DCT

2:18-cv-00055

Immersion Corp v. Samsung Electronics America Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00055, E.D. Tex., 03/08/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business in the district (the "Richardson Facility"), where it allegedly develops and markets phones and tablets, and because a substantial part of the alleged infringement occurred in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain Samsung smartphones and mobile devices infringe a patent related to haptic feedback systems that use pre-defined, stored effects.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns haptic feedback in mobile devices, which provides tactile sensations (e.g., vibrations) to a user interacting with a touchscreen, aiming to simulate the feel of physical buttons and enhance the user interface.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Samsung was a licensee of Immersion’s software and patented haptic technology for many years. It states that at the end of 2015, Samsung chose not to renew its license but continued to use the patented technology in new products. This history suggests a basis for pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-02-20 ’051 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/890,690)
2013-12-31 ’051 Patent Issue Date
~2015-12-31 Alleged non-renewal of software and patent license by Samsung
>2016-01-01 Commercial launch period for Accused Products begins
2018-03-08 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,619,051, Haptic Feedback System with Stored Effects, Issued Dec. 31, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need to improve the generation of haptic effects in electronic devices. It notes that generating these effects in real-time or "on the fly" can require substantial processing power and may complicate the rapid development of new devices, as the effects must be compatible with the specific hardware interface (’051 Patent, col. 1:53-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses pre-defined, stored haptic effects rather than generating them in real-time. A controller retrieves a stored effect from memory in response to a request from an application and sends corresponding signals to an actuator to produce a vibration (’051 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-58). This architecture, depicted in system diagrams like Figure 2, is designed to reduce the required processing power by relying on pre-recorded signals (’051 Patent, col. 2:4-6, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: By pre-storing and encoding haptic effects, the system aimed to standardize effect playback across different devices and applications, reduce computational load on the host processor, and simplify the development process for implementing haptic feedback (’051 Patent, col. 1:53-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 of the ’051 Patent (Compl. ¶ 20).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A system with a processor, memory, actuator drive circuit, and actuator.
    • The memory stores a plurality of "pre-defined haptic effects."
    • The processor outputs a stored effect in response to a "haptic effect request" from a "first application."
    • The "entire haptic output" in response to the request "consists of the first stored haptic effect."
    • An application program interface (API) receives the request, where the first application and a "second application" are "registered with the API" and have access to the stored effect.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims from the patent (’051 Patent, Compl. ¶ 16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names a range of Samsung mobile phones released after January 1, 2016, including but not limited to the Galaxy J3, J7, S7, S8, S8+, S8 Active, and Note 8 models (collectively, the "Accused Phones") (Compl. ¶ 16). The Galaxy S8 is used as an exemplary device for infringement allegations (Compl. ¶ 20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused functionality is the haptic feedback system integrated into the Accused Phones (Compl. ¶ 11). The complaint alleges these devices use an application processor, memory, and an actuator to generate tactile feedback when a user interacts with the touchscreen (Compl. ¶ 20.a.i). This functionality is triggered when an application, via the Android operating system's API, requests a pre-defined haptic effect, such as a "virtual key" or "keyboard tap" effect (Compl. ¶¶ 20.a.ii-iii). The complaint alleges these features are used to "restore a mechanical feel to electronic devices," improving the user interface (Compl. ¶ 13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’051 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality - Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A haptic feedback system comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores a plurality of pre-defined haptic effects; an actuator drive circuit coupled to the processor; and an actuator coupled to the actuator drive circuit; The Galaxy S8 contains an application processor, memory storing pre-defined haptic effects (e.g., "long press," "virtual key"), an actuator drive circuit, and an actuator. - ¶20.a.i col. 2:41-44
wherein the processor is adapted to output a first stored haptic effect of the pre-defined haptic effects in response to a haptic effect request; The Galaxy S8's processor is adapted to output a stored, pre-defined "virtual key" haptic effect when requested by an application. - ¶20.a.ii col. 2:55-58
wherein the haptic effect request is a control signal generated in response to a first application that identifies the first stored haptic effect to be played; The haptic effect request is a control signal generated when an application identifies the "virtual key" effect to be played by using the "VIRTUAL_KEY" constant. - ¶20.a.iii col. 3:12-15
wherein the output causes the first stored haptic effect to be played; The output from the processor causes the stored "virtual key" haptic effect to be played. - ¶20.a.iv col. 2:59-65
wherein the entire haptic output in response to the haptic effect request consists of the first stored haptic effect; The entire haptic output in response to a request for the "virtual key" haptic effect is alleged to be the "virtual key" haptic effect itself. - ¶20.a.v col. 4:21-23
wherein an application program interface (API) receives the haptic effect request from the first application and retrieves the requested first stored haptic effect, wherein the first application is registered with the API and a second application is also registered with the API and has access to the first stored haptic effect. The Galaxy S8 uses an Android OS API. An application is alleged to be "registered" by setting an attribute to "true" or having the "VIBRATE" permission, which gives it and other applications with the same permission access to the stored effects. ¶20.a.vi col. 4:26-32
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint's theory of infringement raises a question about the scope of the term "registered with the API." The allegation is that an application setting the "android:hapticFeedbackEnabled" attribute or obtaining the "VIBRATE" permission meets this limitation (Compl. ¶20.a.vi). The court may need to determine if this standard Android permission model constitutes "registration" as contemplated by the patent, or if a more specific, formal registration process is required.
    • Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether the "entire haptic output" in the accused devices "consists of the first stored haptic effect" as required by the claim. The complaint makes this conclusory allegation (Compl. ¶20.a.v), but discovery will be needed to determine if the accused systems are capable of, or in practice ever use, any form of real-time modification or generation of haptic effects, which could place their operation outside the literal scope of this claim element.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "pre-defined haptic effects"

  • Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the invention, distinguishing it from prior art systems that allegedly generated effects in real-time. The definition will determine whether the accused Samsung effects, such as "virtual key," qualify as the type of "pre-defined" effects covered by the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification frequently uses the term in a general sense, describing them simply as effects that are "stored" in memory for later playback without reference to a specific format (’051 Patent, col. 3:14, 3:23-24). This may support an argument that any effect stored in memory before being requested by an application is "pre-defined."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a highly detailed embodiment where effects are encoded as a "digitized stream envelope ('DSE') construct" (’051 Patent, col. 3:22-24). This DSE format includes specific data structures, such as voltage/time pairs and slope encodings, as detailed in Figures 4-6 and Tables 1-3 (’051 Patent, col. 5:19-col. 7:17). A party could argue that "pre-defined haptic effects" should be limited to effects stored in this specific, detailed DSE format.

  • The Term: "registered with the API"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the relationship between software applications and the haptic system. Infringement of this element hinges on whether the accused Android OS functionality meets the "registration" requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory appears to equate a standard operating system permission with the claimed registration.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that "Multiple applications could register with the API simultaneously" and discusses "API client marshaling" but does not provide an explicit definition of "register" (’051 Patent, col. 4:26-29). The absence of a specific definition or restrictive language may support interpreting the term according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which could be broad enough to encompass the Android permission system as alleged by the plaintiff.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The discussion of "API client marshaling" and handling requests from multiple applications via priority schemes could suggest that "registered" implies a more structured and formal process than merely having a system-level permission (’051 Patent, col. 4:28-40). A defendant may argue that the term implies an active process where an application makes itself known to the API to manage simultaneous access, beyond the passive state of holding a permission.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. The allegations focus on Samsung's direct infringement through its "development, manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale" of the Accused Phones (Compl. ¶ 16).
  • Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the word "willful," it alleges facts that may support such a claim. It states that Samsung licensed Immersion's patented technology for many years before deciding not to renew the license at the end of 2015, after which it allegedly continued to use the technology in new products (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 14). These allegations of a prior licensing relationship and subsequent use post-termination provide a strong factual basis for pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patent and technology.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "registered with the API," which is not explicitly defined in the patent, be construed to cover the standard Android permission system as alleged by the plaintiff, or does the patent’s context require a more formal, active registration process between an application and the haptic system?
  • A second central question will be the interpretation of "pre-defined haptic effect." The case may turn on whether this term is construed broadly to mean any effect stored in memory before use, or narrowly to mean only effects encoded in the specific "digitized stream envelope" (DSE) format detailed in the patent’s specification.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Samsung haptic system's functionality align with the claim limitation that the "entire haptic output... consists of the first stored haptic effect," or will discovery reveal that the system also employs real-time processing or modification of effects, which would create a non-infringement argument?