DCT
1:20-cv-20760
DataQuill Ltd v. BLU Products Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: DataQuill Limited (British Virgin Islands)
- Defendant: BLU Products, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Christina Bredahl Gierke (Attorneys for Plaintiff DataQuill Limited)
- Case Identification: 1:20-cv-20760, S.D. Fla., 02/21/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the Southern District of Florida and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones infringe a patent related to handheld data entry systems that integrate data capture, storage, display, and telecommunications functions.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of features into a single, portable, handheld device for data entry and remote communication, a concept foundational to the development of modern smartphones.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that the patent-in-suit has survived reexaminations at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, withstood validity challenges in prior litigations, and been licensed by numerous major technology companies. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with notice of infringement, including a claim chart, on April 25, 2014, and an advance copy of the complaint on August 14, 2019.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1993-10-13 | ’304 Patent Priority Date |
| 2000-05-02 | ’304 Patent Issue Date |
| 2010-04-13 | ’304 Patent Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issued |
| 2014-04-25 | Pre-suit notice letter sent to Defendant |
| 2019-08-14 | Draft complaint provided to Defendant |
| 2020-02-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,058,304 - "Data Entry Systems"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,058,304, "Data Entry Systems," issued May 2, 2000 (as modified by Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued April 13, 2010).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art data entry systems, such as those used for ordering merchandise, as being "bulky and can be somewhat inconvenient in use as it requires two handed operation" — one hand for a processing unit and another for a separate reader wand (’304 Patent, col. 1:23-26). These systems often lacked integrated displays for immediate user feedback.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained, handheld data entry unit that integrates a reading sensor, rewritable storage, a controller, a display screen, and a telecommunications interface into a single, portable device (’304 Patent, Abstract). This configuration enables a user to capture, process, store, display, and transmit data efficiently, often with one hand, and to receive data remotely from a processing center (’304 Patent, col. 2:14-29).
- Technical Importance: This integration of previously disparate components into a single, telephonically-connected handheld unit represented a step toward the functional convergence that would later define personal digital assistants and smartphones.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint leads its infringement count by asserting claim 113, and additionally lists infringement of claims 9, 20, 23, 32, 34, 40, 53, 55, 59, 60, 64, 97, 98, 114, 116, and 117 (Compl. ¶26, ¶38). Claim 113 is a new claim added during reexamination. For analytical clarity, the elements of new independent claim 78, which is representative of the asserted system technology, are broken down below.
- Independent Claim 78 (new claim from reexamination):
- A hand holdable data entry unit comprising a reading sensor for sensing commands and/or data.
- Rewritable storage programmable with information relating to selectable items.
- A controller connected to receive and process input signals from the sensor.
- A display screen for displaying a user readable representation of commands and stored information.
- A telecommunications interface for telephonic transmission of information to and from a remote processing center via a wireless telecommunications network.
- A speaker and a microphone permitting the unit to be used as a telephone handset.
- A rechargeable power supply.
- A plurality of mechanical key switches operable to input user information.
- Wherein the rewritable storage is made of solid state memory.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused BLU Smartphones," which include dozens of specified models (e.g., BLU Advance 4.0, Studio X, Vivo XL) and other BLU devices incorporating a touch-sensitive screen and the Android operating system (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are described as smartphones that function as handheld devices (Compl. ¶27). Their relevant functionality includes a touchscreen for sensing user commands and data (Compl. ¶28), rewritable solid-state memory such as RAM and Flash (Compl. ¶30), a processor that acts as a controller (Compl. ¶32), a display screen for user-readable information (Compl. ¶33), and a telecommunications interface for wireless communication (e.g., 4G, LTE) with remote servers like those for Google Play (Compl. ¶34). The devices also include a speaker and microphone and can be used as a telephone handset (Compl. ¶36).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The following table summarizes the infringement allegations for the elements of representative independent claim 78, based on the narrative in the complaint.
U.S. Patent No. 6,058,304 Infringement Allegations (based on representative new Claim 78)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 78) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a reading sensor for sensing commands and/or data and for producing input signals... | Each Accused BLU Smartphone has a touchscreen that is a "reading sensor for sensing commands and/or data" and "produces input signals in response." | ¶28, ¶29 | col. 13:1-14 |
| rewritable storage programmable with information relating to selectable items... wherein said rewritable storage is made of solid state memory | Each device contains "rewritable storage including caches and internal memory... made of solid-state memory (e.g., RAM, Flash)" for storing items from Google Play. | ¶30 | col. 17:48-51 |
| a controller connected to receive and process said input signals from said sensor... | The devices contain a controller (e.g., circuitry including a processor) connected to receive and process input signals from the touchscreen to control the device. | ¶32 | col. 17:40-44 |
| a display screen for displaying a user readable representation of said commands and said stored information for said selected item | The devices contain a display screen (which is the touchscreen) for displaying user-readable information. | ¶33 | col. 17:51-54 |
| a telecommunications interface for telephonic transmission of information...via a wireless telecommunications network | The devices contain a telecommunications interface (e.g., GSM, 3G, 4G, LTE) for transmission and reception of information with a remote processing center. | ¶34 | col. 14:7-14 |
| a speaker and a microphone permitting said hand holdable unit to be used as a telephone handset | The devices "include a speaker and a microphone and can be used as a telephone handset." | ¶36 | col. 20:58-62 |
| a rechargeable power supply | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | N/A | col. 6:45-48 |
| a plurality of mechanical key switches operable to input user information | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | N/A | col. 6:51-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Pleading Specificity: The complaint's lead asserted claim, claim 113, is a new claim from reexamination that is drafted to depend from claims 28-31. The same reexamination certificate, however, states that claims 28-31 are cancelled. This raises a threshold question regarding the coherence and validity of the claim as pled.
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the construction of "reading sensor." The complaint alleges the term covers a modern smartphone touchscreen (Compl. ¶28), while the patent's primary embodiment is an optical bar code reader (’304 Patent, col. 6:40-44). The analysis will question whether the patent’s disclosure of a touchscreen for command entry supports construing "reading sensor" to cover the functionality of a general-purpose capacitive touchscreen.
- Technical Questions: Representative independent claim 78 requires "a plurality of mechanical key switches operable to input user information." The complaint's infringement narrative focuses exclusively on the touchscreen as the input mechanism and does not allege the presence or function of such mechanical switches, creating a potential mismatch between the claim requirements and the accused product features.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "reading sensor"
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement case hinges on this term being construed broadly enough to encompass the touchscreen of the Accused BLU Smartphones. The complaint anticipates this dispute by stating the term has been "repeatedly construed by several courts to cover a touchscreen" (Compl. ¶28). Practitioners may focus on whether the context of the patent limits the term to capturing pre-existing data (like bar codes) or allows it to cover user-generated input on a screen.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract broadly defines the element as a "reading sensor for sensing commands and/or data" without limiting its technology (’304 Patent, Abstract). An alternative embodiment is described that includes a "touch sensitive screen" which can be used for "the entry of commands and/or the selection of displayed items" (’304 Patent, col. 13:1-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described in detail is an "optical reading head (e.g., a laser diode) suitable for reading bar codes" (’304 Patent, col. 6:40-44). The term "reading" itself may suggest an operation of capturing external, static information rather than dynamically creating input signals through touch interaction on a display.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that BLU provides "user guides and other support materials" and advertises features that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused smartphones in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶18, ¶41).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’304 Patent. The complaint states that DataQuill sent BLU a notice letter on April 25, 2014, which included "an illustrative claim chart demonstrating the manner in which BLU infringed the Patent-in-Suit" (Compl. ¶20, ¶43).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A threshold issue will be one of pleading validity: can claim 113, the complaint's featured asserted claim, be deemed valid and properly asserted when the reexamination certificate that added it also cancelled the claims from which it depends?
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "reading sensor," rooted in the patent's primary disclosure of optical scanners for bar codes, be construed to cover the multi-purpose capacitive touchscreens used for general user interface navigation in the accused smartphones?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of elemental mismatch: does the accused smartphones' reliance on a touchscreen interface satisfy claim limitations requiring a "plurality of mechanical key switches," or is there a fundamental gap in the plaintiff's infringement theory as applied to representative system claims?