voice assistant, location tagging, multi-media capture, transmission, speech to text conversion, photo/video image/object recognition, creation of searchable metatags/ contextual tags, storage and search retrieval," issued March 19, 2019 (the “'067 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As part of the same patent family and sharing a common specification, the '067 Patent addresses the same problems of manually indexing large media libraries and the loss of metadata during file transfers (’067 Patent, col. 2:30-59; Compl. ¶25, fn. 2).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively similar to that of the ’017 Patent, describing a system that uses a device's hardware and software to automatically generate searchable tags from media content (’067 Patent, col. 3:50-4:44). The claims of this patent add a specific limitation for capturing and storing location and time information (e.g., from a GPS unit) as "captured data" and associating the generated tags with both the image and this additional captured data (’067 Patent, col. 11:52-64).
  • Technical Importance: This invention extended the automated metadata concept to explicitly include time and location data, allowing media to be searched and organized not only by its content but also by when and where it was captured (Compl. ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 6 and one or more of its dependents (Compl. ¶55).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 6 are similar to claim 13 of the ’017 Patent, with the addition of:
    • A "data capture device" for capturing and storing location and time information associated with the image capture as "stored captured data."
    • A "media data converter" that associates the generated text and image tags with both the digital image and the captured data (i.e., the location/time information).
    • The internal storage storing the digital image in association with the tags in addition to the stored captured data.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶56).

U.S. Patent No. 10,721,066 - "Method for voice assistant, location tagging, multi-media capture, transmission, speech to text conversion, photo/video image/object recognition, creation of searchable metatags/contextual tags, storage and search retrieval"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,721,066, "Method for voice assistant, location tagging, multi-media capture, transmission, speech to text conversion, photo/video image/object recognition, creation of searchable metatags/contextual tags, storage and search retrieval," issued July 21, 2020 (the “'066 Patent”).
  • Technology Synopsis: Belonging to the same patent family, the '066 Patent claims a method for automatically creating and associating searchable metadata with digital media. The method comprises the steps of capturing audio and image information, capturing associated location and time data, using data converters to process the captured audio into text tags and create image recognition tags, and storing the digital image in association with these tags and the captured location/time data (Compl. ¶¶ 72-81).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 13 and one or more of its dependents (Compl. ¶71).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the processes performed by Apple's iPhones and iPads, such as using the Dictation feature for speech-to-text, the Photos app's image recognition and search capabilities, and the geotagging of photos, which collectively are alleged to practice the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶ 72-81).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies a broad range of Apple's smartphones and tablets as the "Accused Products," including iPhone models from the iPhone 6 through the iPhone 15 and various iPad models (Compl. ¶34). The iPad Mini 5 is used as a specific, non-limiting example throughout the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶41).

Functionality and Market Context

The relevant functionality of the Accused Products is the integrated system that allows users to manage and search their media libraries. The complaint alleges this is accomplished through features such as on-device Dictation, which converts a user's speech into text, and the Photos application's search function, which uses machine learning to automatically identify and tag objects, scenes, people, and text within images (Compl. ¶47). The complaint further alleges that the Accused Products capture location and time data via GPS and associate this information with photos (geotagging) (Compl. ¶62). This collection of metadata (from speech, image recognition, and location/time) is allegedly stored in association with the corresponding image, enabling users to perform complex searches of their photo library using keywords, as depicted in a screenshot from an Apple support document showing search suggestions like "Pescadero in the Summer" and "Scooter in 2024" (Compl. p. 24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’017 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a capture device having: internal storage; a microphone... and a first data converter... a camera... The Accused Products contain internal storage, microphones, and cameras as standard hardware components. ¶¶41-43, 45 col. 4:1-6
the first data converter processing the captured external audio information and storing it in a first digital audio format... the camera for processing the captured image and storing it as a stored digital image The Accused Products' processor and software (e.g., Core Audio framework) capture audio from the microphone and store it as digital audio data, while the camera system processes and stores images as digital files. ¶46 col. 4:1-14
a second data converter for converting the received digital audio to a text based searchable file as a text context tag and creating an image recognition searchable context tag... and associating the... tags with the digital image... The Accused Products utilize the Speech framework to perform speech-to-text conversion (creating a text tag) and machine learning for image recognition in the Photos app (creating an image tag), and make these tags searchable in relation to the image. A screenshot shows Apple’s support page for text dictation (Compl. p. 16). ¶47 col. 5:39-58
the internal storage storing the digital image in association with the text and image recognition context tags. The internal flash memory of the Accused Products stores the digital image and its associated searchable metadata, allowing users to search their photo library by content. ¶48 col. 6:44-50

’067 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a capture device having: internal storage; a microphone... and a first data converter... a camera... The Accused Products contain internal storage, microphones, and cameras as standard hardware components. ¶¶56-58, 60 col. 4:1-6
a data capture device for capturing, as captured data, location information, and time information associated with... the image and storing the captured data as stored captured data The Accused Products are equipped with GPS/GNSS hardware and use Location Services to automatically capture and store location and time data with an image (geotagging). A screenshot of the device’s technical specifications explicitly lists "Photo geotagging" and "Built-in GPS/GNSS" (Compl. p. 38). ¶62 col. 4:20-24
a media data converter for converting the... digital audio to a... text context tag and creating an image recognition... context tag... and associating the... tags with the digital image and the captured data The Accused Products' software allegedly associates the generated text tags (from speech) and image recognition tags with both the image file and its captured location/time data, enabling searches by content, place, or date. A screenshot of the Photos search interface illustrates this functionality (Compl. p. 39). ¶63 col. 5:39-58
the internal storage storing the digital image in association with the... context tags in addition to the stored captured data. The internal storage of the Accused Products stores the digital image in association with the content-based tags as well as the captured location and time data. ¶64 col. 6:44-50
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential point of dispute may be whether the term "associating... with the digital image" requires metadata to be embedded directly into the image file itself, or if it can be read more broadly to cover a system where metadata is stored in a separate database and linked to the image file. The patent specification discusses embedding via steganography to solve the problem of metadata loss on transfer, which may suggest a narrower scope is intended (’067 Patent, col. 4:25-34).
    • Technical Questions: The claims recite distinct "first" and "second" data converters. The complaint maps these structures to "relevant portions of the processor and associated software" (Compl. ¶46). A key technical question will be whether Apple's integrated software frameworks can be discretely mapped onto the separate converter structures recited in the claims, or if there is a functional and structural mismatch.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "data converter" (’017 Patent, cl. 13; ’067 Patent, cl. 6)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central as the claims require a "first data converter" and a "second data converter" (or "media data converter") performing different functions. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether Apple's software architecture, which integrates various functions, can be said to contain these distinct structural elements. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a highly integrated software system can be mapped onto the patent's more delineated block-diagram-style architecture.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a "data converter is any type of device that will capture the information and place it in some type of digitized format" (’017 Patent, col. 4:6-9), language which could support interpreting the term to encompass software modules.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same section provides hardware-specific examples, such as a "digital camera" and "digital video recorder (DVR)" (’017 Patent, col. 4:4-6). Figure 1 of the patent depicts the converters as distinct functional blocks (102, 108), which may support an argument that they must be structurally discrete components, whether hardware or software.

  • The Term: "associating the text and image recognition context tags with the digital image" (’017 Patent, cl. 13)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of "associating" is critical because it addresses how the generated metadata is linked to the image file. The dispute will likely center on whether linking via a separate library database, as is common in modern operating systems, meets this limitation, or if a more direct form of combination or embedding is required.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The overall goal is to make files searchable; any persistent linking that achieves this could be argued to fall within the term's scope. The abstract describes a "remote processing system" with a "database," which may support a non-embedded form of association (’017 Patent, Abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes solving the problem of tags being "removed from the media file" upon transfer (’017 Patent, col. 2:66-67). It also discloses techniques like "steganography to permanently and indelibly embed the meta data directly into the data element" and creating a "composite element" (’017 Patent, col. 4:25-27, col. 4:55). This language may support an argument that "associating with" requires a form of data integration that makes the metadata inseparable from the image file during transfer.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). It asserts that Apple encourages infringement by providing user guides, instruction manuals, and demonstrations of the infringing features, citing screenshots from Apple's support website as examples of such instructional materials (Compl. ¶50, ¶66, ¶84).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Apple’s purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least the receipt of a notice letter on October 13, 2020 (Compl. ¶35). It further alleges that Apple "knew or should have known" of the patents even earlier, based on alleged 2011 licensing discussions on related patents and Apple's own 2013 patent application directed to similar technology (Compl. ¶36, ¶49).

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

  • A central issue will be one of structural mapping: Can the complaint demonstrate that Apple's highly integrated software architecture, which utilizes frameworks like Core Audio and Speech, contains the distinct "first data converter" and "second data converter" structures as required by the independent claims, or will the court find a fundamental mismatch between the patent’s described components and the accused system's implementation?
  • The case will also likely turn on a question of definitional scope: Does the claim limitation "associating... with the digital image" require the metadata to be embedded within the image file itself—as suggested by the specification’s focus on preventing data loss on transfer—or can it be construed more broadly to cover a modern operating system's approach of linking an image file to its metadata in a separate system database?