DCT
1:24-cv-09422
Gesture Technology Partners LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (Ohio)
- Defendant: Motorola Mobility LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamos & Trucco LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-09422, N.D. Ill., 07/07/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC maintains a regular and established place of business in Chicago and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones and tablets, featuring camera-based functionalities such as gesture control and facial recognition, infringe four U.S. patents related to camera-based sensing and user interaction.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using cameras in handheld electronic devices to interpret user actions and environmental context, enabling functions beyond simple image capture that are now central to the modern smartphone user experience.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the sole inventor of the asserted patents, Dr. Timothy Pryor, conceived of the inventions in the mid- to late-1990s and founded the Plaintiff entity in 2013. No prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the 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. 7,933,431 Issued |
| 2012-06-05 | U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924 Issued |
| 2013-10-08 | U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079 Issued |
| 2014-11-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 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, "Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming or Other Devices," issued June 5, 2012 (’924 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes using optical sensing as a simple input method for computers and other devices, particularly for graphically intensive activities, moving beyond traditional physical inputs (’924 Patent, col. 1:8-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a handheld device equipped with two cameras having non-overlapping fields of view: a first camera oriented toward the user and a second camera oriented toward an external object. A computer within the device uses the output from one or both cameras to perform a control function (’924 Patent, col. 25:55-67). Figure 18 illustrates this concept with a handheld computer (1901) having a camera (1902) that can be oriented toward the user or rotated (1902a) to view an external object (’924 Patent, Fig. 18).
- Technical Importance: This configuration provides a framework for context-aware computing in mobile devices, allowing a device to react differently based on whether it is sensing the user (e.g., for facial recognition) or the external environment (e.g., for object recognition or photography) (’924 Patent, col. 26:55-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A handheld device with a housing and a computer.
- A first camera oriented to view a user, having a first camera output.
- A second camera oriented to view an object other than the user, having a second camera output.
- The first and second cameras have non-overlapping fields of view.
- The computer is adapted to perform a control function based on the output from at least one of the cameras.
- The complaint’s prayer for relief makes a general reservation to assert other claims (Compl. p. 17).
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, "Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, or Other Devices," issued April 26, 2011 (’431 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for improved human-computer interfaces that can interpret a user's physical actions, such as gestures, to control a device without relying on traditional inputs like buttons or keys (’431 Patent, col. 1:8-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld computer apparatus that uses a camera to obtain images of an object positioned by a user (e.g., a hand). A computer within the apparatus analyzes the images to determine information about the object's position or movement, and that information is then used to control a function of the device (’431 Patent, Abstract; col. 26:7-16).
- Technical Importance: The patent describes a foundational method for implementing gesture-based controls on mobile devices, where a camera acts as the primary sensor for user input (’431 Patent, col. 10:45-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 7 (Compl. ¶46).
- Essential elements of Claim 7, a means-plus-function claim, 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 position or movement information.
- A means for controlling a function of the apparatus using that information.
- The complaint’s prayer for relief makes a general reservation to assert other claims (Compl. p. 17).
U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 - "Camera Based Interaction and Instruction"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949, "Camera Based Interaction and Instruction," issued November 4, 2014 (’949 Patent).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a portable device that uses an "electro-optical sensor" with a field of view to determine if a user has performed a gesture. In response to detecting a recognized gesture, a processing unit controls the device's digital camera to perform an action, such as capturing an image (Compl. ¶¶60, 66-67).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶62).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by features such as "Gesture Selfie," where a user can trigger a photo by showing their palm to the front-facing camera (Compl. ¶¶25, 67).
U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079 - "More Useful Man Machine Interfaces and Applications"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079, "More Useful Man Machine Interfaces and Applications," issued October 8, 2013 (’079 Patent).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses an apparatus for determining gestures performed by a human body part within a "work volume." The apparatus includes a light source to illuminate the body part and a camera, in a fixed relation to the light source, oriented to observe the gesture. A processor determines the gesture based on the camera's output (Compl. ¶¶75, 79-81).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 11 (Compl. ¶77).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses features where a light source (such as a screen flash) illuminates a user's body part (e.g., face or hand) to enable camera-based functions like facial recognition or gesture control (Compl. ¶¶79, 81).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as smartphones and tablets made and sold by Motorola, including but not limited to the Motorola One series, Motorola G series, and Motorola E series devices (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. ¶¶21-22). These features allegedly use the devices' front- and/or rear-facing cameras to perform control functions.
- Examples of accused functionality include "Auto Smile Capture," which automatically takes a photo when the camera detects smiling subjects (Compl. ¶23), "Gesture Selfie," which initiates a photo countdown when the user shows their palm to the camera (Compl. ¶25), and "Attentive Display," which keeps the screen from dimming when the front-facing camera detects the user is looking at it (Compl. ¶26). A screenshot from Motorola's website illustrates the "Show palm to take selfie" instruction for the Gesture Selfie feature (Compl. p. 7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’924 Patent 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 a computer, such as a System-on-Chip. | ¶33 | col. 25:40-42 |
| a first camera oriented to view a user of the handheld device and having a first camera output; | The Accused Products have a front-facing camera oriented to view the user, which provides an output when used. | ¶34 | col. 25:42-45 |
| 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 a rear-facing camera oriented to view objects other than the user, which provides an output when used. | ¶35 | col. 25:60-63 |
| wherein the first and second cameras include non-overlapping fields of view, | The front- and rear-facing cameras of the Accused Products are alleged to have non-overlapping fields of view. | ¶36 | col. 25:42-63 |
| 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 (e.g., Attentive Display, Auto Smile Capture) based on output from the front and/or rear cameras. A screenshot from Motorola's website describes the Attentive Display feature, which uses the front camera to keep the screen on (Compl. p. 7). | ¶37 | col. 26:61-67 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential point of contention may be the interpretation of "non-overlapping fields of view." While physically distinct front and rear cameras inherently have non-overlapping views, the litigation could focus on whether the patent's disclosure, which includes an embodiment of a single rotatable camera, limits the scope of this term in a way that does not read on the accused dual-fixed-camera configuration.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Accused Products use the output of the second (rear-facing) camera to perform a control function beyond standard photography, as contemplated by the claim? The complaint's examples ("Attentive Display," "Gesture Selfie") primarily implicate the first (user-facing) camera.
’431 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A handheld computer apparatus comprising: a housing; | The Accused Products are alleged to be handheld computers with a housing. | ¶¶48-49 | col. 25:40-42 |
| 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 (e.g., a user's face or hand) using reflected light. | ¶50 | col. 3:58-61 |
| computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of said object; | A computer (e.g., System-on-Chip) within the Accused Products is alleged to analyze images to determine the position or movement of an object, such as in the "Gesture Selfie" feature. A screenshot of Motorola's website shows instructions for this feature (Compl. p. 7). | ¶51 | col. 4:58-64 |
| and means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information. | The Accused Products allegedly use the determined information about the object's position or movement to control a function, such as automatically taking a photograph. | ¶52 | col. 12:45-56 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 7 uses means-plus-function language ("camera means," "computer means," "means for controlling"). The central dispute will likely involve identifying the specific structures (hardware) and algorithms (software) disclosed in the specification that correspond to these functions and determining whether the structures and algorithms in the Accused Products are identical or equivalent.
- Technical Questions: What specific algorithm does the complaint allege the "computer means" in the accused products uses to analyze images? The patent specification discloses using a "moment method" for centroid calculation (’431 Patent, col. 4:62-65), raising the question of whether the accused devices employ a structurally equivalent algorithm.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "computer means... for analyzing said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of said object" (’431 Patent, Claim 7)
Context and Importance: As a means-plus-function limitation, the construction of this term is dispositive for infringement of the ’431 patent. The scope of the claim will be limited to the specific structures and algorithms disclosed in the patent specification for performing the recited function, and their equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent discloses a specific algorithm, and infringement will depend on whether the accused devices use an equivalent method.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of evidence supporting a broader interpretation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the "centroid location can be determined for example by the moment method disclosed in the Pinkney patent, referenced above" (’431 Patent, col. 4:62-65). A defendant may argue that this specific algorithm is the corresponding structure, limiting the claim scope to that method and its equivalents.
The Term: "electro-optical sensor" (’949 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the ’949 patent hinges on whether the front-facing camera module in the accused smartphones constitutes an "electro-optical sensor" as the term is used in the patent. The complaint alleges the accused "Gesture Selfie" feature uses this component to detect a gesture (Compl. ¶¶64-66).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the "electro-optical sensor" as having a "field of view" and being co-located with a "digital camera," which could describe a modern smartphone front-camera assembly (’949 Patent, col. 15:1-4). Plaintiff may argue the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which would encompass a digital camera sensor.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites the "electro-optical sensor" and the "digital camera" as separate elements. A defendant may argue that this implies they are structurally distinct components, and that a single smartphone camera module that performs both sensing and capturing functions does not meet this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Motorola induced infringement of all asserted patents by "advising or directing end-users" through instructions, advertising, and user manuals to use the accused features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶42, 57, 72, 86).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents based on Motorola having knowledge "at least as of the filing of this Complaint." This constitutes an allegation of post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶41, 56, 71, 85).
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 "moment method" algorithm disclosed in the 1999-priority-date specification be considered structurally equivalent to the modern, likely more sophisticated, image analysis algorithms used in Motorola's current smartphones?
- A second key issue will be one of claim differentiation: for the ’949 patent, which claims both an "electro-optical sensor" and a "digital camera," can a single front-facing camera module in a smartphone satisfy both limitations, or does the claim language require two structurally distinct components?
- A final evidentiary question will be one of proof of use: for the ’924 patent, which claims a device with both user-facing and object-facing cameras used for control functions, what evidence will be presented to show that the object-facing (rear) camera in the accused phones is used to "perform a control function" beyond its conventional role in photography?