DCT
2:17-cv-00255
MyMail Ltd v. Nikon Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: MyMail, Ltd. (Texas)
- Defendant: Nikon Corporation a/k/a Tochigi Nikon Corporation (Japan); Nikon Inc. (New York); Nikon Americas, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Collins, Edmonds, Schlather & Tower, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00255, E.D. Tex., 04/03/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants purposefully avail themselves of the privileges of conducting business in the Eastern District of Texas, regularly conduct business there, and the cause of action arises from these contacts.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Wi-Fi-enabled cameras and imaging devices infringe a patent related to methods for dynamically updating network access credentials.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns simplifying network access for mobile or roaming devices by automating the process of updating connection parameters, a challenge that originated in the dial-up internet era.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff previously filed a lawsuit in the same district against Fujifilm (MyMail v. Fujifilm, Case 2:16-cv-01357) for infringement of the same patent, an event which may be relevant to the allegations of pre-suit notice and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-06-19 | '318 Patent Priority Date (Provisional 60/050,186 filed) |
| 2014-05-20 | '318 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-12-05 | Prior lawsuit (MyMail v. Fujifilm) filed |
| 2017-04-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,732,318 - "Method of Connecting a User to a Network"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,732,318, issued May 20, 2014.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In the era of dial-up internet, mobile users who wanted to access the internet from different locations had to manually reconfigure their computer's networking settings (e.g., dial-up phone numbers, user IDs, passwords) for each different Internet Service Provider (ISP), a process that was time-consuming and prone to error (’318 Patent, col. 2:53-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "client dispatch application" that automates this process. The application on a user's device can connect to a central "access service provider," download a new or updated set of network access information, and use that new information to modify its stored settings, allowing the device to re-access the network through a new or different provider without manual user intervention (’318 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:20-55).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to simplify internet connectivity for a growing population of mobile computer users by abstracting away the underlying complexity of managing credentials for multiple, location-dependent service providers (’318 Patent, col. 3:18-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 5.
- The essential elements of claim 5 are:
- A method for obtaining a set of network access information comprising modifying a stored set of network access information using new information downloaded, via the network, to a network access device from an access provider connected to said network; and
- the network access device re-accessing the network via a given network service provider (NSP) using the modified set of network access information.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least claim 5" and the prayer for relief seeks a judgment on "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶33, ¶45.A).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- A broad range of Nikon cameras and imaging devices that incorporate Wi-Fi Protected Setup (“WPS”) and/or Wi-Fi Protected Access (“WPA/WPA2”) functionality (Compl. ¶34).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused devices practice the patented method when operating on modern Wi-Fi networks. Specifically, when a device on a WPA/WPA2-enabled network is deauthenticated or dissociated, it allegedly performs a method of obtaining a new Group Temporal Key (“GTK”), which the complaint characterizes as "new information downloaded, via the network, from an access provider" (e.g., a Wi-Fi router). The device then uses this new key to re-access the network (Compl. ¶33).
- The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' commercial importance beyond listing numerous models (Compl. ¶34, ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Claim Chart Summary:
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for obtaining a set of network access information comprising the steps of: modifying a stored set of network access information using new information downloaded, via the network, to a network access device from an access provider connected to said network; | When connected to a WPA/WPA2-enabled wireless network in which a device is deauthenticated, the accused Nikon camera performs a method of obtaining a new Group Temporal Key ("new information") from an access provider (e.g., a router). This allegedly modifies a stored set of network access information. | ¶33 | col. 8:8-13 |
| and the network access device re-accessing the network via a given network service provider (NSP) using the modified set of network access information. | The accused Nikon camera then re-accesses the network using the modified network access information (e.g., the new Group Temporal Key). | ¶33 | col. 8:13-16 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the term "network access information", which the patent describes in the context of dial-up credentials like PAP IDs and phone numbers, read on a transient session key like a "Group Temporal Key" in the WPA2 standard? Further, does a consumer-grade Wi-Fi router, identified in the complaint's theory, constitute an "access provider" and "network service provider" as those terms are used in the patent, which primarily discusses commercial ISPs?
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the standardized WPA2 handshake protocol, which involves updating a session key, performs the specific method of the patent, which describes a "client dispatch application" downloading updates from a distinct "access service provider" to modify a local database of credentials? This raises a question of a potential mismatch in the fundamental technical operation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "network access information"
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical. The infringement theory hinges on whether a WPA2 "Group Temporal Key" falls within its scope. If the term is construed narrowly to mean the persistent, user-level credentials described in the patent's embodiments (e.g., dial-up numbers, login IDs), the infringement allegations may be challenged. If construed broadly to cover any data used to maintain a network session, the plaintiff's position may be supported.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the invention applies to "any network or interconnected set of networks including the Internet" (’318 Patent, col. 4:54-59), suggesting the concept is not limited to a specific type of network technology. The claim itself uses the general term without express limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s background and detailed description are rooted in the dial-up context, providing specific examples such as "phone numbers, IDs, passwords" (’318 Patent, col. 3:32-34), "PAP IDs and PAP password" (’318 Patent, col. 5:20-22), and "dial-up-networking" properties (’318 Patent, col. 2:59-61). These examples could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to such credential types.
The Term: "access provider"
Context and Importance: The complaint's theory identifies a Wi-Fi router as the "access provider". The viability of this theory depends on whether this term can be construed to include consumer network hardware, as opposed to only commercial entities. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples are commercial ISPs, not end-user equipment.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general and does not explicitly limit the term to a commercial entity. The patent also uses the term "network access providers (NAP)" which can refer to the physical network points of connection (’318 Patent, col. 4:63-65).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently uses commercial Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as the primary example of an "access provider" (’318 Patent, col. 2:53-58; col. 6:8-10). The problem the patent aims to solve is managing connections to different commercial ISPs when roaming.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Nikon providing the accused cameras with hardware, software, and/or instructions to perform the infringing methods (Compl. ¶35). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the products are "especially made or especially adapted" for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶36).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on constructive notice since the patent's issuance and potential pre-suit actual notice based on a prior lawsuit filed by MyMail against Fujifilm on the same patent (Compl. ¶38). The complaint also establishes post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶38).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "network access information," rooted in the patent's disclosure of persistent dial-up credentials, be construed to cover transient, session-level cryptographic keys such as the "Group Temporal Key" used in the modern WPA2 Wi-Fi standard?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical application: does the standardized operation of commodity Wi-Fi technology (WPA2) constitute the specific method claimed by the patent, which describes a distinct client application downloading updates from a central service provider to modify a database of network credentials, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technological architecture and operation?