DCT
2:15-cv-00292
Ericsson Inc v. Apple Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ericsson Inc. (Delaware) and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Sweden)
- Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McKool Smith, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:15-cv-00292, E.D. Tex., 02/26/2015
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas based on Defendant’s extensive business in the district, including the sale and distribution of the accused products, and because Defendant directed communications related to negotiations with Plaintiff into the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile devices, computers, and operating systems infringe four patents related to mobile device power management, remote control of external devices, and telephony systems.
- Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies for the modern mobile ecosystem, including managing power for connected accessories and using a mobile phone as a central hub to control other devices and communication channels.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit as a result of prior discussions between the parties regarding Plaintiff's patent portfolio.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-01-27 | ’512 Patent Priority Date |
| 1999-12-01 | ’472 Patent Priority Date |
| 1999-12-16 | ’247 Patent Priority Date |
| 1999-12-16 | ’365 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-08-13 | ’512 Patent Issue Date |
| 2004-07-13 | ’247 Patent Issue Date |
| 2005-11-22 | ’365 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-05-01 | ’472 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-02-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,433,512, “Power Consumption Reporting by an Accessory of an Electronic Device,” issued August 13, 2002
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the difficulty of providing an accurate estimate of a mobile device's remaining battery life, particularly when connected accessories, such as a hands-free unit, also draw power from the device's battery without the device's knowledge of the accessory's specific power drain (’512 Patent, col. 1:44-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where the accessory itself determines its own power consumption and transmits this information to the main electronic device. The main device then incorporates the accessory's power draw into its own battery life calculations, thereby enabling a more accurate, combined estimate of remaining operational time for the user (’512 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-14).
- Technical Importance: As mobile terminals evolved into platforms for an increasing number of power-drawing peripherals, accurately managing and reporting battery life became a critical aspect of the user experience.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, but independent claim 1 is representative.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method) are:
- An accessory determining information related to its own power consumption from a battery.
- The accessory transmitting this information to an electronic device.
- The electronic device reporting an indication of remaining battery life to a user, where the indication is based at least in part on the information transmitted from the accessory.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, which may include dependent claims (’Compl. ¶36).
U.S. Patent No. 6,763,247, “Portable Telecommunication Apparatus for Controlling an Electronic Utility Device,” issued July 13, 2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes an environment where users are burdened by a proliferation of separate, dedicated remote control units for each electronic utility device (e.g., television, printer, camera), creating inconvenience and clutter. It also notes that these devices typically lack a straightforward way to connect to a global information network like the Internet (’247 Patent, col. 1:36-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses using a portable telecommunication apparatus, such as a mobile phone equipped with a WAP browser, as a universal controller. The phone establishes a communication link (e.g., infrared, Bluetooth) with an external utility device that contains an embedded WAP server. This server provides control menus (as WML pages) to the phone's browser, allowing the user to operate the external device via the phone's user interface. The phone can also serve as a gateway, connecting the utility device to the Internet (’247 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-40).
- Technical Importance: The patent outlines an early architectural vision for what is now commonly known as the Internet of Things (IoT), where a smartphone acts as a central hub for controlling and networking various surrounding smart devices.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, but independent claim 1 is representative.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 (an apparatus) are:
- A portable telecommunications apparatus with a user interface, controller, and memory.
- An information access program (e.g., a WAP browser) stored in memory that provides user access to a global information network.
- An external device interface for connecting to an external device over a second, separate communication link.
- The information access program is adapted to allow the user to control the external device through the apparatus's user interface and the external device interface.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶44).
Multi-Patent Capsule
U.S. Patent No. 6,968,365, “Device and a Method for Operating an Electronic Utility Device From a Portable Telecommunication Apparatus,” issued November 22, 2005
- Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a system for remotely controlling an electronic utility device using a portable telecommunication apparatus (e.g., a mobile phone) via an intermediate, stand-alone server module. The server module acts as a bridge, communicating with the phone over one link (e.g., Bluetooth) and with the utility device over another, thereby decoupling the server logic from the utility device itself (’365 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-57). This architecture allows a generic server to interface with various utility devices that store their own specific control information (e.g., WML pages) (’365 Patent, col. 6:20-35).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶53).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Apple Accused Products, which include devices, operating systems, and applications, infringe the patent (Compl. ¶52).
U.S. Patent No. 8,170,472, “Arrangement and a Method in a Telephony System,” issued May 1, 2012
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a telephony system where a stationary terminal (e.g., a desk phone) without its own network identity can function as a user interface for a mobile phone. The two devices connect via a short-range wireless link (e.g., Bluetooth), allowing the user to make and receive calls on the more convenient stationary terminal while using the mobile phone's network subscription and identity (’472 Patent, Abstract). The system includes an authentication process to securely pair the mobile phone with the stationary terminal to prevent misuse (’472 Patent, col. 1:36-40).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶61).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Apple Accused Products, which include devices and operating systems that facilitate communication across an ecosystem, infringe the patent (Compl. ¶60).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint broadly identifies the "Apple Accused Products" as those including "Apple products with iOS, Mac OS (including OS X), and/or Apple applications, and other wireless communication devices, computers, tablet computers, and digital media players, including, but not a limited to, Apple TV" (Compl. ¶23).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that these products constitute an ecosystem of hardware, software, and applications (Compl. ¶27). The accused functionality involves the interaction between these products, such as an iPhone connecting to accessories (e.g., AirPods, Apple Watch), an iPhone using an application to control an Apple TV, or the seamless handling of telephone calls across multiple devices like an iPhone and a Mac (Continuity). The complaint suggests that this integrated ecosystem, facilitated by Apple's software development kits (SDKs) and the App Store, is a significant driver of the products' commercial success (Compl. ¶27, ¶33).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain detailed claim charts or specify which claims are asserted. The infringement allegations are pleaded generally for each patent. The following tables summarize the apparent infringement theories based on the patent claims and the general allegations against the Accused Products.
’512 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| said accessory determining information relating to power consumption of said battery by said accessory; | An Apple accessory (e.g., AirPods, Apple Watch) determines its own battery status. | ¶23, ¶37 | col. 10:40-44 |
| said accessory transmitting said information to said electronic device; | The Apple accessory wirelessly transmits its battery status information to a primary Apple device (e.g., an iPhone). | ¶23, ¶37 | col. 10:45-48 |
| said electronic device reporting said indication relating to remaining battery life of said battery to said user, said indication based, at least in part, on said transmitted information. | The iPhone, running iOS, displays the battery life of both itself and the connected accessory to the user, with the displayed information for the accessory being based on the data it transmitted. | ¶23, ¶37 | col. 10:49-53 |
’247 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a portable telecommunications apparatus comprising: a user interface, a programmable controller, a memory... | An Apple iPhone or iPad, which includes a display, CPU, and memory. | ¶23, ¶45 | col. 3:50-55 |
| an information access program, which is stored in the memory and is executable by the controller... | An application (e.g., the Remote app or a HomeKit-compatible app) on the iPhone/iPad, which provides a user interface for controlling external devices. | ¶27, ¶45 | col. 1:11-14 |
| an external device interface for connecting an external device... over a second communication link, | The Wi-Fi or Bluetooth hardware and software stack in the iPhone/iPad used to connect to an external device. | ¶1, ¶6, ¶45 | col. 3:33-40 |
| wherein the information access program is adapted to allow the user to control the external device through the user interface... | The application on the iPhone/iPad allows a user to control an external device (e.g., an Apple TV or HomeKit accessory) via the wireless link. | ¶27, ¶45 | col. 1:29-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations raise the question of whether patent claims drafted in the era of WAP browsers and simple accessories can be construed to cover modern systems. For the ’247 and ’365 Patents, a central question will be whether a dedicated, compiled software "app" is equivalent to the "information access program" (e.g., WAP browser) and "WML pages" described in the patents. For the ’472 Patent, a question may arise as to whether Apple's proprietary Continuity protocol for call sharing between devices like an iPhone and a Mac falls within the scope of the claimed authentication and communication sequence between a mobile and a stationary terminal.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify the mechanism of infringement. For the ’512 Patent, a key technical question will be what specific "information relating to power consumption" is transmitted from an Apple accessory to an iPhone and whether that meets the claim requirements, which the patent specification exemplifies as a specific current draw value (’512 Patent, col. 7:20-24).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: 'information relating to power consumption' (’512 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to determining infringement of the ’512 Patent. The central issue is how specific the "information" must be. The infringement analysis depends on whether a simple battery percentage level or status indicator suffices, or if a more detailed data point, such as current draw in milliamps, is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad ("relating to"). The summary of the invention also uses the general phrase "information representative of the current drain" (’512 Patent, col. 2:1-2), which may support a view that the exact form of the information is not limiting.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures provide specific examples of transmitting the current draw in milliamps, using an "AT*ECUR=
" command structure (’512 Patent, col. 7:12-42; Fig. 4B). A defendant may argue these specific embodiments define and limit the scope of the claimed "information."
The Term: 'information access program' (’247 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is central to the infringement analysis for the ’247 Patent (and relatedly, the ’365 Patent). Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent repeatedly and almost exclusively describes the program as a WAP browser that interprets WML pages served by an external device (’247 Patent, col. 2:21-36). The case may turn on whether a modern, special-purpose iOS or Mac OS "app" can be considered an "information access program."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim term itself is general. The patent also states that the WAP client may be substituted for "another information access program for accessing a global information network, possibly different than Internet" (’247 Patent, col. 7:11-14), which a plaintiff may argue opens the door to other types of programs like modern apps.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The entirety of the preferred embodiment focuses on a WAP browser/server architecture (’247 Patent, col. 2:21-40; Figs. 2-3). A defendant may argue that the invention is fundamentally tied to this browser-based, standardized-markup-language approach and does not cover proprietary, compiled applications that communicate via APIs.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement against Apple based on its affirmative acts of providing instructions, documentation, and software development kits (SDKs) that allegedly encourage and enable developers and end-users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶28, 30, 39, 47, 55, 63). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the software in the Accused Products is a material component of the invention, is not a staple article of commerce, and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶41, 49, 57, 65).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apple's infringement has been and continues to be willful. This allegation is based on Apple's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, purportedly gained from "discussions with Ericsson regarding Ericsson's patent portfolio" prior to the lawsuit's filing (Compl. ¶¶42, 50, 58, 66).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technological translation: can claims drafted in the late 1990s to describe systems based on WAP browsers, simple accessories, and distinct hardware roles be construed to cover Apple's modern, tightly integrated ecosystem of proprietary apps, multi-function devices (like the Apple Watch), and software-defined features like HomeKit and Continuity? The outcome will depend on whether the court views the patented concepts as broad architectural principles or as solutions tied to the specific technologies of their time.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement proof: given the high-level allegations, the case will likely focus on whether Ericsson can obtain, through discovery, specific evidence demonstrating that Apple's complex and often opaque hardware and software systems practice each limitation of the asserted claims. This will be particularly challenging for method claims involving specific communication protocols and authentication sequences, such as those in the ’472 and ’512 patents.