DCT

2:22-cv-00406

Ultimatepointer LLC v. LG Electronics Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00206, E.D. Tex., 10/18/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper for LG Electronics, Inc. as a foreign corporation and for LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. based on its regular and established place of business, an electronics distribution center, within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Magic Remote controllers and associated smart televisions infringe a patent related to motion-controlled pointing devices.
  • Technical Context: Motion-controlled remotes using inertial sensors like accelerometers and gyroscopes are a central technology for navigating the user interfaces of modern smart televisions.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was issued approximately two and a half months prior to the filing of the complaint. The complaint notes that Defendants have not contested personal jurisdiction or venue in the Eastern District of Texas in several other recent patent cases.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-05-28 U.S. Patent No. 11,402,927 Earliest Priority Date
2022-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,402,927 Issues
2022-10-18 Complaint Filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,402,927, "POINTING DEVICE", issued August 2, 2022

U.S. Patent No. 11,402,927 - "POINTING DEVICE"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a need for a pointing device that combines the intuitiveness of "direct-pointing" (where the physical point-of-aim coincides with the target, like a laser pointer) with the portability required for presentations in venues not specifically equipped for them ('927 Patent, col. 1:47-67). It contrasts this with "indirect-pointing" devices like a computer mouse, which it characterizes as less natural for users ('927 Patent, col. 2:13-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The specification primarily describes a system for enabling direct pointing on an arbitrary surface, such as a projection on a wall. The system uses a pointing device and a base station to establish and calibrate a three-dimensional "interaction region" that corresponds to the displayed image, allowing a user to control a cursor by pointing directly at the screen ('927 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The described technical approach sought to create a flexible, easily deployable system for interactive presentations that did not rely on specialized screens or fixed equipment in the presentation room ('927 Patent, col. 1:53-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • An "indirect pointer system" comprising a remote control device configured to be wielded in mid-air.
    • The remote includes a first processor, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a microphone, a wireless communications system, and a user input element.
    • The processor is configured to provide information about the remote's orientation based on a "combination" of accelerometer and gyroscope outputs.
    • This information enables "indirect control" of a cursor on a television based on a change in the remote's orientation.
    • The remote is configured to send a "unique identifier" to the television.
    • The remote is configured to send a signal related to "sounds received by the microphone" to the television.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 21, 26, 28, and 29 (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as LG's Magic Remote television controllers (e.g., models MR20GA and MR21GA) and associated LG televisions, including various OLED, UHD, and UHD 4K models (Compl. ¶¶19-20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused system involves pointing devices that use gyroscopes and accelerometers to control the location of a cursor on a television display (Compl. ¶17). The complaint includes a screenshot of an LG product webpage, which highlights the "Magic Remote" as a "KEY FEATURE" of its televisions (Compl. ¶20, p. 6). This suggests the feature is material to the product's value and marketing.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference an Exhibit B containing infringement claim charts, which was not provided with the filed complaint; therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities constitute an "indirect pointing system" that infringes at least claim 1 of the ’927 Patent (Compl. ¶21). The core of the infringement theory is that the LG Magic Remote is a mid-air remote control that uses a combination of accelerometer and gyroscope outputs to control a cursor on a television screen based on changes in the remote's orientation (Compl. ¶17). This functionality is alleged to meet the corresponding limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶21).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention may arise from the relationship between the asserted claim and the patent's specification. While asserted claim 1 recites an "indirect pointer system," the patent's specification focuses heavily on describing a more complex "direct-pointing" system that requires calibration with a base station to define an "interaction region" ('927 Patent, col. 2:13-16; col. 9:32-44). This raises the question of whether the specification provides adequate written description for the full scope of the asserted "indirect" system claim, or if the claim's scope should be limited by the specification's embodiments.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused remote's orientation is determined "based on a combination of an accelerometer output... and a gyroscope output" (reciting language from claim 1) ('927 Patent, col. 35:30-34; Compl. ¶17). A key technical question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the specific sensor fusion algorithm used in the LG Magic Remote performs the function required by this claim limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "indirect pointer system"
  • Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the preamble of claim 1, is foundational to the infringement case. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification extensively distinguishes between "indirect-pointing" and the purportedly superior "direct-pointing" technology that constitutes the bulk of the disclosure. The definition of this term will determine whether the claim broadly covers common motion-remotes or is narrowed by the patent's specific teachings.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background section describes "indirect pointing devices" as including a "mouse and a trackball," where the cursor "bears an indirect relationship to the physical point-of-aim of the pointing device" ('927 Patent, col. 2:20-24). This could support a plain meaning that encompasses any motion-based remote where the user is not physically aiming along a line-of-sight.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's repeated emphasis on the problems with indirect systems and its detailed description of a direct-pointing system as the solution could be used to argue that the patentee disclaimed or did not adequately describe a conventional indirect system. A party might argue that the term, when read in light of the entire specification, should be construed to include features of the disclosed embodiments ('927 Patent, col. 1:47-67; Figs. 2-5).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that LG induces infringement by selling the Accused Instrumentalities to distributors and consumers in the U.S. "intending and/or knowing that those accused products are destined for the United States" (Compl. ¶24).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged knowledge of the ’927 Patent as of the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶22). The complaint states that "LG had and continues to have actual knowledge" from at least the filing date, and it seeks enhanced damages (Compl. ¶22; p. 9, ¶F).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and validity: Can claim 1, which recites an "indirect pointer system," be validly construed to cover a conventional motion-controlled remote, given that the patent's specification predominantly describes and promotes a more complex "direct-pointing" system involving calibration and a base station? The resolution will depend on whether the court finds the specification provides adequate written description for the claim's breadth.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Assuming a broad construction of the claims, the case may turn on whether the specific methods used by LG's Magic Remote to combine sensor data and control the on-screen cursor meet the functional requirements of the asserted claims, an issue that will require technical evidence beyond the high-level allegations in the complaint.