DCT
2:17-cv-00625
Interactive Play Devices LLC v. Target Corp
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Interactive Play Devices LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Target Corporation (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, LLP; Capshaw Derieux, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00625, E.D. Tex., 06/05/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Target operates regular and established physical store locations within the district and sells the accused products through those stores and via its interactive website, which is accessible to customers in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of COZMO interactive robots infringes three patents related to interactive toys that learn from user interactions to personalize their behavior.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves programmable, interactive toys that adapt their functionality based on a stored history of user interactions, moving beyond predetermined or purely random operational modes.
- Key Procedural History: The litigation was initiated in August 2017, originally asserting one of the patents-in-suit against a different interactive robot, the CHiP toy manufactured by WowWee. The case evolved through several amended complaints, with the current Fourth Amended Complaint narrowing the accused products to solely the COZMO robot after the Plaintiff negotiated an agreement with WowWee, the manufacturer of the originally accused product.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-07-10 | Earliest Priority Date for ’108, ’111, and ’265 Patents |
| 2006-03-28 | U.S. Patent No. 7,018,265 Issues |
| 2009-02-17 | U.S. Patent No. 7,491,108 Issues |
| 2009-02-17 | U.S. Patent No. 7,491,111 Issues |
| 2017-08-31 | Original Complaint Filed |
| 2017-09-19 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
| 2018-02-08 | Motion for Second Amended Complaint Filed |
| 2018-04-04 | Plaintiff Notifies Defendant of Accused Cozmo Product |
| 2018-04-10 | Plaintiff Serves Preliminary Infringement Contentions |
| 2018-05-01 | Third Amended Complaint Filed (approximate date) |
| 2018-06-05 | Fourth Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,491,108 - "Interactive Play Device and Method," issued Feb. 17, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes conventional interactive toys as having a common characteristic: their action or functionality is "predetermined, fixed and/or anticipated for each and every play session." Such devices do not retain information on how a player has interacted with them during prior sessions, leading to a repetitive and impersonal user experience. (’108 Patent, col. 1:19-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a new class of interactive play devices founded on "personalizing a play device so that its current functionality is based on past interactions with a player." (’108 Patent, col. 2:1-4). The device operates in a "learning mode" to gain knowledge about a user's responses to various situations, storing this information in memory. This "knowledge database" is then used to select subsequent interactions, allowing the device's behavior to adapt and evolve over time based on how it is played with. (’108 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:24-55).
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to create a deeper, more engaging user experience by making the toy appear to develop a unique personality and memory tailored to the individual player. (’108 Patent, col. 2:1-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least one claim, with paragraph 24 appearing to track the elements of independent claim 49.
- Independent Claim 49 requires, in essence:
- A housing and a microprocessor with a control program.
- A program segment that generates interactions for the user.
- An input mechanism (e.g., a switch, sensor, or remote control).
- Computer memory to store the user's responses to the interactions.
- A program segment that processes these responses to "derive knowledge information."
- A program segment that uses this knowledge information to control the device and make it operate in a "distinct manner" different from a device with different knowledge.
U.S. Patent No. 7,491,111 - "Interactive Play Device and Method," issued Feb. 17, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with its family member, the ’108 Patent, this patent addresses the limitation of interactive toys having fixed, predetermined functionality that does not adapt to individual users. (’111 Patent, col. 1:21-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an interactive toy vehicle that analyzes a user's interactions to derive "knowledge information," which can include patterns of interaction, user preferences, and habits. (’111 Patent, Abstract). This stored knowledge is then used by a program segment to operate the vehicle in a "plurality of states that imitates human or android behavior," allowing the toy's personality and actions to evolve based on user input. (’111 Patent, col. 8:14-16).
- Technical Importance: This technology allows a robotic toy vehicle to develop and display different "moods" or "behaviors" (e.g., loyal, defiant, independent) based on the history of how a user controls it, creating a more dynamic and personalized play experience. (’111 Patent, col. 22:1-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least one claim, with paragraph 29 appearing to track the elements of independent claim 8.
- Independent Claim 8 requires, in essence:
- Input control mechanisms for a player to control and interact with the vehicle.
- A microprocessor and a program segment to control the vehicle's operation.
- Computer memory to store information from the user's interactions.
- A program segment that analyzes user interactions to derive "knowledge information" (including patterns, preferences, and habits).
- A program segment that employs this knowledge to operate the vehicle in multiple states that imitate "human or android behavior."
U.S. Patent No. 7,018,265 - "Interactive Play Device and Method," issued Mar. 28, 2006
Technology Synopsis
The ’265 Patent describes a toy vehicle with control logic that allows it to operate independently of control signals received from the user. This independent operation is governed by an algorithm that uses random functions and a function that determines if a user's current interaction is consistent with past interactions, allowing the vehicle to exhibit autonomous and adaptive behaviors. (’265 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts at least one claim, with paragraph 33 appearing to track the elements of independent claim 25. (Compl. ¶33).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Cozmo, when used with its required smartphone application, infringes by enabling a user to control the vehicle while also allowing the vehicle to operate independently based on past interactions. (Compl. ¶¶ 35-37).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are the "COZMO interactive robots" sold by Target. (Compl. ¶5). The complaint provides a product image showing a small, wheeled robot with a lifting arm. (Compl. p. 2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes Cozmo as a "supercomputer" with artificial intelligence that allows it to "express hundreds of emotions." (Compl. ¶7). Its functionality is alleged to "evolve the more you hang out" with it, as it "gets to know you" by learning a user's "name, face, and quirks." (Compl. ¶7).
- Cozmo interacts with its environment and user by exploring, planning, and playing games with physical "Power Cubes." (Compl. ¶7). User control is facilitated through a required application on a compatible iOS or Android device, which enables an "Explorer Mode" for guiding the robot. (Compl. ¶7).
- The complaint positions Cozmo as a sophisticated interactive robotic toy whose key features are its adaptive personality and evolving gameplay. (Compl. ¶7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’108 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 49) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing... | The Cozmo robot possesses a physical body and chassis. | ¶5; p. 2 | col. 8:31-33 |
| a microprocessor with a computer-readable medium... | Cozmo is described as a "supercomputer" with "artificial intelligence," which requires a microprocessor and control software. | ¶7 | col. 11:15-21 |
| a computer program segment that generates a plurality of interactions for providing interactive effects with the user... | Cozmo expresses emotions, plays games like "Quick Tap and Keepaway" with its Power Cubes, and has an "Explorer Mode." | ¶7 | col. 3:42-45 |
| at least one of a switch, a pressure switch...a switch on a remote control apparatus... | Cozmo is controlled via a required application on a compatible smart device, which functions as a remote control apparatus. | ¶7 | col. 24:19-24 |
| computer memory to store information related to user's responses to interactions... | Cozmo allegedly "knows your name, face, and quirks," which requires memory to store user-specific information derived from interactions. | ¶7 | col. 3:51-54 |
| a computer program segment that processes user's responses to derive knowledge information... | Cozmo allegedly "gets to know you" and "continue[s] to evolve," which suggests it processes interactions to derive knowledge. | ¶7 | col. 4:19-22 |
| a computer program segment that employs said knowledge information to control the device to operate in a distinct manner... | The allegation that Cozmo's functionality and personality "evolve the more you hang out" with it suggests that stored knowledge is used to alter its operation. | ¶7 | col. 2:1-4 |
’111 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| input control mechanisms to enable a player to control the vehicle, and interact with the vehicle... | The Cozmo app on a smart device allows a user to guide the robot in "Explorer Mode" and interact with it in games. | ¶7 | col. 5:42-47 |
| a microprocessor with a computer-readable medium... | Cozmo is described as a "supercomputer," which comprises a microprocessor. | ¶7 | col. 17:31-33 |
| a computer program segment to control the operation of the vehicle... | The app enables direct control of Cozmo's movement through its environment. | ¶7 | col. 5:26-29 |
| computer memory to store information related to user's interactions... | Cozmo allegedly "knows your name, face, and quirks" and its "skills and games are constantly updating," which requires memory. | ¶7 | col. 5:47-51 |
| a computer program segment that analyzes user's interactions...to derive knowledge information that includes at least one of pattern of user's interactions... | The allegation that Cozmo "gets to know you" and "continue[s] to evolve" implies analysis of user interactions over time. | ¶7 | col. 5:51-54 |
| a computer program segment that employs said knowledge information to operate the vehicle in a plurality of states that imitates human or android behavior. | Cozmo is alleged to have "personality x 10" and to "express hundreds of emotions" ranging from "curious to clever, persistent to playful." | ¶7 | col. 8:14-16 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "knowledge information," as defined and used in the patents, can be construed to read on the artificial intelligence and adaptive "personality" functionalities of the Cozmo robot. The defense may argue the patent teaches a more structured system of learning than what the accused product implements.
- Technical Questions: The complaint relies heavily on marketing language from Defendant's website. A key factual dispute may concern how Cozmo's software actually causes it to "evolve." The analysis may question whether this evolution is a direct result of processing and employing stored user interaction data to operate in a "distinct manner," as the claims require, or if it is a system of unlocking pre-programmed behaviors that are not causally linked to a stored history of user-specific interactions.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"knowledge information"
- Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the patents' "learning" capability. The infringement case depends on whether Cozmo's method of adapting to a user qualifies as deriving and using "knowledge information." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether Cozmo's AI-driven personality changes fall within the scope of the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents define the term broadly to include "at least one of pattern of user's interactions with the vehicle, user's preferences in interacting with the vehicle, user's habits in interacting with the device, and personal information pertaining to the user." (’111 Patent, col. 23:4-9). This language could support a broad reading covering any stored data about user behavior.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's preferred embodiments describe a specific system for deriving knowledge based on establishing a "knowledge database with confidence levels" and classifying user responses into antonym categories like "familiar/odd" or "clever/flimsy." (’108 Patent, col. 4:19-22; ’265 Patent, col. 6:1-3). This may support a narrower construction requiring a more structured learning process.
"operate in a distinct manner that is different from the operation of a similar device with a different knowledge information"
- Context and Importance: This limitation requires that the "knowledge information" cause a tangible change in the device's operation, making it unique to the user. The dispute will likely center on what qualifies as a "distinct manner." Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires proof of a causal link between what the robot learns and how it subsequently behaves.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states an object is to create a device whose "current functionality is based on past interactions... rather than providing an identical operation" every time, suggesting any deviation from a default, non-personalized state could be considered "distinct." (’108 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed flowcharts in the patents illustrate a system where the device transitions between discrete operating "levels" or "states" (e.g., from "happy" to "doubt" to "sad"). (’108 Patent, col. 13:40-52). This could support an argument that "distinct manner" requires a shift between qualitatively different behavioral modes, not merely subtle variations in performance.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of infringement of the ’265 Patent. The theory is that the Cozmo robot requires a free companion app on a smart device to function as claimed. The complaint alleges Target induces infringement by promoting the product-app combination, providing instructions to download and use the app, and describing benefits that are only available when the robot and app are used together. (Compl. ¶¶ 35-37).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's continued sales of Cozmo after receiving notice of infringement. Plaintiff alleges Defendant had knowledge of the asserted patents and the infringement allegations, at the latest, as of April 4, 2018, when Plaintiff provided written notice regarding the Cozmo product. (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 21). The complaint also notes that Defendant was on notice of the patent family as early as August 2017 in connection with the originally accused CHiP product. (Compl. ¶15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "knowledge information," which is described in the patents through a structured system of response classification and confidence levels, be construed broadly enough to cover the adaptive artificial intelligence and "personality" features of the accused Cozmo robot?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical causation: What evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that Cozmo's "evolution" is functionally equivalent to the claimed method of employing stored knowledge to "operate in a distinct manner"? The case may turn on whether the alleged changes in Cozmo's behavior are causally linked to a stored history of user-specific interactions, or are merely a series of pre-programmed routines unlocked over time.
- A third question, particularly relevant to the ’265 Patent, will be one of autonomy: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that Cozmo's autonomous behaviors—such as when it "gets curious and explores"—are controlled by logic that is based on past user interactions, as the claims require, rather than being a default, pre-programmed autonomous mode independent of user history?