DCT
1:18-cv-22478
Ironworks Patents LLC v. BLU Products Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ironworks Patents, LLC (Illinois)
- Defendant: BLU Products, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-22478, S.D. Fla., 06/20/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Florida because the Defendant resides in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones infringe two patents related to using distinct, tactile vibration patterns to convey abstract information and provide feedback for user inputs.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns haptic feedback systems in portable electronic devices, moving beyond simple alerts to create a more nuanced, non-visual and non-auditory user interface.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that both patents-in-suit originated with Nokia Mobile Phones Ltd. and that the '269' Patent is a continuation of the '150' Patent, suggesting a shared specification and prosecution history that may be relevant to claim construction.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-11-26 | Priority Date for '150 and '269 Patents |
| 2005-02-01 | '150 Patent Issued |
| 2016-12-13 | '269 Patent Issued |
| 2018-06-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent 6,850,150, "Portable Device" (Issued Feb. 1, 2005)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art portable devices as having limited tactile feedback, typically restricted to a single type of vibration for an incoming call or device power-on/off confirmation ('150 Patent, col. 1:47-65). This limited feedback is insufficient for conveying more complex information, particularly for users with visual or hearing impairments ('150 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "coded vibration" system where a portable device uses "various alarm patterns of silent, invisible sensations" to communicate "abstract information" about multiple internal operational events to the user ('150 Patent, col. 6:30-36). Instead of a single vibration type, the system uses patterns that vary in characteristics like frequency, amplitude, or duration to signify different events, such as navigating a menu or receiving feedback on a PIN code entry ('150 Patent, col. 5:1-5, col. 6:36-48).
- Technical Importance: This technology enables a richer user interface that does not rely on sight or sound, allowing users to receive complex information discreetly (e.g., in a meeting) or providing an essential communication channel for visually or aurally impaired individuals ('150 Patent, col. 2:28-39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A portable device comprising:
- "control means" for monitoring and controlling the device's operation;
- a "user interface" which includes "alarm means" for producing a silent, tactile sensation;
- the "control means" are arranged to give the user "abstract information" on multiple internal events using "various alarm patterns" of tactile sensations; and
- the "abstract information" includes a notification of a selected item on a "menu of the user interface".
U.S. Patent 9,521,269, "Method of giving the user information and portable device" (Issued Dec. 13, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '150 Patent, this patent addresses the same general problem: the inadequacy of simple, monolithic vibration alerts in mobile devices for conveying nuanced information ('269 Patent, col. 2:1-5).
- The Patented Solution: The '269 Patent refines the concept by claiming a device with a control circuit that generates a first tactile vibration pattern in response to a first event, and a second, "distinctly humanly perceptibly different," pattern for a second event ('269 Patent, Claim 1). Critically, the patent claims the "first event" to be "correct user manual input," thereby distinguishing feedback for a successful user action from other system notifications ('269 Patent, Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: This solution provides users with immediate, non-visual confirmation of a successful interaction (e.g., a correct password entry), separating this important feedback from other, less critical alerts like an incoming call or a low battery warning, which enhances usability and reduces ambiguity ('269 Patent, col. 5:1-5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A mobile station comprising:
- a "user interface" for user control and obtaining information;
- a "tactile alert device" to generate a tactile vibration;
- a "control circuit" that generates a "first tactile vibration" with a "first pattern" for a "first event", and a "second tactile vibration" with a "second pattern" (distinctly different from the first) for a "second event"; and
- wherein the "first event" is "correct user manual input".
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are various series of BLU-branded smartphones, including the "Advance, Dash, Energy, Grand, Life, Neo, Pure, R, S, Studio, And Vivo Series" for the '150 Patent, and a similar list including "Life One X2 Mini, Life One X3, R2, R2 Plus," and others for the '269 Patent (Compl. ¶26, ¶39).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused smartphones are portable devices containing a microprocessor and Android operating system software that function as the claimed "control means" or "control circuit" (Compl. ¶28, ¶44). These devices allegedly include a vibration motor that functions as the claimed "alarm means" or "tactile alert device" (Compl. ¶29, ¶43). The infringement allegations center on the functionality of these components to produce varied vibration patterns for different device events, such as a keyboard key selection (for the '150 Patent) or a successful fingerprint scan, which is contrasted with the vibration for an incoming call (for the '269 Patent) (Compl. ¶32, ¶44, ¶45). The complaint positions the products as "affordable, attractive and innovative mobile devices" with a global reach (Compl. ¶4). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'150 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A portable device, comprising: control means for monitoring and controlling the operation of the device; | The accused devices include a microprocessor with Android operating system software for monitoring and controlling operation. | ¶27, ¶28 | col. 3:1-6 |
| and a user interface which comprises alarm means for performing a silent alarm producing a silent, invisible, tactile sensation in the user; | The accused devices include a user interface and an alarm means (e.g., a vibration motor) for producing a tactile sensation. | ¶29 | col. 3:41-49 |
| wherein the control means are arranged to give the user abstract information on multiple internal operational events of the device by using various alarm patterns of silent, invisible sensations produced by the alarm means and sensed by the user, | The microprocessor and operating system are arranged to give the user abstract information using various vibration patterns. | ¶30 | col. 5:58-6:10 |
| the alarm patterns differing from one another such that at least one alarm pattern characteristic sensed by the user varies, said abstract information comprising a notification of a selected item on a menu of the user interface. | The vibration patterns differ and provide a notification of a selected item on a menu, such as the selection of a keyboard key. | ¶31, ¶32 | col. 6:36-48 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The term "control means" is in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope will be limited to the corresponding structure described in the specification (a microprocessor with software) and its equivalents ('150 Patent, col. 3:1-3). A dispute may arise over whether the accused "microprocessor with Android operating system software" is an equivalent structure (Compl. ¶28). Further, the scope of a "menu of the user interface" raises the question of whether a virtual keyboard, as alleged in the complaint, qualifies under the patent's definition (Compl. ¶32).
- Technical Questions: A key question is whether the haptic feedback for a key press on a virtual keyboard in the accused devices functions as a "notification" that provides "abstract information," or if it is merely a simple, non-informative mechanical confirmation.
'269 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A mobile station comprising: a user interface configured to enable a user to control operation of the mobile station by manual input and to obtain information on the operation of the mobile station, | The accused devices are mobile stations with a user interface (e.g., touchscreen) for user control and obtaining information. | ¶41, ¶42 | col. 3:21-24 |
| a tactile alert device configured to generate a tactile vibration, and | The accused devices include a tactile alert device (e.g., a vibration motor) configured to generate a tactile vibration. | ¶43 | col. 3:36-43 |
| a control circuit configured to control the tactile alert device to generate a first tactile vibration with a first pattern in response to a first event and a second tactile vibration with a second pattern that is distinctly humanly perceptibly different... | The control circuit is configured to generate a first vibration pattern for a first event (e.g., a successful fingerprint scan) and a different pattern for a second event (e.g., an incoming call). | ¶44 | col. 2:35-39 |
| wherein the first event is correct user manual input. | The first event is alleged to be "correct user manual input," such as a successful fingerprint scan, tap, or point selection during an unlock sequence. | ¶45 | col. 5:1-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central issue will be the construction of "correct user manual input". The complaint alleges that generic interactions like a "long or short tap" qualify (Compl. ¶45). The defense may argue the term is limited to inputs that can be verified as correct or incorrect, such as the patent's example of a PIN code entry ('269 Patent, col. 5:1-5), and does not cover any generic user interaction.
- Technical Questions: A factual dispute will likely focus on whether the vibration pattern for an action like a successful tap is "distinctly humanly perceptibly different" from the pattern for an incoming call on the accused devices. This requires an evidentiary showing of how the accused products actually operate and how a user would perceive the different vibrations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term 1 ('150 Patent): "abstract information"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the '150 Patent's scope. The infringement claim hinges on a keyboard press vibration constituting "abstract information." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether simple haptic feedback falls within the claims or if a more complex "coded" message is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the goal is to provide "abstract information, not modeling reality" ('150 Patent, col. 2:16-17) and explicitly lists "a notification of a selected item on the menu" as an example of such information ('150 Patent, col. 6:36-38), which directly supports the plaintiff's theory.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes conveying "complex, abstract information" and analogizes the invention to a "limited application of Braille system by means of vibration" ('150 Patent, col. 2:27-33). This language could support an argument that "abstract information" requires a higher degree of complexity than a simple tap confirmation.
Term 2 ('269 Patent): "correct user manual input"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the trigger for the "first" vibration pattern and is critical to distinguishing the claimed invention from general haptic feedback systems. The plaintiff's case depends on mapping common smartphone interactions to this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's primary example is "feedback for the user on the successful PIN... code enquiry" ('269 Patent, col. 5:1-2). This could be interpreted to cover any user input that achieves a desired outcome, such as a successful fingerprint scan or tap that unlocks the phone.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The PIN code example involves an input that is checked against a stored value and can be either correct or incorrect. A defendant could argue that the term is limited to such verifiable inputs, and would not read on a generic "short tap" or "point selection" which is not being checked for correctness in the same manner (Compl. ¶45).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include counts for indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the word "willful," it alleges that BLU acted "knowing that BLU has infringed" for both patents (Compl. ¶35, ¶48). These allegations are not supported by facts showing pre-suit knowledge, but they could form the basis for a willfulness claim based on post-filing conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "correct user manual input" from the '269 Patent, whose specification provides the example of a successful PIN code entry, be construed broadly enough to cover generic interactions like a "short tap" or "point selection" as alleged by the plaintiff? Similarly, for the '150 Patent, does a simple haptic response to a virtual key press convey "abstract information" as contemplated by a patent that also analogizes its invention to a "coded vibration" system?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional perception: Assuming the plaintiff's claim construction prevails, does the accused devices' haptic feedback for a "correct user manual input" (e.g., a tap) produce a vibration pattern that is, in fact, "distinctly humanly perceptibly different" from the pattern for a "second event" (e.g., an incoming call)? This question will likely require expert testimony and a detailed factual analysis of the accused products' operation.
- A third question relates to means-plus-function construction: For the '150 Patent, the infringement analysis for the "control means" limitation will require the court to first identify the corresponding structure in the specification (a microprocessor with software) and then determine whether the accused "microprocessor with Android operating system software" is structurally equivalent, presenting a potential point of dispute under § 112(f).