DCT
2:17-cv-00470
Uniloc USA Inc v. Apple Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Uniloc USA, Inc. (Texas) and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (Luxembourg)
- Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP; Nelson Bumgardner PC
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00470, E.D. Tex., 06/02/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Apple has regular and established places of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and has transacted business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic devices featuring step and elevation tracking, such as the iPhone and Apple Watch, infringe a patent related to methods for calculating steps while accounting for surface incline.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable electronic fitness trackers that use sensor data to measure physical activity, a market segment that has seen significant growth in consumer electronics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-01-26 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,690,556 |
| 2010-04-06 | U.S. Patent No. 7,690,556 Issues |
| ~2014-09-17 | Apple releases iOS 8, introducing the accused Health app |
| 2017-06-02 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,690,556 - "STEP COUNTER ACCOUNTING FOR INCLINE", issued April 6, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a deficiency in prior art step counters, which could count steps but could not accurately calculate the caloric expenditure associated with those steps because they failed to account for the incline of the walking surface (’556 Patent, col. 1:25-33). Walking up an incline requires more effort and burns more calories than walking on a flat surface, a factor that earlier devices did not measure ('556 Patent, col. 1:62-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that uses an accelerometer not only to detect and count steps but also to determine the incline of the surface. It achieves this by analyzing the motion data from the accelerometer to identify the vertical components of a step, specifically calculating the difference between the "vertical travel up portion" and "vertical travel down portion" to derive the incline ('556 Patent, col. 5:18-25). This incline data is then associated with the step data to provide a more accurate calculation of calorie expenditure ('556 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:55-61).
- Technical Importance: By proposing to use a single sensor type (an accelerometer) to derive both step count and incline, the invention offered a potentially more integrated and cost-effective solution for creating more accurate fitness tracking devices ('556 Patent, col. 1:57-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, and 17, as well as various dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).
- Independent Claim 1 (System):
- An accelerometer to detect motion of a user;
- A step calculation logic to utilize the motion detected by the accelerometer to detect and count steps; and
- An incline logic to utilize the motion detected by the accelerometer to calculate an incline of a surface, where the calculation is based on identifying and computing a difference between a vertical travel up portion and a vertical travel down portion of a step.
- Independent Claim 9 (System): A system with a motion detection apparatus for three-dimensional motion, an incline logic to calculate incline from that motion, and an energy calculation logic that uses the incline data.
- Independent Claim 17 (Method): A method of receiving data from an accelerometer, calculating user step data, and calculating an incline by identifying and computing the difference between the vertical up and down travel portions of a step.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶15).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Infringing Devices" are identified as Apple's "iPhones, iPads and Watches" that incorporate hardware like accelerometers and software such as "the Health app in iOS 8.0.x, iOS 9.0.x, iOS 10.0.x and watchOS versions" (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that these devices are capable of "calculating the number of steps taken (e.g., 'Steps')," "distance covered (e.g., 'Walking + Running Distance')," and "the user's change in elevation (e.g., 'Flights Climbed')" (Compl. ¶10). This functionality is provided through a combination of on-board sensors, including an accelerometer, inclinometer, altimeter, and/or barometer, and associated software (Compl. ¶10). The complaint suggests these features are central to the health and fitness tracking capabilities marketed with these widely used consumer electronic devices.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint alleges both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶¶11-12).
’556 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an accelerometer to detect motion of a user; | The accused iPhones, iPads, and Watches are alleged to "incorporate hardware (such as an accelerometer...)" for detecting user motion. | ¶10 | col. 5:10-12 |
| a step calculation logic to utilize the motion detected by the accelerometer to detect and count steps; and | The accused devices contain software, including the Health app, which is "capable of calculating the number of steps taken (e.g., 'Steps')." | ¶10 | col. 5:13-15 |
| an incline logic to utilize the motion detected by the accelerometer to make a calculation of an incline of a surface on which the user moved..., wherein the calculation is performed for a step based on identifying a vertical travel up portion of the step, identifying a vertical travel down portion of the step, and computing a difference between the vertical travel up portion and the vertical travel down portion of the step. | The accused devices are alleged to be capable of calculating "the user's change in elevation (e.g., 'Flights Climbed')." The complaint states this is accomplished using an "accelerometer, inclinometer, altimeter and/or barometer and associated software." The pleading under the doctrine of equivalents suggests this functionality performs substantially the same function in the same way. | ¶10, ¶12 | col. 3:10-14; col. 5:16-25 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A primary issue will be whether Apple's method for calculating elevation change or "Flights Climbed" meets the specific limitations of the claims. The complaint alleges the use of an "accelerometer, inclinometer, altimeter and/or barometer" (Compl. ¶10), whereas Claim 1 requires the incline calculation to be made by "incline logic to utilize the motion detected by the accelerometer" ('556 Patent, col. 5:16-18). The court may need to determine if Apple's system uses the accelerometer for this purpose as claimed, or if it relies primarily on other sensors like the altimeter/barometer, which would raise a question of non-infringement.
- Technical Question: The complaint provides no technical detail on how the accused devices calculate elevation change. It merely points to the "Flights Climbed" feature (Compl. ¶10). A key factual question will be whether Apple's algorithm performs the specific calculation required by the patent: "identifying a vertical travel up portion..., a vertical travel down portion..., and computing a difference between" them for a given step ('556 Patent, col. 5:20-25). Evidence regarding the actual operation of Apple's software will be critical.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "incline logic to utilize the motion detected by the accelerometer to make a calculation of an incline"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept. Its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to systems that derive incline solely from accelerometer data, or if it can read on systems that use accelerometer data in combination with other sensors (like an altimeter). The complaint’s allegation that Apple uses an "accelerometer, inclinometer, altimeter and/or barometer" makes this the focal point of the infringement dispute (Compl. ¶10).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses using an altimeter in combination with an accelerometer to "get a more accurate measurement of the slope," which could suggest the claim is not strictly limited to using only the accelerometer ('556 Patent, col. 3:25-28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 explicitly states the "incline logic" must "utilize the motion detected by the accelerometer." Further, the detailed description of how the incline is calculated refers specifically to analyzing the accelerometer data for vertical travel up and down ('556 Patent, col. 3:10-14). This could support a construction where the accelerometer data is the necessary and sufficient input for the claimed incline calculation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that Apple "intentionally instructs its customers to infringe" by providing "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and/or user guides" through its websites (e.g., apple.com, support.apple.com) that encourage use of the accused functionality (Compl. ¶13).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement, but alleges that Apple will have notice of the '556 Patent "at the latest, the service of this complaint" (Compl. ¶14). This appears to be a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-suit infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim scope and technical operation: Does Apple's system for calculating "Flights Climbed" rely on the accelerometer to perform the specific incline calculation recited in Claim 1—computing a difference between vertical up and down travel portions of a step—or does it rely on a different method, such as using barometric pressure data from an altimeter, which may not fall within the literal scope of the claims?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of equivalency: If Apple's system is found not to literally infringe, the dispute will shift to the doctrine of equivalents. Can Uniloc prove that using an altimeter to measure elevation change is substantially the same as the patent's claimed method of deriving incline from accelerometer motion data, particularly when the patent itself contemplates using both sensors? (Compl. ¶12; '556 Patent, col. 3:25-28).