Princeps Secundus LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Princeps Secundus LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Motorola Mobility LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00318, N.D. Ill., 06/08/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's principal place of business being a "regular and established place of business" in the district, and on alleged infringing sales within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Moto" brand smartphones, which utilize keyboard functionalities within the Android operating system, infringe a patent related to a multifunctional input device.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for improving data entry on small-profile electronic devices by using dynamic, multi-layered keyboard layouts to overcome the physical and functional limitations of traditional QWERTY keyboards.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was made aware of the patent-in-suit and the infringement allegations in a prior, related proceeding on September 30, 2019, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-09-20	'963 Patent Priority Date (Provisional Application)
2004-03-09	'963 Patent Issue Date
2019-09-30	Defendant Notified of Alleged Infringement via Prior Case
2020-06-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,703,963 - "Universal Keyboard" (issued March 9, 2004)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section asserts that as electronic devices became smaller, traditional QWERTY keyboards proved problematic due to their large size, which is unsuitable for portability and single-handed use, and their typical limitation to a single alphanumeric function (Compl. ¶ 11; ’963 Patent, col. 1:37-54, 2:17-23).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "multifunctional input device" that organizes input characters and functions into a hierarchical system. A user first selects a high-level "functional mode" (e.g., alphanumeric, telephone, calculator) and then selects a "domain level" within that mode (e.g., the character set "A-L" or "M-X"). A plurality of programmable keys are then assigned "domain-level values" corresponding to the selected mode and level, with a display indicating the current assignment for each key (’963 Patent, Abstract; ’963 Patent, col. 4:20-30). This allows a compact keyboard to manage a large number of inputs dynamically.
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to "maximize efficiency and versatility associated with entering data into a small profile data input device," a significant challenge for early portable electronics (Compl. ¶ 14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (an apparatus) and 60 (a method).
• Independent Claim 1 recites an information input device comprising:
  • a functional mode control for selecting a first functional mode of operation
  • a domain control for selecting one of multiple domain levels within the first functional mode
  • a plurality of input keys, separate and distinct from the domain control, assigned domain-level values associated with the selected domain level
  • a function-specific display indicating a domain-level value associated with each input key
  • wherein the input keys and domain control are simultaneously presented by the input device
• Independent Claim 60 recites a method of operating an information input device by:
  • first selecting a functional mode of operation
  • second selecting, through the domain control, a domain level within the selected functional mode
  • actuating one or more of the input keys associated with the selected domain level
• The complaint asserts dependent claims 2, 3, 9, and 12, and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as "Motorola's 'Moto' brand phones with proprietary Motorola Apps and/or third-party Apps with keyboard functionalities and an operating system such as the Android operating system" (Compl. ¶ 22).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these devices provide "keyboard functionalities" that allow for user data input (Compl. ¶ 22). The accused functionality appears to be the on-screen software keyboard provided by the Android operating system, which allows users to switch between different layouts, such as alphabetic characters, numbers, and symbols. The complaint asserts that Defendant is a for-profit organization with substantial revenue and that the availability of these instrumentalities is important to its market position (Compl. ¶ 25).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary claim charts in Exhibits A-1 and A-2, which were not provided with the filed complaint document. Without these exhibits, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is that the on-screen keyboards in the Accused Instrumentalities, which allow users to switch between different sets of characters (e.g., letters, numbers, symbols), embody the patented system of "functional modes" and "domain levels" (Compl. ¶ 22). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the claims, which are illustrated in the patent with figures depicting a distinct physical hardware device, can be construed to cover a software-based, on-screen keyboard integrated into a general-purpose smartphone. The construction of "information input device" and its constituent "control" elements will be critical.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the accused keyboard's user interface maps onto the specific two-level control structure required by the claims. A question for the court will be whether toggling a single key on a software keyboard to switch between, for example, an alphabetic layout and a numeric layout, constitutes the claimed combination of a "functional mode control" and a separate "domain control." The claim requirement that the "input keys and domain control are simultaneously presented" raises the evidentiary question of what constitutes the "domain control" on the accused devices and whether it is, in fact, always present on the screen with the keys.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "domain control"

• Context and Importance: This term is a core limitation of the independent claims and appears to be structurally distinct from both the "functional mode control" and the "input keys." Its definition is crucial because the accused software keyboards may not have a user interface element that is readily identifiable as a separate "domain control" as depicted in the patent's figures.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this element functionally as "controls 20 for selecting the desired domain level" ('963 Patent, col. 4:20-21). A party might argue this language is broad enough to cover any UI mechanism, including a single software key, that allows selection of a character subset.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict the "domain-level controls 20" as a set of discrete buttons separate from the "functional-mode controls 10" and the "programmable input keys 30" ('963 Patent, Fig. 1, 5a). This may support an interpretation that requires a physically or graphically separate control element.

The Term: "simultaneously presented"

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires that the "input keys and domain control are simultaneously presented." Practitioners may focus on this term because if "domain control" is construed narrowly to mean a specific set of selection buttons, it must be determined whether those buttons are always "presented" on the screen of the accused phones alongside the character keys.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "presented" simply means available on the same screen or user interface, even if not persistently visible.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures show the domain-level indicators (22) and the input keys (32) all displayed at the same time, suggesting that "simultaneously presented" requires the controls and the keys to be concurrently visible to the user during operation ('963 Patent, Fig. 5a-f).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a formal count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant's employees and agents "cause to be used the Accused Instrumentalities for Defendant's customers" (Compl. ¶ 25), language which could lay a foundation for a future claim of induced infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Motorola had knowledge of the '963 patent and the infringement allegations "at least as early as receiving an Amended Complaint on September 30, 2019, in a prior related proceeding, Del. No. 1:19-cv-01425-CFC" (Compl. ¶ 24). This alleged pre-suit knowledge forms the basis of the request for a finding of exceptionality and enhanced damages.

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

This case appears to present two primary areas of dispute that will be central to its resolution:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "functional mode control" and a separate "domain control," which the patent specification illustrates as distinct components of a physical keypad, be construed to read on the integrated, software-based layout-switching functions of a modern smartphone keyboard?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional mapping: assuming the claims are construed to cover software keyboards, does the accused interface actually implement the specific two-level hierarchy of controls required by the claims? Specifically, is there a "domain control" that is "separate and distinct" from the input keys and is "simultaneously presented" with them, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?