Kevique Technology LLC v. JLT Mobile Computers Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kevique Technology LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: JLT Mobile Computers, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ferraiuoli LLC
• Case Identification: Kevique Technology LLC v. JLT Mobile Computers, Inc., 2:17-cv-00087, E.D. Tex., 01/27/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant conducts substantial business in the state, including offering for sale, selling, and advertising products that allegedly infringe the patent-in-suit.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s rugged tablet computer infringes a patent related to methods for controlling a graphical object on a display using a computer input device.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns user interface control, specifically methods to modify the relationship between the physical movement of an input device and the corresponding movement of a graphical object on a screen.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit. The allegation of knowledge for potential enhanced damages is based on the filing of the complaint itself.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,808,483 - System, Device, and Method for Extending a Stroke of a Computer Pointing Device

• Issued: October 5, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency and inconvenience for a user who needs to move a graphical object (like a cursor) a greater distance on a screen than is comfortable or possible with a single physical motion of a pointing device, which often requires lifting and repositioning the device (e.g., a mouse) (’483 Patent, col. 1:30-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer input device with a sensor for detecting movement and a separate "input element" (e.g., a button). Activating this input element generates a signal that alters the normal behavior of the device. The system can either inhibit the cursor's response to device movement or reverse the direction of cursor movement relative to the device's physical movement. This allows a user to, for example, move a mouse back to its starting position without the cursor moving, effectively "extending the stroke" for the next movement, all without lifting the device from its surface (’483 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:2-8).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to eliminate the "extremely bothersome" procedure of lifting a pointing device to reposition it for large-scale cursor movements, which can be disruptive and lead to inadvertent, undesired cursor shifts (’483 Patent, col. 1:50-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A sensor to sense movement of the input device and generate a first signal.
  • An input element to generate a second signal when operated.
  • The device is adapted to transmit data to a processor to move a graphical object corresponding to the first signal.
  • In response to the second signal, either (a) responsiveness to the first signal is inhibited, or (b) the correspondence of movement is reversed.
  • This functionality is provided on an "application-by-application basis," conditional on the graphical object being in an active display environment of a "predefined subset of a plurality of applications."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "MT1010 GEN 2" rugged tablet computer (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused product as a computer input device containing an accelerometer that senses the device's rotation. This rotation (e.g., from portrait to landscape) causes the displayed graphical user interface to reorient itself accordingly (Compl. ¶¶17, 19). The device’s touchscreen includes an "Auto-rotate screen icon." When a user taps this icon, the device’s responsiveness to physical rotation is turned off, or inhibited (Compl. ¶¶18, 20). The complaint alleges this functionality is provided on an application-by-application basis because the auto-rotate lock is not applicable in certain software environments, such as the camera, games, or other third-party applications (Compl. ¶21). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’483 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the claim terms, seemingly written for a peripheral pointing device, can be construed to cover the accused tablet. For example, does the term "computer input device", exemplified in the patent as a mouse, read on an entire tablet computer? Further, does "graphical object", described in the patent as a cursor or pointer moving within a display, read on the rotation of the entire screen display itself?
  • Technical Questions: A key question for the court will be whether the accused functionality (locking screen orientation) is technically analogous to the patented invention (extending the stroke of a pointing device). The patent addresses the problem of limited physical space for moving a mouse, while the accused feature addresses the problem of undesired screen reorientation. The complaint does not explain how locking screen rotation performs the function of "extending a stroke" as described in the ’483 patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "computer input device"

  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on construing the accused tablet computer itself as the claimed "computer input device." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s specification and figures appear to describe a peripheral device, such as a mouse, rather than an all-in-one computing device.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim term itself is general and not explicitly limited to a peripheral. The claims do not recite the word "mouse" or "pointing device."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent title refers to a "Computer Pointing Device." The specification consistently uses a "mouse" as the primary and recurring example of the invention, and every corresponding figure depicts a mouse (e.g., ’483 Patent, col. 5:47-49; FIGS. 2, 3, 6, 7).

• The Term: "graphical object"

  • Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that the entire screen display that rotates is the "graphical object." The definition of this term is critical because the patent appears to contemplate an object, like a cursor, moving on top of or within a display environment, not the environment itself moving.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly limited in the claims, and one could argue that the entire visual output on a screen constitutes a "graphical object."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exclusive list of examples for "graphical objects," including a "cursor, an arrow, and/or slide bar" (’483 Patent, col. 5:53-54). The background describes the conventional operation of moving a "graphical pointer, cursor, or other object presented on a display" (’483 Patent, col. 1:12-14). These examples suggest an object that is a discrete component of the GUI, not the entire GUI itself.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint requests enhanced damages but does not contain an explicit count for willfulness. It alleges that the Defendant has had knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint," which suggests a theory based on post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶25).

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

The dispute appears to center on fundamental questions of claim scope and technical applicability. Key questions for the court will likely include:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "computer input device", which the patent repeatedly exemplifies as a mouse used to "extend a stroke," be construed to cover an entire tablet computer? Similarly, can the "graphical object" limitation, exemplified as a cursor or arrow, be construed to read on the rotation of the entire screen display?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mismatch: does the accused auto-rotate lock feature, which prevents unwanted changes in screen orientation, perform the same function as the patented method, which was designed to solve the problem of repositioning a mouse during large-scale cursor movements? The case may turn on whether the Plaintiff can demonstrate that these two very different user experiences are covered by the same claim language.