DCT

1:12-cv-20271

Motorola Mobility LLC v. Apple Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Motorola Mobility, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman, P.A.; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Case Identification: 1:12-cv-20271, S.D. Fla., 05/16/2012
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Apple resides in the District and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the District.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a wide range of Defendant’s mobile devices, computers, and cloud services infringe twelve patents relating to foundational technologies in wireless communications, including antenna design, message synchronization, data filtering, and software updates.
Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to the functionality of mobile communication devices and networks, addressing problems of hardware design, software management, and data efficiency prevalent in the 1990s and early 2000s as mobile technology proliferated.
Key Procedural History: The complaint states this is the second action filed by Motorola against Apple in the district, following an ongoing case referred to as "Motorola-Apple I." This action asserts six patents from the original case against new products or under new theories, and introduces six additional patents. The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 5,958,006 and U.S. Patent No. 6,101,531 have undergone ex parte reexamination proceedings at the USPTO.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1993-02-25	’987 Patent Priority Date
1995-05-30	’737 Patent Priority Date
1995-07-28	’825 Patent Priority Date
1995-08-31	’119 Patent Priority Date
1995-11-13	’006 Patent Priority Date
1995-12-19	’531 Patent Priority Date
1997-03-03	’948 Patent Priority Date
1997-11-18	U.S. Patent No. 5,689,825 Issues
1998-01-20	U.S. Patent No. 5,710,987 Issues
1998-05-19	U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119 Issues
1998-08-11	’161 Patent Priority Date
1999-03-26	’534 Patent Priority Date
1999-09-28	U.S. Patent No. 5,958,006 Issues
1999-12-14	U.S. Patent No. 6,002,948 Issues
1999-12-28	U.S. Patent No. 6,008,737 Issues
2000-02-15	’148 Patent Priority Date
2000-08-08	U.S. Patent No. 6,101,531 Issues
2002-04-23	U.S. Patent No. 6,377,161 Issues
2002-10-08	U.S. Patent No. 6,463,534 Issues
2003-06-27	’072 Patent Priority Date
2003-07-30	’183 Patent Priority Date
2006-04-04	U.S. Patent No. 7,024,183 Issues
2007-07-10	U.S. Patent No. 7,243,072 Issues
2008-09-16	Reexamination requested for ’006 Patent
2009-03-24	U.S. Patent No. 7,509,148 Issues
2010-01-12	Reexamination Certificate issues 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 issues Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate for ’531 Patent
2012-03-07	Third generation Apple iPad launched
2012-05-16	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 addresses the technical challenge of integrating a pager with a radiotelephone into a single device. A primary difficulty is that the radiotelephone’s housing is typically shielded to prevent interference, which would block signals from reaching an internal pager antenna (’987 Patent, col. 1:41-47). Placing a second, visible antenna on the exterior for the pager would be aesthetically undesirable and could increase the device's size (’987 Patent, col. 1:55-59).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes placing the pager antenna external to the shielded housing but concealed underneath a non-conductive cover, such as a hand grip, display lens, keypad, or earpiece cap (’987 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-48). This allows the pager antenna to receive signals effectively without altering the external appearance of the radiotelephone. The antenna is preferably a loop antenna that substantially surrounds a user interface element to conserve space (’987 Patent, col. 2:51-59).
Technical Importance: This design approach enabled the creation of more compact and aesthetically integrated multi-function communication devices by solving a key antenna placement problem without compromising performance or appearance.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. Independent claim 1 is representative:
- A combination radiotelephone/pager unit including a user interface, comprising:
- a housing enclosing radiotelephone and pager circuitry;
- a radiotelephone antenna coupled to the radiotelephone circuitry; and
- 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: The patent addresses the problem that arises when a user owns multiple pagers with the same address. When a message is read, deleted, or protected on one pager, it remains in its original "unread" state on the user's other pagers (’119 Patent, col. 1:34-44). This requires the user to tediously repeat the same message management tasks on each device.
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a two-way communication system where a status change made on one pager (the "first transceiver") is transmitted to the messaging infrastructure (’119 Patent, col. 2:13-18). The infrastructure then sends a corresponding status update message to the user's other pagers ("second transceiver"), which automatically change the status of the message to match the action taken on the first device (’119 Patent, col. 2:25-29; FIG. 1).
Technical Importance: This system automated the synchronization of message states across multiple devices, improving user convenience and efficiency in an era before ubiquitous cloud-based data syncing.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. Independent claim 1 is representative:
- A method of synchronizing message information among a plurality of transceivers, comprising the steps of:
- transmitting by a wireless messaging infrastructure a first message having a first status;
- in one transceiver of the plurality of transceivers, changing the first status of the first message to a second status responsive to an input to the one transceiver, and transmitting a second message indicative of the second status;
- in the wireless messaging infrastructure, receiving the second message, and responsive to receiving the second message, transmitting a third message indicative of the second status; and
- in at least one other transceiver of the plurality of transceivers, receiving the third message, and responsive to receiving the third message, changing the first status of the first message to the second status.

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

Issued September 28, 1999

Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system to manage data transfer to a remote device over an expensive wireless network. Instead of sending full data files that may not meet a user's filter criteria, the system sends a summary index of the non-qualifying data. The user can review this index and request full or partial transfer of specific items, providing a more cost-efficient review mechanism (’006 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claims 1, 12, 24, and 26 appear in the patent and its reexamination certificates.
Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Apple iPhone 4S, Apple new iPad, Apple new iPad + 4G, and iCloud (Compl. ¶29).

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: The patent discloses a method for filtering data sent to a wireless device. A user creates filter criteria on the wireless client, which are then sent to a communication server. The server applies these filters to data from a host, sending only the qualifying data to the client, thereby saving bandwidth and reducing costs on the wireless network (’531 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claims 1 and 11 appear in the patent.
Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Apple iPhone 4S, Apple new iPad, Apple new iPad + 4G, and iCloud (Compl. ¶38, p. 8).

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 system for controlling the use of software added to a portable device. When a user requests to run a new software process, the device seeks usage authorization from a fixed portion of the communication system by sending a request that includes a secure checksum of the software. This system is designed to prevent unauthorized use of software applications or hardware modules on the device (’737 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claims 6 and 9 appear in the patent.
Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Apple iPhone 4S, Apple new iPad, and Apple new iPad + 4G (Compl. ¶46-47).

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 invention provides a method for users of portable messaging units to exchange address information. When one unit sends its address information to another, the receiving unit checks if that information is already in its address book. Depending on the result of the check, it processes the information, for example by prompting the user to save the new contact information, thereby simplifying contact management (’161 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claims 1, 12, 16, and 18 appear in the patent.
Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Apple iPhone 4S, Apple new iPad, Apple new iPad + 4G, and iCloud (Compl. ¶54, p. 10).

U.S. Patent No. 5,689,825 - “Method and Apparatus for Downloading Updated Software to Portable Wireless Communication Units”

Issued November 18, 1997

Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for updating software on a portable wireless unit using a combined battery charger and software downloader. When the portable unit is coupled to the downloader (e.g., for charging), the downloader detects a flag indicating that a software update is available, receives the update from a server over a land-based network, and downloads it to the portable unit. This avoids inconvenient trips to a service shop or expensive over-the-air updates (’825 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claims 1, 8, and 13 appear in the patent.
Accused Features: The complaint accuses a wide range of products including Apple Macs, iPod Touch, iPhones, and iPads (Compl. ¶62).

U.S. Patent No. 6,002,948 - “Method and Apparatus for Radio System with Mode Based Subscriber Communications”

Issued December 14, 1999

Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for simplifying communication between multi-mode subscriber units. A user selects a communication mode (e.g., telephone, dispatch) and provides a "mode independent global access identifier" (such as a telephone number) for the target unit. The system equipment uses this single identifier to access the target unit's information and establish the communication in the selected mode, regardless of what mode-specific identifiers might otherwise be required (’948 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claims 1, 7, 8, and 9 appear in the patent.
Accused Features: The complaint accuses a wide range of products including Apple Macs, iPod Touch, iPhones, and iPads (Compl. ¶70).

U.S. Patent No. 6,463,534 - “Secure Wireless Electronic-Commerce System with Wireless Network Domain”

Issued October 8, 2002

Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for secure e-commerce on a wireless device using a public key infrastructure (PKI) managed by the wireless network operator. A wireless device uses a pre-loaded root public key certificate to verify digital certificates from "attribute authorities" (e.g., software vendors). This allows the device to securely receive and enable attributes like software, services, or permissions over the wireless network (’534 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claims 1, 11, and 15 appear in the patent.
Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Apple App Store and various generations of the iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad (Compl. ¶78).

U.S. Patent No. 7,024,183 - “Communication Device with Intelligent Communication Management and Method Therefor”

Issued April 4, 2006

Technology Synopsis: The invention relates to a communication device that intelligently manages connections. When a user initiates communication with a contact who has multiple communication means (e.g., office phone, mobile phone, email), the device attempts connections sequentially based on a preset preference. If a connection fails or is disconnected, the device automatically identifies and initiates a connection with the next communication means in the sequence (’183 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claims 1 and 8 appear in the patent.
Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Apple iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, and iPhone 4S (Compl. ¶86).

U.S. Patent No. 7,243,072 - “Providing Assistance to a Subscriber Device over a Network”

Issued July 10, 2007

Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for providing remote assistance to a subscriber device. A server receives an instruction message corresponding to voiced instructions from the user of the device. The server converts these voiced instructions into control commands and sends a corresponding control message back to the device to assist with its operation (’072 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claims 1, 12, and 23 appear in the patent.
Accused Features: The complaint accuses Siri, Apple data centers, and the Apple iPhone 4S (Compl. ¶94, p. 16).

U.S. Patent No. 7,509,148 - “Message Alert System and Method of Providing Message Notification”

Issued March 24, 2009

Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a message alert system for a communication device. The system receives a message, determines its type, and generates a display item (e.g., a dialog window) that provides information about the message type and indicates whether other messages of the same type have been received. The system provides a simplified user interface for navigating to and acting upon new messages (’148 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claims 1, 6, and 7 appear in the patent.
Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Apple iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPod Touch, and various iPad models (Compl. ¶102, p. 17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses a broad and varied set of Apple products and services. These include, but are not limited to, multiple generations of the Apple iPhone (3G, 3GS, 4, 4S), the iPod Touch, and the iPad (iPad, iPad + 3G, iPad 2, iPad 2 + 3G, "new iPad," "new iPad + 4G") (Compl. ¶62, ¶70, ¶78, ¶102). The complaint also accuses Apple’s computer hardware, including the Mac Pro, iMac, Mac mini, MacBook Pro, MacBook, and MacBook Air (Compl. ¶62, ¶70). Additionally, specific services are named, such as iCloud, the Apple App Store, Siri, and associated Apple data centers (Compl. ¶19, ¶29, ¶78, ¶94).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges infringement across this wide range of products without providing detailed descriptions of their specific functionalities. The allegations group these instrumentalities into broad categories, such as portable wireless communication units, computers, and online services. The complaint does not contain specific allegations regarding the commercial importance or market positioning of these products, though they are widely recognized as significant in the consumer electronics market.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis of any of the asserted patents. For each patent, the complaint identifies one or more accused products and makes a general allegation of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, but it does not map specific features of the accused products to the elements of any asserted patent claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide a basis for identifying key claim terms for construction, as it does not specify which claims are asserted or which product features allegedly meet specific claim limitations.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges that Apple is contributorily infringing and/or inducing infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶11, ¶19, ¶29). The complaint does not, however, plead any specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements of these claims, such as referencing user manuals, developer documentation, or advertisements that would instruct or encourage users to perform infringing acts.
Willful Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges on "information and belief" that Apple's infringement is willful and deliberate (e.g., Compl. ¶14, ¶22, ¶32). The complaint does not allege any facts to support a claim of pre-suit knowledge of the patents or egregious conduct post-suit.

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

This complaint, asserting a dozen patents against nearly the entirety of Apple's product line, raises several high-level questions that will define the early stages of the litigation.

A central issue will be one of specificity and scope: how does Motorola intend to map the limitations of patents, many from the 1990s concerning technologies like pagers and physical software downloaders, onto the features of modern products like the iPhone 4S, iCloud, and the App Store? The complaint's lack of detail leaves open the fundamental question of which specific technologies in which products are actually in dispute for each patent.
A key procedural question will be one of case management and focus: given the large number of asserted patents and accused products, the parties and the court will likely need to establish a framework for narrowing the case. This raises the question of which patents and claims will emerge as the central focus of the dispute as the case proceeds through discovery and claim construction.
An underlying strategic question is one of technological relevance: can the solutions disclosed in these foundational patents, which address technical problems of a prior era of mobile technology, be shown to read on the distinct architectural and functional implementations in Apple's highly integrated ecosystem? The litigation will likely turn on whether the patent claims are broad enough to cover technological evolution or are limited to the specific problems and solutions described in their specifications.