DCT

6:97-cv-06182

Xerox Corp v. US Robotics Corp

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:97-cv-06182, W.D.N.Y., 03/29/2004
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on its place of business within the district and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1400(b).
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' products and services infringe a patent related to a system and method for computerized handwriting recognition using a specialized single-stroke alphabet.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for reliable and efficient text input on stylus-based computing devices, such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), which were a significant and growing market at the time.
  • Key Procedural History: This Fourth Amended Complaint, filed in 2004, arises from a case originally initiated in 1997. The complaint details a complex series of corporate transactions, including mergers and spin-offs, involving the various named defendants, which Plaintiff appears to allege establishes a chain of liability for the ongoing infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1993-10-06 Earliest Priority Date for ’656 Patent
1997-01-21 ’656 Patent Issue Date
1997-06-12 3Com Corporation merges with U.S. Robotics Corporation
2000-02-26 Palm, Inc. legally separates from 3Com Corporation
2000-03-02 Palm, Inc. completes its initial public offering
2003-10-28 Palm, Inc. spins off PalmSource, Inc.
2003-10-29 Palm, Inc. merges with Handspring, Inc. and is renamed PalmOne, Inc.
2004-03-29 Fourth Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,596,656 - “Unistrokes for Computerized Interpretation of Handwriting,” issued January 21, 1997

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the difficulty of achieving accurate computerized recognition of conventional handwriting, especially when written quickly or "sloppily." It notes that many letters in the Roman alphabet are not easily distinguishable when drawn imprecisely (e.g., "r" and "v," "g" and "q"), and keyboards are impractical for very small or very large computing devices. (’656 Patent, col. 1:41-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method of text entry using a specially designed alphabet of "unistrokes," where each character is formed by a single, unbroken stroke of a stylus. These symbols are designed to be graphically distinct and "well separated from each other in sloppiness space" to minimize recognition errors. (’656 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-9). The system captures the sequence of coordinates as a stroke is drawn, recognizes the symbol based on its geometric properties, and translates it to a standard alphanumeric character for display, with each stroke being delimited by the user lifting and reapplying the stylus to the writing surface. (’656 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:24-42).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a potential solution for rapid and reliable text entry on PDAs and other stylus-based devices, enabling "eyes-free" operation and input in spatially constrained areas. (’656 Patent, col. 2:41-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, alleging infringement of "the invention claimed therein" generally (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1, a system claim, is representative of the core invention.

  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A system for interpreting handwritten text comprising:
    • "a user interface" including a "manually manipulatable pointer" for writing "mutually independent unistroke symbols" in sequential time order and a "user controlled signaling mechanism" for performing a "predetermined, symbol independent, delimiting operation" between successive unistroke symbols;
    • some of said unistroke symbols being "linear" and others being "arcuate";
    • each unistroke symbol representing a "predefined textual component";
    • said delimiting operation distinguishing symbols from each other "totally independent of without reference to their spatial relationship";
    • a "sensor mechanism" to transform the symbols into "ordered lists of spatial coordinates";
    • a "recognition unit" to convert the coordinate lists into computer recognizable codes; and
    • a "display" and "character generator" to write the corresponding textual components.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It broadly alleges that all named Defendants have infringed by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the claimed invention (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of any accused instrumentality. It makes only a general allegation of infringement without describing the features or operation of any specific product or service.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes a general allegation of infringement without providing a detailed, element-by-element mapping of any accused product to the claim limitations (Compl. ¶12). The infringement theory is stated in a conclusory manner, and no claim chart is provided or referenced. Accordingly, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific allegations, any infringement analysis will depend on facts developed during discovery. The following points of contention may arise based on the claim language and the general technological context:
    • Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute will be the construction and application of the limitation requiring a delimiting operation that is "totally independent of without reference to their spatial relationship with respect to each other" (Claim 1). The patent describes writing symbols "one on top of another" (’656 Patent, col. 6:17-18). The case may raise the question of whether this limitation can be met by an accused system that uses a spatially defined input area (e.g., a designated box for each character), which could be argued to involve a spatial relationship in delimiting characters.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be how the accused systems technically distinguish one character from the next. The complaint provides no information on whether the accused functionality relies solely on the stylus making and breaking contact with a surface, as taught in the patent (’656 Patent, col. 8:24-28), or if it incorporates other logic, such as the location of a new stroke, that could be argued to fall outside the scope of the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a user controlled signaling mechanism for performing a predetermined, symbol independent, delimiting operation"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's method of distinguishing characters. Its construction will determine how the system is understood to segment the continuous stream of user inputs. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will define whether simply lifting a stylus is sufficient to meet the limitation, or if more is required.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that the act of engaging and disengaging the stylus with the writing surface constitutes the delimiting operation. (’656 Patent, col. 6:41-49). Claim 8 further specifies that the symbols are delimited by "making and breaking contact between said pointer and said writing surface," which could support a broad interpretation where the physical action itself is the complete signaling mechanism.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term requires a mechanism and operation that are distinct from the act of writing itself. The use of "signaling mechanism" might suggest an element beyond the mere tracking of the pointer's contact status.

  • The Term: "totally independent of without reference to their spatial relationship with respect to each other"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase modifies the "delimiting operation" and is critical to the scope of the claims. Infringement will likely depend on whether an accused system is found to use any spatial information to segment characters.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s emphasis on enabling text entry in small fields and even "one on top of another" suggests the primary inventive concept is freeing the user from spatial constraints. (’656 Patent, col. 6:17-21). This could support a reading where the system is capable of operating without spatial reference, even if it can also use it.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The word "totally" is an absolute. A defendant may argue that if an accused system's software uses the location of a new stroke relative to the end of a prior one as any part of its recognition or segmentation logic, it is not "totally independent" of spatial relationships. The patent's own depiction of a user interface with a defined text entry field (42) could be used to argue that some spatial context is contemplated. (’656 Patent, Fig. 4).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶12). It does not, however, plead any specific facts to support these claims, such as referencing defendant-provided user manuals, developer kits, or software that would instruct or enable third parties to infringe.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the defendants having "full knowledge of the '656 patent" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint does not specify how or when this knowledge was obtained, nor does it allege any facts supporting a claim of egregious or deliberate conduct beyond the act of infringement itself.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim limitation requiring a character delimiting operation "totally independent of... their spatial relationship" be construed to read on a handwriting recognition system that may use a spatially-defined input area or other spatial cues as part of its character segmentation logic?

  2. A central evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: The complaint lacks any detail regarding the accused products. The case will depend on evidence from discovery that establishes precisely how Defendants' systems segment character strokes and whether that process relies exclusively on the non-spatial act of lifting the stylus, as claimed, or incorporates spatial data in a way that falls outside the patent's scope.