DCT
2:08-cv-00099
Aloft Media LLC v. Nokia Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Aloft Media, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Corporation; Motorola, Inc.; Palm, Inc.; Research in Motion, Ltd. and Research in Motion Corporation; and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") (Various U.S. and foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Albritton Law Firm; Ward & Smith Law Firm; WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:08-cv-00099, E.D. Tex., 03/06/2008
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants having transacted business in the district and having committed, induced, or contributed to acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ mobile phones, which feature capabilities for transferring contact information, infringe a patent related to exchanging such information during a voice call.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the process of exchanging personal contact data (e.g., phone numbers, email addresses) between users of mobile devices, aiming to improve accuracy over verbal exchange.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit issued on February 12, 2008, less than one month prior to the filing of this complaint. No other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-10-18 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,330,715 |
| 2008-02-12 | U.S. Patent No. 7,330,715 Issues |
| 2008-03-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,330,715 - "System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Transferring Contact Information Using a Cellular Phone"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7330715, issued February 12, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency and potential for error when parties on a phone call verbally exchange contact information, which "often results in wrong phone numbers, e-mails, etc. being provided" (’715 Patent, col. 2:58-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user on a cellular phone call can initiate the electronic transfer of their contact information to the other party by providing an instruction, such as pressing a "hot key" (’715 Patent, col. 2:9-11). This process, illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 3, is intended to occur in response to an instruction received "during the vocal communication," after which data containing contact information is transmitted to the second party (’715 Patent, col. 2:43-47, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The described technology sought to leverage the growing data-transmission capabilities of mobile phones to automate and improve the accuracy of a common business and social interaction.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts. Claim 1 is the sole independent apparatus claim.
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- A cellular phone of a second party for vocal communication with a first party.
- A user interface to receive a "first instruction" from a "hot key" depression "during the vocal communication."
- Communication hardware that responds to the instruction to generate and transmit a data message with "first contact information" to the first party.
- The communication hardware is also operable to receive "second contact information" from the first party.
- A display to show the received "second contact information."
- The received second contact information is transmitted to a computer of the second party upon a "second instruction."
- The vocal communication utilizes a "VoIP protocol."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are various mobile phone models, including the Nokia N-series and E-series, Motorola MOTO Q, Palm Treo 700p, BlackBerry 8820 and Curve 8320, and the Sony Ericsson W960 Smartphone (Compl. ¶¶14-18).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused products are "phones having hardware and/or software for transferring contact information" (Compl. ¶¶14-18). The complaint does not provide further technical details about how this functionality is implemented in the accused devices or any information regarding their commercial importance or market positioning.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint alleges that each defendant infringes by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling the accused phones (Compl. ¶¶14-18). The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement contentions. The following summary is based on the general allegations against the accused feature of "transferring contact information."
’715 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a cellular phone of the second party operable to provide vocal communication between the first party and the second party... | The accused products are mobile phones capable of communication (Compl. ¶¶14-18). | ¶¶14-18 | col. 3:3-6 |
| a user interface operable to receive a first instruction during the vocal communication upon a depression of a hot key during the vocal communication... | The accused phones possess hardware and/or software for transferring contact information, which is necessarily initiated by user instruction (Compl. ¶¶14-18). | ¶¶14-18 | col. 3:7-10 |
| communication hardware operable to be responsive to the first instruction and generate a data message capable of including first contact information for being transmitted to the first party... | The accused phones possess hardware and/or software for transferring contact information (Compl. ¶¶14-18). | ¶¶14-18 | col. 3:11-15 |
| the communication hardware further operable to receive second contact information from the first party... | The accused phones possess hardware and/or software for transferring contact information, which implies the ability to receive it (Compl. ¶¶14-18). | ¶¶14-18 | col. 3:15-16 |
| a display operable to display the received second contact information... | The accused products are mobile phones that include displays (Compl. ¶¶14-18). | ¶¶14-18 | col. 3:17-18 |
| wherein the received second contact information is transmitted from the cellular phone of the second party to a computer of the second party, upon a receipt of a second instruction... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶¶14-18 | col. 3:19-22 |
| wherein the cellular phone is operable to provide the vocal communication utilizing a VoIP protocol. | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶¶14-18 | col. 3:23-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires the instruction to be received "during the vocal communication." The patent specification, however, mentions the instruction may be received "during or after the vocal communication" (’715 Patent, col. 2:8-9). This raises the question of whether the claim language should be limited to its plain meaning (simultaneously) or be interpreted more broadly in light of the specification.
- Technical Questions: A significant technical question is whether the accused devices perform their vocal communication "utilizing a VoIP protocol" as required by Claim 1. The complaint provides no information on this point, and it is a question of fact whether cellular phones of that era used VoIP for standard voice calls, as opposed to circuit-switched cellular protocols like GSM.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "during the vocal communication"
- Context and Importance: The temporal scope of this term is central to the infringement analysis. A narrow construction requiring the instruction to occur strictly while a voice call is active could limit the range of accused activity, whereas a broader construction could expand it.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description states that "the instruction may be received during or after the vocal communication," which a plaintiff may argue informs the meaning of the term in the claim (’715 Patent, col. 2:8-9).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the claim language is unambiguous and that "during" should be given its ordinary meaning of "at some point in the course of," which would distinguish it from "after."
The Term: "vocal communication utilizing a VoIP protocol"
- Context and Importance: This term appears to be a critical technical limitation. The infringement case for Claim 1 may depend entirely on whether the accused phones’ voice calling functionality operates using Voice over Internet Protocol. Practitioners may focus on this term because it presents a potentially straightforward non-infringement defense if the accused devices use other technologies (e.g., GSM, CDMA) for voice calls.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the cellular phones "may take any form...and be capable of any desired protocols (i.e. VoIP, etc.)" (’715 Patent, col. 1:58-61). A plaintiff could argue this supports construing the limitation to cover any phone merely capable of VoIP.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim links the VoIP protocol directly to the specific "vocal communication" event. A defendant would likely argue this requires the actual call during which the contact information is exchanged to be a VoIP call, not just that the device has a general VoIP capability.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of induced and contributory infringement but does not plead specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent beyond asserting that Defendants' "infringements include...making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling phones" with the accused functionality (Compl. ¶¶14-18).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks a finding of an "exceptional case" warranting attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶22). It does not, however, allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent or plead any specific facts that would support a claim of willful or egregious conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the standard voice calling feature in the accused 2008-era mobile phones operate "utilizing a VoIP protocol" as strictly required by Claim 1? A mismatch between the claimed protocol and the technology actually used in the accused devices could present a significant hurdle to proving infringement.
- The case may also turn on a question of claim scope: can the term "during the vocal communication", which appears in the claim, be interpreted to encompass actions taken immediately after a call concludes, based on broader language found in the patent's specification? The court's construction of this temporal limit will be critical for defining the scope of potential infringement.
- A fundamental procedural question is one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint's general allegation that the accused phones contain "hardware and/or software for transferring contact information" provide a plausible factual basis for infringement of each specific limitation in the asserted claims, particularly in the absence of any technical detail.