Universal Cipher LLC v. Walmart Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Universal Cipher, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Walmart, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kizzia & Johnson PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00164, E.D. Tex., 05/07/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because acts of infringement are occurring in the District and Defendant has a regular and established place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that smartphones and tablets sold by Defendant, which feature non-English keyboard functionalities, infringe a patent related to dynamically generating text characters.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the user interface technology for inputting text in complex, non-Latin script languages on electronic devices like smartphones.
• 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

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

• Patent Identification: 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 many characters (e.g., Hindi, Chinese), as "challenging" on digital devices (’222 Patent, col. 1:12-15). Existing methods like large virtual keyboards were impractical for web pages, and transliteration (typing phonetically using English letters) was often inaccurate and required significant user adjustments (’222 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Dynamic Language Menu Pad" system where a user first selects a base character, such as a consonant, from an initial, limited menu (’222 Patent, col. 2:27-40). This selection dynamically triggers the display of a second menu of related characters (e.g., vowel derivatives) that are contextually linked to the first selection, appearing adjacent to it (’222 Patent, col. 7:36-51; Fig. 2B). This method aims to simplify input by progressively revealing character options rather than presenting all possibilities at once.
• Technical Importance: The described system sought to provide a more intuitive and efficient method for native speakers to input text in their own languages on digital platforms, reducing the dependency on English-based transliteration or cumbersome full-character keyboards (’222 Patent, col. 2:35-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is central to the allegations.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • Displaying a first plurality of character menu items, each having one selectable consonant character of a language, at a first location on a monitor.
  • Receiving a first user selection of a first character menu item via an interactive device.
  • In response, displaying a first overall plurality of character menu items, which includes the first plurality and a second plurality of character menu items.
  • Each character menu item of the second plurality has one selectable character and is a vowel derivative of the character from the first selection.
  • The second plurality is displayed in a second location, separate from and adjacent to the first location.
  • The second plurality is displayed "substantially and directly connected to the first character menu item" but not to other items in the first overall plurality.
  • The claim proceeds to recite receiving a second user selection of a second character menu item from the first plurality and, in response, displaying a third plurality of character menu items with similar properties.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other dependent claims, but infringement of dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 6 is alleged (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are smartphones and tablets sold by Walmart that run the Android Operating System, with specific examples including models from Lenovo, LG, Motorola, and Nokia (the "Product") (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint focuses on the non-English keyboard functionality within the Android OS, using the Hindi keyboard as its primary example (Compl. ¶15). The allegedly infringing feature is the system's response to a user performing a "long press" on a consonant key on the device's touchscreen. This action is alleged to cause the display of a secondary pop-up menu containing related characters, from which the user can make a further selection (Compl. ¶19, ¶20). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows the initial Hindi keyboard layout on an Android device. (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (B, C, D, E) that are not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶¶40-43). The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations and screenshots provided in the body of the complaint.

’222 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent figures often depict new menus appearing in a rigid, grid-aligned manner (e.g., ’222 Patent, Fig. 2B). The accused functionality, as shown in the complaint's screenshots, involves a floating pop-up menu appearing over the user interface (Compl. p. 9). This raises the question of whether a "pop-up" menu meets the claim requirement of being in a "second location" that is "separate and apart from" and "substantially and directly connected to" the first.
  • Technical Questions: A central issue may be whether the characters displayed in the accused Android keyboards upon a "long press" are, in a technical and linguistic sense, "vowel derivatives" as required by the claim (’222 Patent, col. 23:59-62). The complaint asserts this is the case for the Hindi keyboard (Compl. ¶23), but this is a technical assertion that may require expert testimony to substantiate or rebut.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "substantially and directly connected"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining whether the spatial relationship between the initial keyboard and the pop-up secondary menu in the accused products falls within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the visual evidence in the complaint (a floating pop-up menu) appears different from the more integrated, grid-like layouts illustrated in the patent (e.g., ’222 Patent, Fig. 2B).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the second menu location as "adjacent the first character menu item" (’222 Patent, col. 24:2-3), which a party could argue does not strictly require physical, edge-to-edge contact and could encompass a nearby pop-up.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict the secondary menu (e.g., 208) emerging directly from the boundary of the primary menu item (e.g., 204k), with a pointer (210) visually linking them as a single, connected structure (’222 Patent, Fig. 2B). A party could argue this illustrates the intended meaning of "directly connected."

• The Term: "vowel derivative"

  • Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges on whether the secondary characters displayed by the accused products are technically "vowel derivatives" of the primary selected consonant. This is a technical limitation, not a general "related character" limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term broadly in the context of different languages, including Indian languages where diacritics are added to consonants to form syllables (’222 Patent, col. 7:47-51, "vowel derivatives (diacritics)"). This may support an interpretation covering various forms of syllabic characters formed from a base consonant.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term itself has a specific linguistic meaning. A defendant may argue that for infringement to be found, the accused characters must conform to a precise linguistic definition of a "vowel derivative," and might argue that some characters in the pop-up menu are conjuncts or other forms not strictly meeting that definition.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶14). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements of inducement, such as references to user manuals, advertisements, or other materials that allegedly instruct users to perform the "long press" functionality.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the phrase "substantially and directly connected," which is illustrated in the patent with integrated, grid-based layouts, be construed to read on the floating "pop-up" menu user interface utilized in the accused Android keyboards?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical and linguistic equivalence: Does the accused Hindi keyboard's "long press" feature display characters that are technically "vowel derivatives" as required by Claim 1, or is there a functional or linguistic mismatch between what the patent claims and what the accused software actually does? This question will likely turn on competing expert testimony.
• A third question will relate to proof of indirect infringement: Beyond bare allegations, what factual evidence will the Plaintiff present to demonstrate that Walmart knew of the ’222 Patent and specifically intended for its customers to use the accused smartphones in a manner that infringes its claims?