DCT

1:10-cv-23580

Motorola Mobility Inc v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:10-cv-23580, S.D. Fla., 10/06/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Apple's residency in the district and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims allegedly occurred there. The complaint further alleges personal jurisdiction based on Apple's significant contacts, including offering products for sale, operating retail stores, and having a registered agent within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a wide range of Defendant’s products and services—including the iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Mac computers, and the MobileMe and App Store services—infringes six patents related to mobile device antenna design, data synchronization, data filtering, and software usage control.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit involves foundational technologies for mobile communication devices and services, asserted at a time of intense competition and market growth in the smartphone and mobile computing sectors.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that two of the asserted patents have recently undergone or are undergoing ex parte reexamination at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The '006 Patent emerged from a first reexamination with an amended claim set confirmed as patentable, and a second reexamination was pending when the complaint was filed. The '531 Patent was also undergoing reexamination, with the USPTO having indicated its intent to confirm the patentability of all reexamined claims. These proceedings may be raised by the Plaintiff to suggest the patents' claims have withstood additional scrutiny.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1993-02-25 ’987 Patent Priority Date
1995-05-30 ’737 Patent Priority Date
1995-08-31 ’119 Patent Priority Date
1995-11-13 ’006 Patent Priority Date
1995-12-19 ’531 Patent Priority Date
1998-01-20 ’987 Patent Issue Date
1998-05-19 ’119 Patent Issue Date
1998-08-11 ’161 Patent Priority Date
1999-09-28 ’006 Patent Issue Date
1999-12-28 ’737 Patent Issue Date
2000-08-08 ’531 Patent Issue Date
2002-04-23 ’161 Patent Issue Date
2008-09-16 Reexamination requested for '006 Patent
2010-01-12 Reexamination certificate issued for '006 Patent
2010-05-10 Reexamination requested for '531 Patent
2010-05-28 Second reexamination requested for '006 Patent
2010-07-31 Asserted Patents assigned to Motorola Mobility, Inc.
2010-09-20 USPTO notice of intent to issue reexam certificate for '531 Patent
2010-10-06 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,710,987 - "Receiver Having Concealed External Antenna"

Issued January 20, 1998

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of incorporating a pager antenna into a combined radiotelephone/pager unit without degrading performance or increasing the device's size and complexity. Placing the pager antenna inside the radiotelephone's shielded housing would block signals, while adding a second visible external antenna would be aesthetically undesirable. (’987 Patent, col. 1:36-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes placing the pager antenna outside the device’s shielded housing but concealing it beneath a conventional external component, such as a hand grip, display lens, or keypad cover. The antenna is preferably configured as a loop that can surround a user interface element to conserve space, keeping it functional for reception but hidden from the user. (’987 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-59).
  • Technical Importance: This design enabled the integration of multiple wireless technologies into a single, compact device without the aesthetic and ergonomic compromises of multiple external antennas, a key challenge in the miniaturization of mobile devices. (’987 Patent, col. 1:21-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶58(a)). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention and recites:

  • A housing enclosing radiotelephone and pager circuitry.
  • A radiotelephone antenna coupled to the radiotelephone circuitry.
  • A pager antenna coupled to the pager circuitry.
  • Wherein the pager antenna forms a loop surrounding at least a portion of the user interface and is disposed between an outside surface of the housing and the at least a portion of the user interface.

U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119 - "Multiple Pager Status Synchronization System and Method"

Issued May 19, 1998

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: When a user possesses multiple pagers sharing the same address, actions performed on one device (such as reading or deleting a message) are not synchronized with the other devices. This requires the user to manually repeat these actions on each pager, creating a tedious and disjointed experience. (’119 Patent, col. 1:30-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system where a status change on a first device is transmitted to a central infrastructure, which in turn communicates the status change to the user's other devices. The other devices then automatically update to reflect the action taken on the first device, thereby synchronizing message status (e.g., read/unread) and other configuration data across the user's entire set of pagers. (’119 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-29).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provided an early solution to the "multi-device problem" by creating a unified state for user data across different physical endpoints, a foundational concept for modern cloud-based synchronization services. (’119 Patent, col. 2:1-3).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of one or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶58(a)). The method of independent claim 1 is representative and includes the steps of:

  • A wireless infrastructure transmitting a first message with a first status.
  • A first transceiver changing the status to a second status and transmitting a message indicating this change.
  • The infrastructure receiving the change and transmitting a third message reflecting the new status.
  • At least one other transceiver receiving the third message and updating its status accordingly.

U.S. Patent No. 5,958,006 - "Method and Apparatus for Communicating Summarized Data"

Issued September 28, 1999

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the cost and inefficiency of transferring data over wireless networks by proposing a system where a server first sends a "summary index" of available data to a remote device. The user can review this summary and request full or partial transfer of only the desired data, avoiding the need to download non-essential information. ('006 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and notes that claims 1, 12, and 24-27 were the subject of a reexamination request (Compl. ¶26, ¶58(a)).
  • Accused Features: Apple MobileMe service, iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, and iPad with 3G (Compl. ¶28).

U.S. Patent No. 6,008,737 - "Apparatus for Controlling Utilization of Software Added to a Portable Communication Device"

Issued December 28, 1999

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a security mechanism to prevent unauthorized use of software on a portable device. The device seeks usage authorization from a fixed network portion by sending a request, which may include a secure checksum of the software. The network validates the request and sends back an authorization, thereby controlling access to licensed applications. ('737 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶58(a)).
  • Accused Features: Apple App Store, iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, and iPad with 3G (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 6,101,531 - "System for Communicating User-Selected Criteria Filter Prepared at Wireless Client to Communication Server for Filtering Data Transferred from host to Said Wireless Client"

Issued August 8, 2000

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a system where a user on a wireless client can define and send a filter to a communication server. The server uses this filter to screen data from a host, transferring only the data matching the user's criteria to the wireless client, thereby optimizing data flow over the wireless link. ('531 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and notes that claims 1-3, 5-6, and 11 were the subject of a reexamination request (Compl. ¶43, ¶58(a)).
  • Accused Features: Apple MobileMe service, iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, and iPad with 3G (Compl. ¶45).

U.S. Patent No. 6,377,161 - "Method and Apparatus in a Wireless Messaging System for Facilitating an Exchange of Address Information"

Issued April 23, 2002

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for one portable messaging unit to send its address information to another. The receiving unit checks its internal address book to see if the information already exists and, if not, can prompt the user to save it, simplifying the exchange of contact details between users. ('161 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶58(a)).
  • Accused Features: Apple iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 4 (Compl. ¶53).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a broad array of Apple's hardware and software ecosystem, including multiple generations of the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch; the entire line of Mac computers (MacBook, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Pro); and the Apple MobileMe and App Store services (Compl. ¶18, ¶28, ¶36, ¶45, ¶53).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide technical descriptions of how the accused products and services operate. Instead, it makes general allegations that the instrumentalities, through their normal operation, practice the methods and contain the structures claimed in the asserted patents (e.g., Compl. ¶10, ¶18). The complaint targets a wide range of Apple’s flagship, commercially significant products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only general allegations of infringement without mapping specific features of the accused products to the elements of the asserted claims. Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the complaint's text.

Identified Points of Contention

  • For the '987 Patent: The central infringement question will be factual: does the accused Apple iPhone 4 contain a distinct "pager antenna" that is physically separate from its "radiotelephone antenna"? Further, is this antenna a "loop" concealed under a user interface element as required by claim 1? The analysis will depend on a detailed technical teardown and examination of the iPhone 4's internal hardware configuration.
  • For the '119 Patent: A primary issue will be whether the interaction between Apple's devices and its MobileMe service meets the specific steps of the claimed method. The analysis will focus on the sequence and content of data transmissions: does an action on one device (e.g., an iPhone) cause a status-change message to be sent to a server, which in turn transmits a corresponding update command to a second device (e.g., an iPad or Mac)? Proving this sequence of events will be a key evidentiary burden for the plaintiff.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '987 Patent

  • The Term: "pager antenna"
  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to infringement of the '987 patent. Its construction will determine whether the claim applies at all to modern smartphones. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant will likely argue that its devices use integrated, multi-band antennas and do not contain a distinct component that can be identified as a "pager antenna."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s background discusses the goal of combining a radiotelephone and a pager into a "single portable unit" (’987 Patent, col. 1:21-28). This context may support an interpretation where any antenna element within such a combined device that receives signals on paging frequencies could be considered a "pager antenna".
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures consistently depict the "radiotelephone antenna" (108) and the "pager antenna" (212) as structurally separate and distinct components, each coupled to its own circuitry (’987 Patent, Fig. 2; Abstract). This may support a narrower construction requiring a physically distinct antenna element dedicated to pager frequencies.

For the '119 Patent

  • The Term: "transceiver"
  • Context and Importance: The claims recite steps performed by a "first transceiver" and "at least one other transceiver." This term's scope is critical, as the patent was written in the context of pagers. Practitioners may focus on whether modern, general-purpose computing devices like iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks fall within the patent's understanding of a "transceiver".
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the invention as relating to "two-way communication devices" generally (’119 Patent, col. 1:4-6). This may support a broad, functional definition where any device capable of transmitting and receiving data qualifies as a "transceiver".
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Multiple Pager Status Synchronization System and Method", and the background, problem statement, and figures are exclusively focused on pagers (’119 Patent, col. 1:10-44; Fig. 1). This context may support a narrower construction limiting the term to dedicated messaging devices like pagers, as opposed to multi-function computers.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes general allegations of contributory and inducing infringement for each asserted patent (e.g., Compl. ¶10, ¶18). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and intent, such as referencing user manuals that instruct infringing use.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Apple's infringement of all asserted patents is willful and deliberate, but it does not provide a factual basis for this allegation, such as evidence of pre-suit notification or knowledge of the patents (e.g., Compl. ¶13, ¶21).

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

  • A key legal issue will be one of claim scope: can terms drafted in the context of 1990s technology, such as "pager antenna" and "transceiver", be construed to cover the integrated, multi-functional components of modern smartphones, tablets, and computers, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed technology and the accused products?
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: given the complaint's high-level allegations, can Motorola demonstrate through discovery that the specific hardware architecture and software protocols of Apple's diverse product ecosystem perform the precise functions and contain the particular structures required by the asserted claims?
  • For the patents covering system-level interactions (e.g., '119, '006, '531), a critical question will be one of attribution and control: can Motorola prove that Apple itself performs all the required steps of the claimed methods, or alternatively, that it directs or controls its customers' actions through its services (e.g., MobileMe, App Store) in a manner that constitutes infringement by a single entity?