DCT
2:17-cv-00625
Interactive Play Devices LLC v. Target Corp
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
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00625, E.D. Tex., 09/19/2017
- 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 conducts sales of the accused product through its interactive website, which is accessible to customers in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of the "CHiP" robotic toy dog infringes three patents related to interactive play devices that learn from and adapt their behavior based on user interactions.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves interactive toys with adaptive personalities, which personalize their functionality based on storing and analyzing a user's past inputs, a key feature in the market for artificially intelligent consumer electronics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is an amended complaint. The claim for willful infringement is based on Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patents acquired from the filing of the original and amended complaints.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-07-10 | Priority Date for ’108, ’111, and ’265 Patents |
| 2006-03-28 | '265 Patent Issue Date |
| 2009-02-17 | '108 Patent Issue Date |
| 2009-02-17 | '111 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-11-05 | WowWee press release announcing CHiP product |
| 2017-09-19 | Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,491,108 - "Interactive Play Device and Method"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional interactive toys as having predetermined and fixed functionality, meaning they respond in an identical or predictable manner during every play session without retaining information on how players previously interacted with them (ʼ108 Patent, col. 1:21-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a new class of play devices that can be personalized based on past interactions (ʼ108 Patent, Abstract). The device operates in different modes, including a "learning mode" where it can gain "knowledge" about how a user responds to situations. It stores these responses and uses this memorized information to select future interactions, allowing the device's operation to vary from that of an identical device used by a different player (ʼ108 Patent, col. 2:1-15).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows a toy to adapt its operations based on user interaction, enabling it to operate in a plurality of states that mimic human behavior rather than performing a static, repetitive function (ʼ108 Patent, col. 2:16-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶18). The claim elements are written in means-plus-function format.
- An interactive play device comprising:
- means for generating a plurality of interactions for providing interactive effects with the user,
- a plurality of input control mechanisms for the user to interact with the device,
- means for storing information related to user's responses to interactions,
- means for analyzing user's responses to derive knowledge information pertaining to how the user has interacted with the device, and
- means for controlling the device to operate in a distinctive manner that is different from the operation of a similar device with a different knowledge information.
U.S. Patent No. 7,491,111 - "Interactive Play Device and Method"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the '108 Patent, the technology addresses the limitation of traditional toys having fixed and non-personalized functionality, which do not adapt to individual users (ʼ111 Patent, col. 1:21-41).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims a specific embodiment of an adaptive toy in the form of an "interactive toy vehicle" (ʼ111 Patent, col. 23:54-55). The vehicle uses a microprocessor, computer memory, and a variety of specified sensors (e.g., sound, voice, light, magnetic) to receive user input and control its operation. Software segments analyze user interactions to derive "knowledge information"—such as patterns, preferences, and habits—and then employ that information to operate the vehicle in multiple "states," allowing its behavior to evolve over time ('111 Patent, col. 24:1-19).
- Technical Importance: This patent describes a concrete application of adaptive learning technology to mobile toys, enabling a device to develop a unique, personalized character that responds dynamically to its user, beyond the capabilities of a simple remote-controlled vehicle (ʼ111 Patent, col. 2:16-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 8 (Compl. ¶60).
- An interactive toy vehicle comprising:
- input control mechanism, including at least one of a switch, a sound activated sensor, a voice activated module, a speech recognition module, a light activated sensor, and a magnetic sensor,
- a microprocessor with a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program,
- a computer program segment to control the operation of the vehicle,
- computer memory to store information related to user's interaction with the vehicle,
- a computer program segment that analyzes user's interactions to derive knowledge information (including patterns, preferences, habits, and personal information), and
- a computer program segment that employs said knowledge information to operate the vehicle in a plurality of states.
U.S. Patent No. 7,018,265 - "Interactive Play Device and Method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,018,265, "Interactive Play Device and Method," issued March 28, 2006.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of conventional toys having fixed, predetermined functionality ('265 Patent, col. 1:21-40). The invention provides a toy vehicle with various input controls and an "additional means" to control its operation, which causes the vehicle to function in a manner that is different from its normal operation when responding to user inputs. This allows the toy to provide varied and non-standard reactions to user commands ('265 Patent, col. 23:13-26).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶78).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that CHiP infringes by having a wheeled chassis, a motor, a variety of input sensors, and additional control means (software) that cause the robot to function in a manner different from a default operation in response to user inputs (Compl. ¶79-87).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the WowWee "CHiP" Robot Toy Dog (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes CHiP as a wheeled robotic toy featuring advanced sensors and smart accessories that allow it to interact with a user (Compl. ¶14-15). Its functionality includes responding to voice commands, hand gestures, a wearable "SmartBand," a "SmartBall," and a smartphone application (Compl. ¶26, 37, 40).
- The product is alleged to have an "adaptive personality," where its character "changes and grows over time" based on user interactions. A key feature cited is the "Like Button" on the SmartBand, which allegedly allows a user to reinforce behaviors they prefer, causing the robot to perform them more consistently (Compl. ¶21, 29, 43, 48). A diagram from the CHiP user manual shows the location of touch sensors on the robot's head and nose (Compl. ¶32).
- The complaint alleges that CHiP is marketed as a unique, personalized device, citing promotional material stating, "How you respond uniquely shapes his behavior, so there's no CHiP like your CHiP" (Compl. ¶51).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 7,491,108 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| means for generating a plurality of interactions for providing interactive effects with the user | The CHiP robot is programmed to show its owner behaviors and personality traits, including barking, whining, and displays of affection. | ¶20 | col. 3:44-46 |
| a plurality of input control mechanisms for the user to interact with the device | The CHiP system includes a SmartBand, a SmartBall, touch sensors on its body, sound and voice detection sensors, and IR vision sensors. | ¶26-41 | col. 3:26-42 |
| means for storing information related to user's responses to interactions | CHiP includes "memory" that allows it to retain a user's responses, such as "likes," which are then used to shape its behavior. | ¶44 | col. 4:13-15 |
| means for analyzing user's responses to derive knowledge information pertaining to how the user has interacted with the device | CHiP allegedly uses "Artificial intelligence algorithms" to analyze a user's responses and derive information about their preferences, likes, and dislikes. | ¶47-48 | col. 4:20-22 |
| means for controlling the device to operate in a distinctive manner that is different from the operation of a similar device with a different knowledge information | Each CHiP unit allegedly learns from its specific user's responses and adapts its behavior, resulting in a unique personality where "no two CHiPs are alike." | ¶50, 52 | col. 1:63-66 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 is composed entirely of means-plus-function limitations. A central dispute may be whether the corresponding structures in the accused product (e.g., its specific microprocessor architecture, software algorithms, and sensor types like capacitive touch) are structurally equivalent to the structures disclosed in the patent's specification (e.g., magnetic sensors, solenoids, and a specific ROM/RAM architecture shown in Fig. 4).
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that CHiP’s system of reinforcing existing behaviors via a "Like" button performs the same function as the patent’s described system of deriving "knowledge" by establishing "confidence levels" based on classifying user responses as "familiar" or "odd" over time?
U.S. Patent No. 7,491,111 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| input control mechanism, which includes at least one of a switch, a sound activated sensor, a voice activated module, a speech recognition module, a light activated sensor, and a magnetic sensor... | CHiP includes a variety of sensors, such as touch sensors ("switch"), sound detection sensors, a voice recognition module, and IR vision sensors ("light activated sensor"). | ¶63 | col. 23:56-62 |
| a microprocessor with a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program to control the operation of the vehicle | The complaint alleges on information and belief that CHiP's software requires a microprocessor and computer-readable medium to execute its programmed instructions. | ¶65 | col. 10:47-52 |
| computer memory to store information related to user's interaction with the vehicle | CHiP allegedly includes computer memory to store information from user interactions, such as "likes," to shape its behavior. | ¶69 | col. 12:5-7 |
| a computer program segment that analyzes user's interactions with the vehicle in order to derive knowledge information... | CHiP allegedly includes a software program that analyzes user interactions to derive knowledge about user patterns, preferences, habits, and personal information. | ¶71 | col. 4:22-24 |
| a computer program segment that employs said knowledge information to operate the vehicle in a plurality of states | CHiP allegedly uses the derived knowledge about user preferences to operate the robot in a personalized manner. A screenshot from the CHiP application shows a menu of "Sensor Based Tricks" that result from user interaction (Compl. ¶34). | ¶73 | col. 4:25-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the accused CHiP product, a quadrupedal robot dog that moves on wheels, fall within the scope of the claim term "toy vehicle"? The complaint asserts it is a vehicle because it has wheels and is used for transport (Compl. ¶62), while the patent's primary vehicle embodiment is a toy car ('111 Patent, Fig. 26).
- Technical Questions: Does the accused product contain an "input control mechanism" that includes every listed sensor type or its equivalent, as required by the claim? Specifically, the complaint does not identify a "magnetic sensor" in the accused product that is used for user control, which may raise a question of literal infringement for this element.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "knowledge information" (’108 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the scope of the invention, as it defines the type and extent of "learning" required for infringement. A broad construction could encompass simple preference tracking, whereas a narrow construction might require the more complex, multi-level system described in the specification. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product’s learning appears to be based on a binary "like/dislike" system, which may or may not meet the definition of "knowledge information" as contemplated by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the object of the invention as providing toy devices that gain "knowledge" in connection with how a player interacts with the device, which could be read broadly ('108 Patent, col. 2:8-12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed system where the microprocessor is programmed to "establish a knowledge database with confidence levels" based on the uniformity of responses, suggesting a more complex process than simple preference storage ('108 Patent, col. 4:20-22).
The Term: "toy vehicle" (’111 Patent, Claim 8)
- Context and Importance: Infringement of the asserted '111 Patent claims depends on whether the accused robotic dog is classified as a "toy vehicle." The construction of this term will determine if the patent applies to zoomorphic robots or is limited to more conventional vehicle forms.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of vehicle forms, including "motorcycle, car, truck, van, military tank, train, plane or a boat," indicating a wide range of possible structures ('111 Patent, col. 23:50-53). The complaint argues CHiP qualifies because it has wheels and can transport its "SmartBall" (Compl. ¶62).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The only illustrated embodiment of a "vehicle" in the patent is a traditional toy car ('111 Patent, Fig. 26). An argument could be advanced that the term is limited to devices whose primary purpose is transportation, as opposed to a robotic pet that happens to have wheels.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has willfully infringed since being made aware of the patents-in-suit through the filing of the original and amended complaints in this litigation (Compl. ¶90). This allegation is based on alleged post-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "toy vehicle," as used in the '111 Patent and primarily illustrated as a car, be construed to cover the accused quadrupedal robotic dog?
- A key question for the '108 Patent will be one of structural equivalence under the means-plus-function framework: does the accused product's software-based AI and modern sensor suite constitute a structural equivalent to the specific hardware configurations (e.g., magnetic sensors, solenoids) disclosed in the patent as performing the claimed functions?
- A central technical question will be one of functional operation: does the accused product's system for reinforcing behaviors via a user's "like" input perform the same function as the patent's described method of deriving "knowledge information" through a multi-tiered system of confidence levels based on analyzing patterns of user responses over time?