DCT

1:10-cv-24063

Motorola Mobility Inc v. Microsoft Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:10-cv-24063, S.D. Fla., 11/10/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Microsoft has transacted business, committed tortious acts, and induced acts of patent infringement in the Southern District of Florida, and maintains a registered agent in Florida.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s operating systems, server software, mobile platforms, and messaging applications infringe seven patents related to software architecture, data communication optimization, and wireless data management.
  • Technical Context: The asserted patents cover foundational technologies in computer operating systems, mobile communications, and network efficiency developed from the late 1980s through the early 2000s.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history relevant to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1987-01-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,502,839
1995-11-13 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,764,899
1995-11-20 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,784,001
1996-03-26 U.S. Patent No. 5,502,839 Issued
1998-06-09 U.S. Patent No. 5,764,899 Issued
1998-07-21 U.S. Patent No. 5,784,001 Issued
1998-06-12 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,272,333 (filing date used as no earlier priority date listed)
1998-07-13 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,408,176 (filing date used as no earlier priority date listed)
2001-08-07 U.S. Patent No. 6,272,333 Issued
2001-08-15 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,757,544 (filing date used as no earlier priority date listed)
2001-11-27 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,983,370 (filing date used as no earlier priority date listed)
2002-06-18 U.S. Patent No. 6,408,176 Issued
2004-06-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,757,544 Issued
2006-01-03 U.S. Patent No. 6,983,370 Issued
2010-11-10 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,502,839 - "Object-Oriented Software Architecture Supporting Input/Output Device Independence"

Issued March 26, 1996 (’839 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge of creating a human interface for a computer system that can operate independently of the specific physical "real" devices (like keyboards, mice, or screens) connected to it ('839 Patent, col. 2:10-18). This allows software applications to be developed without being tied to particular hardware configurations.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a software architecture that uses "virtual" input and output devices as an intermediary layer between applications and physical hardware ('839 Patent, Abstract). An application interacts with a generic "virtual input device," which converts "real" physical inputs into a standardized format; similarly, the application sends output to a "virtual output device," which translates standard commands into signals for a specific physical screen or printer ('839 Patent, col. 2:33-40, Fig. 8). A "console manager" process coordinates these interactions, allowing physical devices to be changed without disrupting the system's operation ('839 Patent, col. 15:27-40).
  • Technical Importance: This architectural approach of abstracting hardware through a virtual layer was a key step in developing portable operating systems that could run on different types of computer hardware with minimal modification.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶15). The following analysis is based on Claim 1, a representative independent claim.
  • Claim 1 (Virtual Input Interface):
    • A virtual input interface in a data processing system.
    • Means for accepting input from at least one physical device.
    • Means for converting said physical device input into virtual input, where the virtual input comprises a "plurality of picture elements."
    • Each picture element comprises one or more data structures in a predetermined standard data format.
    • Means responsive to the virtual input for performing processing operations upon said virtual input, including a "console manager process."

U.S. Patent No. 5,764,899 - "Method And Apparatus For Communicating An Optimized Reply"

Issued June 9, 1998 (’899 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency and high cost of remote data communications, particularly email replies over expensive wireless networks, where resending all earlier messages in a conversation "are wasteful of bandwidth" ('899 Patent, col. 2:61-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to optimize replies by sending only the differences between a new reply and a preceding message ('899 Patent, Abstract). A remote unit's controller generates a "delta" representing the new content and combines it with an identifier for the preceding message to form an "optimized reply" ('899 Patent, col. 11:45-56). A communication server receives this optimized reply, uses the identifier to retrieve the full preceding message from a host server (e.g., a user's mailbox), reconstructs the full reply message from the delta and the preceding message, and then forwards the complete message to the final addressee ('899 Patent, col. 12:7-17, Fig. 9).
  • Technical Importance: This "delta compression" technique reduces the amount of data transmitted over bandwidth-constrained or high-cost networks, making mobile and remote communications more efficient and affordable.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶22). The following analysis is based on Claim 1, a representative independent system claim.
  • Claim 1 (System for Communicating Reply Data):
    • A communication server comprising a data transfer manager.
    • The manager is operable for receiving an optimized reply comprising a first data unit identifier and "further data."
    • The manager forms a "replica reply" from the "further data" and a first data unit corresponding to the identifier.
    • The manager forwards the replica reply.
    • A host server comprising a store (e.g., a mailbox) for storing the first data unit.
    • The host server forwards the first data unit to the communication server in response to a request.
    • The "further data" comprises a "delta" between a first email and a reply email.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 5,784,001 (’001 Patent)

  • Patent Identification: "Method And Apparatus For Presenting Graphic Messages In A Data Communication Receiver", Issued July 21, 1998.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the presentation of non-language-specific messages on communication devices like pagers. It discloses a system where a received message contains a code that corresponds to a pre-stored graphic image (e.g., an icon of a telephone) in the receiver's database, allowing the device to display a universally understood graphic message instead of, or in addition to, text (Compl. ¶9).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶29).
  • Accused Features: Windows Live Messenger 2011 (Compl. ¶29).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,272,333 (’333 Patent)

  • Patent Identification: "Method And Apparatus In A Wireless Communication System For Controlling A Delivery Of Data", Issued August 7, 2001.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for intelligently managing data delivery to wireless devices. A subscriber unit maintains an "application registry" of the software accessible to it, and communicates changes in this registry to the network's fixed portion. The network then checks this registry before sending data, ensuring that it only delivers data for which the subscriber unit has a compatible application (Compl. ¶10).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: Windows Phone 7 and Windows Mobile 6.5 (Compl. ¶36).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,408,176 (’176 Patent)

  • Patent Identification: "Method And Apparatus For Initiating A Communication In A Communication System", Issued June 18, 2002.
  • Technology Synopsis: This invention relates to simplifying the process of returning a call from information contained in a voice mail. It discloses a system where caller-related information (e.g., a phone number spoken in a voice mail) is extracted, converted into an alpha-numeric string, and sent to the communication device. The user can then initiate a call using this stored information without having to manually dial the number or re-access the voice mail system (Compl. ¶11).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶43).
  • Accused Features: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 with Unified Messaging (Compl. ¶43).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,757,544 (’544 Patent)

  • Patent Identification: "System And Method For Determining A Location Relevant To A Communication Device And/Or Its Associated User", Issued June 29, 2004.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for determining a user's relevant location by combining general location information (e.g., from a cell tower) with more specific user-provided information. The system compares a list of location parameters derived from the general location with the user-specified details to determine a more precise relevant location for providing location-based services (Compl. ¶12).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: Bing Maps used with mobile phones such as Windows Phone 7 devices (Compl. ¶50).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,983,370 (’370 Patent)

  • Patent Identification: "System For Providing Continuity Between Messaging Clients And Method Therefor", Issued January 3, 2006.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses maintaining a continuous messaging session as a user moves between different devices (e.g., from a desktop PC to a mobile phone). The invention describes a system where client data for an active session on a first device is transferred to a second device, allowing the second device to establish a new communication connection and seamlessly continue the session (Compl. ¶13).
  • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶57).
  • Accused Features: Windows Live Messenger 2011 and Windows Live Hotmail (Compl. ¶57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a broad range of Microsoft products and services across multiple categories (Compl. ¶¶15, 22, 29, 36, 43, 50, 57). These include:

  • Operating Systems: Windows 7, Windows Vista
  • Mobile Platforms: Windows Phone 7, Windows Mobile 6.5
  • Server Software: Microsoft Exchange Server (2003, 2007, 2010), including Unified Messaging features
  • Messaging & Communication Software: Windows Live Messenger 2011, Windows Live Hotmail
  • Mapping Services: Bing Maps

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products collectively represent a significant portion of Microsoft's software ecosystem as of 2010, spanning desktop and mobile operating systems, enterprise email and communication servers, and consumer-facing web services (Compl. ¶¶15, 22, 29, 36, 43, 50, 57).
  • The complaint alleges that these products provide functionalities such as operating system management, email and messaging communications, voice mail integration, location-based services, and session management, which are the general technical areas addressed by the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶15, 22, 29, 36, 43, 50, 57).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element mapping of the asserted claims to the features of the accused products, nor does it include or reference any claim charts. The infringement allegations are presented as broad accusations against product categories. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’839 Patent Infringement Allegations

Narrative Theory

The complaint alleges that Microsoft's operating systems (Windows 7, Vista) and mobile platform (Windows Phone 7) infringe the ’839 Patent by making, using, selling, or importing products that practice the claimed object-oriented software architecture for I/O device independence (Compl. ¶15). The core of this allegation is that modern operating systems necessarily use an architectural layer to abstract physical hardware from software applications, and that this architecture reads on the claims of the ’839 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the specific architecture claimed in the ’839 patent, including elements like a "console manager process" and "picture elements," can be read to cover the distinct and more complex driver models and graphical user interface architectures used in modern operating systems like Windows 7 and Windows Phone 7.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused products' components perform the same function in substantially the same way as the claimed "means for converting" physical input into "virtual input."

’899 Patent Infringement Allegations

Narrative Theory

The complaint alleges that various versions of Microsoft Exchange Server infringe the ’899 Patent by practicing the claimed method of communicating an optimized reply (Compl. ¶22). This suggests that Exchange Server employs a mechanism to reduce data transmission, particularly for email replies, by sending only the differences ("delta") between a new message and a prior one.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definition of "delta" as used in the patent and whether any data synchronization or compression protocols used by Microsoft Exchange (e.g., for communication with email clients) meet the specific claim limitations of generating a delta from a "preceding message" and using an "identifier" to retrieve that message for reconstruction.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be whether the accused Exchange Server versions technically operate by generating a content-based difference between successive messages in a thread, as opposed to using other data compression or network-layer optimization techniques that do not map to the claimed process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’839 Patent (Claim 1)

  • The Term: "virtual input device"
  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's concept of hardware abstraction. Its scope will determine whether modern software driver architectures, which may use different terminology and structures, fall within the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the allegation requires mapping this 1980s-era concept onto a modern operating system's input stack.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the virtual input device as part of a system for "converting 'real' input into virtual output" ('839 Patent, col. 1:65–67), which could be argued to encompass any software layer that standardizes hardware input for consumption by applications.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description links the virtual input device to a specific architectural diagram (Fig. 8) and describes it as a component that interacts directly with a "console manager" and processes "pictures" composed of "picture elements," suggesting a more constrained definition tied to the patent's specific implementation ('839 Patent, col. 12:13-25; col. 18:24-33).

For the ’899 Patent (Claim 1)

  • The Term: "delta"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’899 Patent hinges on whether the accused products create and use a "delta." The construction of this term will be critical to determining if Microsoft Exchange's data transfer protocols meet this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a delta more generally as "data representing the content difference between two messages" ('899 Patent, col. 3:37-39). This could support an argument that any protocol that transmits only the changed portions of a data object, not just an email reply, constitutes a "delta."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and abstract consistently frame the delta in the specific context of an email "reply message" and a "preceding message" in the same conversation thread ('899 Patent, col. 11:45-56; Abstract). This context may support a narrower interpretation limited to a specific type of message differencing rather than general-purpose data compression.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The basis for these allegations is that Microsoft provides instructional materials (e.g., on technet.microsoft.com, support.microsoft.com, and msdn.microsoft.com) that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶16, 23, 30, 37, 44, 51, 58).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that Microsoft's infringement of each asserted patent is "willful and deliberate" and seeks enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. ¶¶19, 26, 33, 40, 47, 54, 61). The complaint does not specify any facts supporting pre-suit knowledge, such as prior correspondence or litigation.

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

This case presents a broad challenge to a wide array of Microsoft's core software products based on patents filed between 1987 and 2001. The resolution will likely depend on the following key questions:

  • A core issue will be one of temporal scope: can claims from patents filed during the era of early object-oriented systems, nascent mobile data networks, and basic client-server email be construed to cover the sophisticated, multi-layered, and protocol-rich software architectures of modern operating systems and enterprise software like Windows 7 and Exchange 2010?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical specificity: given the complaint's lack of detailed infringement theories, discovery will be central to determining whether the accused products' internal operations actually perform the specific functions required by the claims (e.g., creating a message "delta" or using a "console manager process"), or if they achieve similar results through fundamentally different, non-infringing technical means.