DCT

1:11-cv-08540

Apple Inc v. Motorola Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 10-CV-662, W.D. Wis., 12/02/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Wisconsin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) and 1400(b).
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Android-based mobile phone handsets and associated software infringe a portfolio of sixteen patents covering a wide range of technologies, from user-interface heuristics to foundational object-oriented operating system and graphics system architectures.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to fundamental software technologies that underpin the functionality and user experience of modern smartphones, a market of significant global economic importance.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant Motorola had previously filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief on October 8, 2010, in the District of Delaware, concerning many of the same patents asserted in this action, suggesting this case is a countersuit filed in a different forum.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1991-07-17 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,481,721
1992-12-23 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,424,354
1993-06-28 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,969,705
1993-07-19 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,519,867
1993-11-02 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,455,599
1994-05-13 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,566,337
1994-08-02 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263
1994-09-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002
1995-05-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. RE 39,486
1995-05-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,929,852
1995-05-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,915,131
1995-08-29 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,275,983
1996-02-01 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,838,315
1996-02-01 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647
2006-09-06 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949
2010-10-08 Motorola files Complaint for Declaratory Relief in D. Del.
2010-12-02 Complaint Filing Date

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

The complaint asserts infringement of sixteen patents. Full analysis is provided for the first two patents listed in the complaint’s infringement counts. The remaining fourteen are summarized in Multi-Patent Capsules.

U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 - "Touch Screen Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Determining Commands by Applying Heuristics," issued January 20, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the challenge of interpreting user intent on touch-sensitive displays, particularly smaller displays on portable devices where a single touch or gesture could have multiple meanings (e.g., scrolling vs. selecting an item). (U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949, col. 1:25-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a set of "heuristics" to analyze the characteristics of one or more finger contacts on a touch screen to determine a specific command. (Compl. ¶9). The system analyzes attributes like the number of contacts, their movement, and timing to distinguish between different user commands, such as scrolling a list with a single finger gesture or translating a user interface object with a multi-finger gesture. (’949 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-15).
  • Technical Importance: This approach was a key enabler for the sophisticated multi-touch user interfaces that became characteristic of modern smartphones, allowing for a more fluid and intuitive interaction than simple point-and-click interfaces. (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted but alleges infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶25). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
    • Detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display.
    • Applying one or more heuristics to the finger contacts to determine a command.
    • Processing the command.
    • Wherein the heuristics include a heuristic for determining that the contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, and a heuristic for determining that the contacts correspond to a two-dimensional screen translation command.

U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002 - "Method and Apparatus for Displaying and Accessing Control and Status Information in a Computer System," issued December 10, 2002

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a consistent and easily accessible location for system-level controls and status indicators that is separate from, and persists across, various application windows. (U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002, col. 1:16-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a graphical "control strip" that provides a collection of "module display areas" for displaying status and control information. (Compl. ¶10). This control strip can be collapsed to a small tab or expanded to reveal its modules, and it remains available to the user regardless of which application is currently active. (’002 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2A).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides a persistent, system-wide user interface element for managing core computer functions, distinct from application-specific toolbars or menus. (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without further specification. (Compl. ¶32). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
    • A processor, a data display screen, and a cursor control device.
    • A window generator for displaying a window on the screen.
    • The window region comprising a control and/or status window that is independently displayed and active.
    • The window having a plurality of display areas for indicia.
    • Each display area being associated with one of a plurality of individual programming modules.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,838,315, “Support for Custom User-Interaction Elements in a Graphical, Event-Driven Computer System,” issued November 17, 1998

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses a method for allowing an application to add a custom graphical user interface element (a "gadget") to a standard window frame managed by the operating system. The system software provides explicit support for drawing the custom gadget and handling user interaction with it, making the process transparent to the application. (Compl. ¶11).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more claims. (Compl. ¶39).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the mobile devices and associated software, including but not limited to the Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶39).

  • U.S. Patent No. RE 39,486, “Extensible, Replaceable Network Component System,” reissued February 6, 2007

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a modular, object-oriented framework for developing network navigation components. The system uses a layered architecture that allows components to be replaced or extended to support various network protocols and services (e.g., Gopher, Web) without affecting the overall system operation. (Compl. ¶12).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more claims. (Compl. ¶46).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the mobile devices and associated software, including but not limited to the Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶46).

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,424,354, “Object-Oriented Event Notification System with Listener Registration of Both Interests and Methods,” issued July 23, 2002

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses an event notification system for object-oriented applications. The system allows "listener" objects to register interest in specific types of events from "source" objects, and to specify which of their own methods should be called when a notification is received, enabling scalable and decoupled communication between objects. (Compl. ¶13).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more claims. (Compl. ¶53).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the mobile devices and associated software, including but not limited to the Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶53).

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263, “Real-Time Signal Processing System for Serially Transmitted Data,” issued January 29, 2002

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for real-time processing of isochronous data streams (e.g., voice, video) received over various communication networks. It employs a modular architecture with abstracted interfaces between the transmission medium, data managers, and a real-time processing engine, allowing flexibility in handling different data types and network standards. (Compl. ¶14).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more claims. (Compl. ¶60).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the mobile devices and associated software, including but not limited to the Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶60).

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,275,983, “Object-Oriented Operating System,” issued August 14, 2001

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system that provides an object-oriented interface to a procedural operating system. It uses a class library to "wrap" the procedural services of the underlying OS, allowing an object-oriented application to access system functions (like multitasking) in an object-oriented manner. (Compl. ¶15).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more claims. (Compl. ¶67).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the mobile devices and associated software, including but not limited to the Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶67).

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,969,705, “Message Protocol for Controlling a User Interface from an Inactive Application Program,” issued October 19, 1999

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a message protocol allowing a background (inactive) application to control the user interface, which is managed by a foreground (active) application. This enables tasks like file copying to provide progress updates (e.g., a progress bar) in the active UI without the background task needing to take full control. (Compl. ¶16).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more claims. (Compl. ¶74).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the mobile devices and associated software, including but not limited to the Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶74).

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647, “System and Method for Performing an Action on a Structure in Computer-Generated Data,” issued August 31, 1999

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for automatically detecting recognizable structures (e.g., phone numbers, addresses) within computer-generated data. Once a structure is detected, the system links it to a set of relevant actions (e.g., "call number," "add to address book") that a user can then select and execute. (Compl. ¶17).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more claims. (Compl. ¶81).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the mobile devices and associated software, including but not limited to the Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶81).

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,929,852, “Encapsulated Network Entity Reference of a Network Component System,” issued July 27, 1999

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to accessing network resources by creating an "encapsulated network entity" (e.g., a visual icon). This entity contains a reference (like a URL) to the resource and can be manipulated by the user to display the resource's content or forward the reference. (Compl. ¶18).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more claims. (Compl. ¶88).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the mobile devices and associated software, including but not limited to the Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶88).

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,915,131, “Method and Apparatus for Handling I/O Requests Utilizing Separate Programming Interfaces to Access Separate I/O Services,” issued June 22, 1999

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an I/O architecture where different families of services (e.g., file system, block storage, SCSI devices) are accessed through separate, dedicated Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). This modular approach allows applications to use interfaces tailored to specific I/O tasks. (Compl. ¶19).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more claims. (Compl. ¶95).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the mobile devices and associated software, including but not limited to the Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶95).

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,566,337, “Method and Apparatus for Distributing Events in an Operating System,” issued October 15, 1996

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses an event management system where "event producers" generate events and "event consumers" subscribe to receive them. A centralized event manager uses a "subscription matrix" to distribute events to interested consumers, distinguishing between "broadcast" consumers and "sequential" consumers. (Compl. ¶20).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more claims. (Compl. ¶102).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the mobile devices and associated software, including but not limited to the Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶102).

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,519,867, “Object-Oriented Multitasking System,” issued May 21, 1996

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an apparatus for enabling an object-oriented application to access services of a procedural operating system in an object-oriented manner. It utilizes an object-oriented class library that provides methods for accessing OS services (e.g., multitasking) through procedural function calls compatible with the OS's native interface. (Compl. ¶21).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more claims. (Compl. ¶109).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the mobile devices and associated software, including but not limited to the Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶109).

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,481,721, “Method for Providing Automatic and Dynamic Translation of Object Oriented Programming Language-Based Message Passing into Operation System Message Passing Using Proxy Objects,” issued January 2, 1996

    • Technology Synopsis: The invention provides a method for communication between software objects located in different processes. It uses a "proxy" object in the local process to receive a message, which is then encoded, transmitted to the remote process as an operating system message, decoded, and executed by the target object. (Compl. ¶22; ’721 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more claims. (Compl. ¶116).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the mobile devices and associated software, including but not limited to the Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶116).

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,455,599, “Object-Oriented Graphic System,” issued October 3, 1995

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an object-oriented graphics system that uses a "grafport" object to manage the connection between geometric objects and various graphic device objects. This architecture allows for polymorphic and extensible processing of graphics for different outputs like displays, printers, and vector engines. (Compl. ¶23; ’599 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: One or more claims. (Compl. ¶123).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the mobile devices and associated software, including but not limited to the Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶123).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Accused Products are identified as mobile devices, such as smartphones, and their associated software, including operating systems and user interfaces. (Compl. ¶8). Specific accused handsets include: Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, Devour i1, and Charm. (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint broadly accuses the entire functionality of Motorola's Android mobile phone handsets. (Compl. ¶8). It does not, however, provide specific technical details about how the accused operating system, user interface, or application software operates. The allegations cover the general making, using, selling, and importing of these products in the United States. (Compl. ¶¶25, 32).
    No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts or detailed infringement theories for any of the sixteen asserted patents. The analysis below is based on representative independent claims and the general allegations in the complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
At a computing device with a touch screen display: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display; The accused Android devices are mobile devices with touch screens that detect finger contacts. ¶25-26 col. 20:1-3
applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device; The complaint alleges the software on the accused devices practices the claimed inventions, which includes applying heuristics to determine commands from touch inputs. ¶26 col. 20:4-6
processing the command; The software on the accused devices is alleged to process commands determined from touch inputs. ¶26 col. 20:7
wherein the one or more heuristics comprise: a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command; and a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a two-dimensional screen translation command. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific heuristics allegedly used by the accused products. ¶26 col. 20:8-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: The central point of contention will be factual and evidentiary. The complaint makes a blanket assertion that the accused devices practice the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶26), but provides no specific evidence showing that the Android operating system actually applies the specific types of heuristics required by the claims (e.g., distinguishing between one-dimensional vertical scrolling and two-dimensional translation based on analyzing finger contacts).
    • Scope Questions: It raises the question of whether the term "heuristic," as defined and used in the patent, covers the specific gesture-recognition algorithms implemented in the accused Android operating system.

U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
In an interactive computer-controlled display system...a window generator that generates and displays a window region on said data display screen; The accused Android devices are computer systems with display screens and software that generates window regions. ¶32-33 col. 18:24-28
said window region comprises a control and/or status window...wherein the first window region is independently displayed and independently active of any application program... The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to analyze whether the accused devices feature a window that is "independently displayed and independently active" of applications in the manner claimed. ¶33 col. 18:29-33
said first window having a plurality of display areas for indicia; and wherein each of the plurality of display areas is associated with one of the plurality of individual programming modules... The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to analyze whether any status-displaying feature of the accused devices is composed of discrete "display areas" associated with distinct "programming modules" as required by the claim. ¶33 col. 18:34-39
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A key question will be whether the status bar or notification shade in the accused Android operating system functions as the claimed "control strip." The analysis will depend on evidence showing whether it is "independently displayed and independently active of any application program" and is composed of distinct "modules" as those terms are used in the patent.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the construction of "control strip" and "module display area." The question for the court will be whether these terms, as described in the context of a desktop computer operating system in the patent, can be construed to read on the user interface elements of a mobile operating system like Android.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide a basis for claim construction analysis. However, based on the asserted patents, certain terms may become central to the dispute.

  • The Term: "heuristic" (from the ’949 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the ’949 Patent depends entirely on whether the accused devices "apply one or more heuristics" to interpret touch commands. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the accused devices' gesture-recognition algorithms fall within the claims.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a heuristic can be a "set of rules" used to interpret ambiguous inputs, which could be argued to cover a wide range of algorithms. ('949 Patent, col. 8:1-4).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific examples of heuristics, such as analyzing the "straightness of the motion of the one or more finger contacts" to distinguish scrolling from other commands, which may suggest a narrower definition tied to the disclosed examples. ('949 Patent, col. 9:1-5).

  • The Term: "control strip" (from the ’002 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The applicability of the ’002 Patent to the accused Android devices likely hinges on whether the Android status bar or notification shade qualifies as a "control strip." The definition of this term is therefore critical.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes the invention broadly as a "status and control information display" in an "easily accessible format," which might support a broad construction covering any persistent on-screen status display. ('002 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures consistently depict the "control strip" as a bar that can be collapsed into a tab at the edge of the screen and expanded, a specific implementation that might be used to argue for a narrower construction. ('002 Patent, Fig. 2B; col. 5:1-5).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement for all sixteen patents. For many of the patents, knowledge is predicated on Defendant's own prior declaratory judgment action filed on October 8, 2010. (Compl. ¶¶47, 54, 61). For others, knowledge is alleged to arise "at least because Motorola was provided with a copy of this Complaint upon its filing." (Compl. ¶¶26, 33, 40). The complaint further alleges inducement is based on end users operating the mobile devices and contributory infringement is based on the devices not being staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶26, 33).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement of all sixteen patents is "willful and deliberate." (Compl. ¶¶29, 36, 43, etc.). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be the same as that for indirect infringement: alleged knowledge arising from either the prior declaratory judgment action or the filing of this complaint.

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

  • A central issue for all sixteen asserted patents will be one of evidentiary sufficiency and pleading standards: The complaint, filed in 2010, uses general, notice-style allegations. A primary question for the case will be whether Apple can substantiate these broad claims with specific technical evidence demonstrating that the accused Android devices practice each limitation of the asserted claims, particularly given the highly abstract and foundational nature of the technologies patented.
  • A key dispute will be one of definitional scope and technological evolution: Many of the asserted patents were filed in the 1990s and describe technologies in the context of desktop operating systems. The case will likely turn on whether claim terms rooted in that context (e.g., "control strip" from the ’002 patent, or the client/server architectures of the NeXT-era patents) can be construed to cover the different architectural and user interface paradigms of a modern mobile operating system.
  • A fundamental challenge for the Plaintiff may be one of patent validity: Given that the asserted portfolio covers fundamental aspects of graphical user interfaces, object-oriented programming, and operating system design that have been the subject of extensive development for decades, it is foreseeable that the case will involve significant disputes over whether the claims are valid in light of prior art.