DCT
2:19-cv-00163
Universal Cipher LLC v. Target Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Universal Cipher, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Target Corporation (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kizzia & Johnson PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00163, E.D. Tex., 05/07/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because acts of infringement occur in the district and Defendant has a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of Android smartphones and tablets infringes a patent related to systems and methods for dynamic generation of non-English language text on a user interface.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses user interfaces for entering text in complex, non-English languages on digital devices, a critical feature for enabling product accessibility in global smartphone markets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-06-10 | U.S. Patent No. 7,721,222 Priority Date |
| 2010-05-18 | U.S. Patent No. 7,721,222 Issued |
| 2019-05-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,721,222, "Dynamic Language Text Generation System and Method" (Issued May 18, 2010)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the task of generating text in non-English languages, particularly Asian languages with numerous characters, as "challenging" on digital devices (’222 Patent, col. 1:11-13). It notes that methods like transliteration can be inaccurate, while virtual keyboards containing every possible character are impractical and make web pages "too large and impractical to be loaded" (’222 Patent, col. 1:14-27).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system where a user is first presented with a limited set of base characters, such as consonants or radicals, in a primary menu (’222 Patent, col. 2:51-54). When the user selects a base character, the system dynamically displays a secondary menu of related characters, such as vowel derivatives or successive radicals, that are logically connected to the first selection (’222 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:36-45). This hierarchical menu-based lookup allows a user to generate complex characters through a series of simple selections without needing a full keyboard.
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide an "easy and practical approach to generating non-English text" on devices with limited input capabilities, avoiding multiple mouse clicks, page scrolls, and ambiguities associated with other input methods (’222 Patent, col. 2:41-50).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 6 (Compl. ¶12).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Displaying a first plurality of consonant character menu items.
- Receiving a first user selection of a first consonant character menu item.
- In response, displaying a second plurality of character menu items that are vowel derivatives of the first selection, where the second plurality is displayed "substantially and directly connected to" the first selected item.
- Receiving a second user selection of a second consonant character menu item from the first plurality.
- In response, displaying a third plurality of character menu items that are vowel derivatives of the second selection.
- The claim specifies that during these "first state" and "second state" displays, no other character menu items are displayed on the monitor other than the specified pluralities.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶12).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- LG, Motorola, and Nokia smartphones and tablets running the Android Operating System (OS), collectively referred to as the "Product" (Compl. ¶¶12-13). The complaint uses an LG Nexus 5X with a non-English (Hindi) keyboard as a specific example (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused functionality is the method for entering non-English characters using the virtual keyboards within Android OS (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges that when a user performs a "long press" on a consonant key on the virtual keyboard, a pop-up menu containing a plurality of related characters (e.g., vowel derivatives) appears above the selected key (Compl. ¶¶19-20). The user can then select a character from this pop-up menu for text entry (Compl. ¶36). A screenshot from an LG smartphone shows a Hindi keyboard with a pop-up menu of characters appearing above a long-pressed key (Compl. p. 9). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Target sells these infringing products (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’222 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| displaying on a computer monitor a first plurality of character menu items... wherein each character of each character menu item of the first plurality of character menu items is a consonant character of the language | The Android OS on the accused Products displays non-English keyboards, such as a Hindi keyboard, comprising consonant characters arranged in rows and columns. | ¶15, ¶18 | col. 7:1-16 |
| receiving a first user selection of a first character menu item of the first plurality of character menu items... | The Products receive a user's selection of a consonant button on the keyboard via a "long press" on the smartphone's touchscreen. | ¶19 | col. 7:36-38 |
| displaying on the computer monitor during a first state a first overall plurality of character menu items which consists of the first plurality of character menu items, a second plurality of character menu items... wherein the second plurality of character menu items is displayed... in response to the first user selection... | In response to the "long press," the Products display a plurality of related characters (the "second plurality") in a pop-up menu above the selected consonant button. | ¶20 | col. 7:39-41 |
| wherein each character of each of the second plurality of character menu items is a vowel derivative of the character of the first character menu item | The characters shown in the pop-up menu are alleged to be vowel derivatives of the selected consonant character. A screenshot shows a pop-up menu with vowel derivatives appearing after a long-press on a base consonant (Compl. p. 10). | ¶23 | col. 7:42-45 |
| wherein the second plurality of character menu items is displayed substantially and directly connected to the first character menu item... and wherein the second location is adjacent the first character menu item | The pop-up menu of related characters is displayed directly connected to and just above the selected consonant button. | ¶24, ¶25 | col. 8:32-41 |
| further comprising receiving a second user selection of a second character menu item of the first plurality of character menu items... | The Products are capable of receiving a subsequent "long press" user selection on a different consonant button on the main keyboard. | ¶26 | col. 8:1-4 |
| displaying on the computer monitor during a second state, a second overall plurality of character menu items which consists of the first plurality of character menu items, a third plurality of character menu items... | In response to a second "long press," the Products display a different plurality of related characters (the "third plurality") above the newly selected consonant button. | ¶27 | col. 8:5-10 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires that during a display "state," "no character menu items are displayed... other than the first overall plurality" (which includes the base menu and the pop-up menu) (’222 Patent, col. 23:48-53). A question for the court is whether the accused Android UI, where a pop-up menu temporarily overlays the main keyboard, meets this limitation. The defense may argue that other UI elements (e.g., the rest of the keyboard, the text field) remain "displayed" and that the pop-up is a transient overlay rather than a distinct display "state" as claimed.
- Technical Questions: The patent describes displaying a new menu of characters "in response to the first user selection" (’222 Patent, col. 23:53-55). The complaint maps this to a "long press" gesture (Compl. ¶19). What evidence the plaintiff will provide that a "long press" is equivalent to the "selection" described in the patent, as opposed to a simple tap, may become a point of dispute, particularly if the patent implies a more conventional point-and-click selection mechanism.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "character menu item"
- Context and Importance: This is the foundational element of the claims. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused smartphone’s keyboard keys and the characters in the pop-up menus each qualify as a "character menu item" that form the claimed "pluralities."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines these elements broadly as potentially being an "html table cell, a button, and a graphic user interface component" (’222 Patent, col. 4:1-3).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures consistently depict "character menu items" as discrete, simultaneously visible buttons arranged in persistent rows or columns (e.g., FIG. 2A, items 204a-x; FIG. 2B, items 208a-j). A party could argue this context limits the term to such static layouts, potentially excluding transient, gesture-triggered pop-up menus.
The Term: "displayed substantially and directly connected to the first character menu item"
- Context and Importance: This term governs the required spatial relationship between the initial character selection and the resulting pop-up menu. The complaint alleges the accused pop-up appearing "just above the selected consonant button" meets this limitation (Compl. ¶24). Practitioners may focus on this term because the visual evidence in the patent differs from the accused product's UI.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "connected" is not explicitly defined, which may support a functional or logical connection rather than a strict physical one.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 also requires the location of the second plurality to be "adjacent the first character menu item" (’222 Patent, col. 24:8-9). The patent’s primary embodiment (FIG. 2B) shows the second plurality (208) displayed in a column immediately beside the first item (204k), not overlaying it. This could support a narrower construction that requires a non-overlapping, side-by-side arrangement.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint makes a general allegation of contributory infringement and inducement (Compl. ¶14). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements, such as referencing user manuals or marketing materials that instruct users on how to perform the allegedly infringing "long press" action.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint does not include a standalone count for willful infringement and does not allege specific facts regarding pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of infringement that would typically support such a claim.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent's structured, state-based system—requiring distinct "pluralities" of "character menu items" where "no other" items are displayed—be construed to read on the fluid, overlay-based user interface of the accused Android keyboards, where a temporary menu appears via a "long press" gesture?
- A key claim construction question will be one of spatial interpretation: does the claim language "substantially and directly connected to" and "adjacent," which the patent figures illustrate as a side-by-side arrangement, cover the accused product's functionality where a pop-up menu appears above and partially overlays the selected key?