DCT

1:22-cv-03535

Gesture Technology Partners LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 1:22-cv-03535, N.D. Ill., 07/07/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant Motorola Mobility has its principal place of business in Chicago, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones and tablets infringe four patents related to using device cameras for user interaction and control functions, such as gesture recognition and automated image capture.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves using cameras integrated into mobile devices to interpret user actions and environmental conditions, enabling features that have become central to the modern smartphone user experience.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the inventor, Dr. Timothy Pryor, founded the Plaintiff entity, Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, in 2013. No prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings concerning the asserted patents are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-11-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079 Priority Date
1999-05-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 Priority Date
1999-07-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924 Priority Date
1999-07-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 Priority Date
2011-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 7933431 Issued
2012-06-05 U.S. Patent No. 8194924 Issued
2013-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 8553079 Issued
2014-11-04 U.S. Patent No. 8878949 Issued
2022-07-07 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924 - "Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming or Other Devices"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924, issued on June 5, 2012 (Compl. ¶28; Ex. A).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for simple, effective input devices for computers, particularly for graphically intensive activities where traditional inputs like keyboards and mice may be insufficient (’924 Patent, col. 1:52-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using one or more cameras integrated into a device to optically sense human input, position, or orientation to control the device's functions (’924 Patent, col. 3:18-26). One embodiment describes a handheld computer with both a user-facing camera and an outward-facing camera, where the device's computer uses output from either camera to perform a control function (’924 Patent, col. 25:40-col. 26:66).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a framework for using the dual-camera architecture of modern smartphones to enable intuitive, camera-based user interactions (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A handheld device comprising a housing and a computer.
    • A first camera oriented to view a user of the handheld device.
    • A second camera oriented to view an object other than the user.
    • The first and second cameras having non-overlapping fields of view.
    • The computer is adapted to perform a control function based on an output from at least one of the cameras.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 - "Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, or Other Devices"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431, issued on April 26, 2011 (Compl. ¶44; Ex. B).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’924 Patent, the technology is directed at providing improved input devices for computers and other electronics by using optical sensing (’431 Patent, col. 1:52-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a handheld computer apparatus that uses a camera to obtain an image of an object positioned by a user (e.g., a hand or finger) (’431 Patent, col. 25:63-66). An internal computer then analyzes the image to determine the object's position or movement and uses that information to control a function of the device, forming a basis for gesture control (’431 Patent, col. 26:1-5).
  • Technical Importance: The invention describes a foundational method for using a device's camera to interpret user gestures as control inputs, a now-common feature in mobile devices (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 7 (Compl. ¶46).
  • Essential elements of Claim 7 include:
    • A handheld computer apparatus with a housing.
    • A camera means for obtaining an image of an object positioned by a user.
    • A computer means for analyzing the image to determine information about the object's position or movement.
    • A means for controlling a function of said apparatus using that information.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 - "Camera Based Interaction and Instruction"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949, issued on November 4, 2014 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a portable device that uses a forward-facing electro-optical sensor to detect a user's gesture (Compl. ¶60). A processing unit is programmed to determine if a gesture has been performed based on the sensor's output and, in response, controls the device's digital camera (Compl. ¶¶ 66-67).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶62).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Motorola's "Features" which use gestures to control the camera, such as "Gesture Selfie," infringe this patent (Compl. ¶67).

U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079 - "More Useful Man Machine Interfaces and Applications"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079, issued on October 8, 2013 (Compl. ¶74).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes methods and apparatuses for determining gestures performed by a human body part (Compl. ¶75, 80). The system uses a light source to illuminate the body part within a work volume and a camera, in a fixed relation to the light source, to observe the gesture and provide output to a processor (Compl. ¶¶ 79-80).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 11 is asserted (Compl. ¶77).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that gesture-based "Features" of the Accused Products, which are observed by a camera and illuminated by a light source (such as the screen or flash), infringe this patent (Compl. ¶¶ 79, 81).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Motorola-branded smartphones and tablets, including but not limited to the Motorola One series (Fusion+, 5G, Zoom, Action, Hyper), G series (Stylus, Power, Fast), and Motorola E (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products incorporate a set of camera-based "Features" that drive their popularity and sales (Compl. ¶22). These include "Auto Smile Capture," which automatically takes a photo when subjects are smiling; "Gesture Selfie," which allows a user to trigger the camera by showing their palm; and "Attentive Display," which keeps the screen on while the user is looking at it (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 23, 25, 26). A screenshot from Motorola’s website shows instructions for the "Gesture Selfie" feature, stating "You can have the camera start a countdown timer to take a selfie by raising your palm" (Compl. p. 7). The complaint asserts that these functions rely on using the devices' front and/or rear cameras to analyze user actions and control device operations (Compl. ¶37, 52).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A handheld device comprising: a housing; a computer within the housing; The Accused Products are handheld devices containing a housing and one or more System-on-Chips that function as a computer. ¶33 col. 25:40-44
a first camera oriented to view a user of the handheld device and having a first camera output; The Accused Products have at least one front-facing camera oriented to view the user. ¶34 col. 25:57-59
and a second camera oriented to view an object other than the user of the device and having a second camera output, The Accused Products have at least one rear-facing camera oriented to view objects other than the user. ¶35 col. 25:60-62
wherein the first and second cameras include non-overlapping fields of view, The front-facing and rear-facing cameras of the Accused Products have fields of view that do not overlap. ¶36 col. 25:63-64
and wherein the computer is adapted to perform a control function of the handheld device based on at least one of the first camera output and the second camera output. The computer in the Accused Products performs control functions, such as those associated with the "Features," based on output from either the front or rear camera. ¶37 col. 25:65-66

U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
Handheld computer apparatus comprising: a housing; The Accused Products are handheld computer devices that have a housing. ¶48, ¶49 col. 25:61-62
a camera means associated with said housing for obtaining an image using reflected light of at least one object positioned by a user operating said object; The Accused Products have one or more cameras that obtain images of objects (such as a user's hand) using reflected light. ¶50 col. 25:63-66
computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of said object; A computer (e.g., a System-on-Chip) within the Accused Products analyzes images to determine the position or movement of an object to enable features like gesture control. ¶51 col. 26:1-3
and means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information. The Accused Products use the determined information about the object's position or movement to control a function, such as taking a photo in response to a gesture. ¶52 col. 26:4-5

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the ’924 Patent, a potential point of dispute may arise over the interpretation of "non-overlapping fields of view." While factually descriptive of standard front-and-rear camera configurations, the patent specification also discusses stereo cameras, which typically require overlapping fields to function (’924 Patent, FIG. 1A). This raises the question of whether the claim term was intended to cover the specific dual-camera architecture common in modern smartphones as alleged.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’431 Patent, the use of means-plus-function language ("camera means," "computer means") will be a central issue. Infringement analysis will require identifying the specific structures (hardware and algorithms) disclosed in the patent's specification that perform the claimed functions—such as centroid calculation or image subtraction (’431 Patent, col. 4:58-64, col. 7:3-6)—and then determining whether the corresponding structures in Motorola's products are equivalent. The complaint alleges in a conclusory manner that the accused products meet these limitations, but does not specify what structures perform the functions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "computer means . . . for analyzing said image" (’431 Patent, Claim 7)

    • Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function term governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is not its literal meaning but is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent specification and their equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the entire infringement case for this patent will depend on whether Motorola's sophisticated, modern image-processing software is legally equivalent to the specific, simpler algorithms disclosed in the 1999-priority-date patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that "computer 220" is the primary structure, and that the specific algorithms mentioned are merely examples of its function, allowing for a wider range of equivalents that perform the same overall function of analyzing an image to determine position or movement.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the only disclosed structures are a general-purpose computer programmed with specific algorithms, such as "the moment method disclosed in the Pinkney patent" for centroid calculation or the process of "subtracting successive images" to detect motion (’431 Patent, col. 4:62-65, col. 7:3-6). This would support a narrower construction, potentially excluding modern machine learning or AI-based image analysis techniques as non-equivalent.

  • The Term: "non-overlapping fields of view" (’924 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the required relationship between the two cameras. Its construction will determine whether the claim squarely reads on the common front-and-rear camera setup in modern smartphones. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification heavily discusses stereo camera pairs, which typically have overlapping fields of view to perceive depth, creating a potential tension with the claim language.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim strongly supports the interpretation alleged in the complaint: two cameras whose views do not physically overlap, such as a standard front-facing and rear-facing camera pair. The claim's own distinction between a camera "oriented to view a user" and one "oriented to view an object other than the user" provides contextual support for this straightforward reading (’924 Patent, col. 25:57-62).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might point to embodiments like FIG. 1A, which shows two forward-facing cameras on a monitor, as evidence that the invention's context is stereo vision (’924 Patent, FIG. 1A). An argument could be made that "non-overlapping" was intended to distinguish the invention from specific prior art stereo systems, potentially imbuing the term with a specific meaning that does not cover the physically separated front/rear cameras of the accused products.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on Motorola's actions in "advising or directing end-users," "advertising and promoting," and "distributing instructions" that guide users to operate the Accused Products in an infringing manner (e.g., using Gesture Selfie) (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 57, 72, 86).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents based on knowledge acquired "at least as of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 56, 71, 85). This frames the willfulness allegation as being based on post-suit conduct rather than pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural equivalence under § 112(f): For the means-plus-function claims of the '431 patent, can the specific algorithms for image analysis disclosed in the specification (e.g., centroid calculation, image subtraction) be considered structurally equivalent to the modern, likely more complex, software used in Motorola’s smartphones to implement features like gesture recognition?
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope versus specification disclosure: For the '924 patent, can the claim term "non-overlapping fields of view" be interpreted according to its plain meaning to cover standard front/rear smartphone cameras, or will the specification's focus on stereo camera embodiments be used to argue for a narrower construction that might exclude the accused configuration?
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: Does the evidence show that the accused features, such as "Auto Smile Capture" and "Attentive Display," actually operate by performing the specific steps required by the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their technical implementation and the patented methods?