DCT

2:23-cv-00238

Mimzi, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00238, E.D. Tex., 05/27/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphone, tablet, and smart tag products, which utilize the "SmartThings Find" and "Bixby" technologies, infringe three patents related to collecting, time-stamping, and searching location-based data and communications.
  • Technical Context: The patents describe a system for creating a searchable "photographic memory" by capturing and indexing user data, including conversations and location, a concept relevant to modern mobile computing, virtual assistants, and device-finding networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit are part of a family that has been the subject of prior litigation and administrative challenges, including Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings noted on the face of the patents, which may provide context for issues of claim scope and validity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-07-29 Earliest Priority Date for ’929, ’163, and ’156 Patents
2021-08-10 U.S. Patent No. 11,086,929 Issues
2021-08-24 U.S. Patent No. 11,100,163 Issues
2022-04-19 U.S. Patent No. 11,308,156 Issues
2023-05-27 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,086,929 - "Photographic Memory," Issued Aug. 10, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a gap in personal data management: while emails are searchable, conversations and visual observations are typically ephemeral and cannot be easily recorded and queried. This prevents individuals from having a comprehensive, searchable archive of their experiences (’929 Patent, col. 1:49-68).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a phone or similar device captures various data inputs (e.g., audio from calls, photos, videos) and sends them to a repository. There, speech recognition creates a text transcript, and metadata such as time, date, and GPS location are associated with the data, creating a unified, searchable "photographic memory" for the user (’929 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-55; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to unify disparate data streams (voice, text, image, location) into a single, queryable database, anticipating the value of cross-referenced metadata in personal information management (’929 Patent, col. 2:3-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
  • Essential elements of claim 1, a mobile phone system, include:
    • A Bluetooth radio frequency transceiver
    • A cellular wireless transceiver
    • A global positioning system (GPS) device
    • An automated processor configured to:
      • Control the Bluetooth transceiver to receive an identification from adjacent mobile devices
      • Record the identification along with a time and a GPS-determined location
      • Transmit the recorded identification, time, and location to a remote searchable database
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 11,100,163 - "Photographic Memory," Issued Aug. 24, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the related ’929 Patent, the specification describes the difficulty individuals face in recalling information from conversations or things they have seen, for which no searchable record typically exists (’163 Patent, col. 1:52-col. 2:2).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system for collecting and indexing data from a user's device. The system processes inputs like audio conversations, associates them with metadata like time and location, and stores them in a searchable database, which can also be used to deliver targeted content, such as advertisements (’163 Patent, Abstract; col. 14:1-26; Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This approach outlines a framework for monetizing a "photographic memory" by using the collected and indexed personal data (including spoken keywords and location) to serve targeted advertisements.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Essential elements of claim 1, a system for presenting location-based information, include:
    • A communication network interface port
    • A database system for storing location-based travel information and advertisements
    • A server with a processor configured to:
      • Automatically receive a location from a mobile electronic device
      • Automatically retrieve location-based travel information from the database based on the location
      • Automatically retrieve a location-based advertisement from the database based on the location and at least one spoken keyword
      • Automatically present the retrieved advertisement to the user
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 11,308,156 - "Photographic Memory," Issued Apr. 19, 2022

  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the other patents-in-suit, the ’156 Patent describes a system for creating a searchable personal data archive. It focuses on using a mobile device to capture user data (conversations, location) and store it in a centralized, queryable database, with an emphasis on creating a "community or collective photographic memory" by allowing users to share certain content publicly (’156 Patent, col. 1:36-44).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Samsung Galaxy smartphones, tablets, and Samsung Galaxy SmartTags that utilize Samsung's SmartThings Find technology (Compl. ¶38).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies three categories of accused instrumentalities:

  1. Samsung Galaxy smartphones and tablets utilizing "SmartThings Find" technology (Compl. ¶22).
  2. Samsung Galaxy smartphones and tablets utilizing the "Bixby virtual assistant" (Compl. ¶30).
  3. Samsung Galaxy smartphones, tablets, and Galaxy SmartTags utilizing "SmartThings Find" technology (Compl. ¶38).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these are representative examples of infringing products but does not provide detailed technical descriptions of their operation (Compl. ¶¶22, 30, 38). Instead, it incorporates by reference external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits D, E, and F), which were not attached to the publicly filed complaint.
  • Functionality is implied by the names of the accused technologies: "SmartThings Find" suggests a device-location or "find my" network, while "Bixby" is Samsung's voice-activated virtual assistant. The complaint alleges Defendant derives substantial revenues from these infringing acts (Compl. ¶10).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to Exhibits D, E, and F, which are claim charts that were not provided with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶¶22, 30, 38). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement theories in the complaint.

’929 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Samsung's Galaxy smartphones and tablets using SmartThings Find technology directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’929 Patent (Compl. ¶¶21-22). The infringement theory appears to map the functionality of a crowd-sourced device-finding network to the claim's requirements for a system that uses Bluetooth to receive identifications from adjacent devices and records that data with time and location in a remote database.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the "SmartThings Find" network, designed to locate a user's own lost devices, constitutes the "mobile ad hoc surveillance of phones" described in the patent (’929 Patent, col. 17:28-34). The parties may dispute whether tracking discrete, user-owned devices is equivalent to the broader surveillance system contemplated by the patent.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on how the "identification" is received and recorded. A key question is whether the anonymous, transient Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacons used by modern "find my" networks meet the claim limitation of directly receiving "at least an identification from the adjacent mobile wireless communication devices" and recording it in a manner that creates a persistent, searchable record for the user as claimed.

’163 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Samsung smartphones and tablets using the Bixby virtual assistant infringe at least claim 1 of the ’163 Patent (Compl. ¶¶29-30). This theory suggests that when a user speaks a query to Bixby, the system uses the user's location and "spoken keyword[s]" to retrieve and present information, which the Plaintiff contends constitutes a "location-based advertisement."

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central dispute may be the definition of "location-based advertisement." The court will need to determine if standard informational responses from a virtual assistant (e.g., "the nearest coffee shop is...") fall within the scope of this term, especially in light of the patent's disclosure of a dedicated "Ad Server" and targeting based on user demographics (’163 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 14:1-9).
    • Technical Questions: Evidence will be required to show that Bixby performs all the claimed steps, including retrieving both "location-based travel information" and a "location-based advertisement" and presenting the latter. A dispute may arise over whether Bixby's functionality is a single information-retrieval action or the distinct, multi-step process required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

From the ’929 Patent (Claim 1)

  • The Term: "adjacent mobile wireless communication devices"
  • Context and Importance: The scope of this term is critical to infringement. Defendant may argue "adjacent" implies a limited, nearby context, whereas Plaintiff's theory regarding the "SmartThings Find" network may require a broader interpretation that covers any device within Bluetooth detection range that is part of the larger network.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's discussion of "rolling ad-hoc surveillance of vehicles and people" and detecting signals from "passing vehicles" could support a construction that is not limited to devices in the immediate physical vicinity but extends to any electronically detectable device (’929 Patent, col. 6:38-40, col. 6:56-58).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "adjacent" itself, in its plain and ordinary meaning, suggests closeness. Furthermore, claim 1 requires the system to "directly receive" an identification, which could be interpreted to imply a more localized or paired communication rather than a passive, crowd-sourced detection.

From the ’163 Patent (Claim 1)

  • The Term: "location-based advertisement"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the infringement allegation against Bixby. Its construction will determine whether a virtual assistant's ordinary, commercially-oriented responses qualify as infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the primary point of contact between the claim and the accused functionality.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any information presented to a user that has a commercial purpose and is based on location (e.g., suggesting a brand-name store) meets the plain meaning of the term.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides significant context suggesting a more specific meaning. It explicitly discloses an "Ad Server 130c" that determines an ad "based on keywords, location and demographics," and the system then presents "ad audio" or "ad text" to the user (’163 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 14:1-26). This disclosure of a dedicated advertising subsystem may support a narrower construction limited to explicitly commercial, paid placements rather than general informational responses.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents. The stated basis for inducement is Defendant’s sale of the accused products along with the distribution of "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶25, 33, 41).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness allegations for all patents are predicated on Defendant's knowledge of the patents "At least since being served with this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶25, 33, 41). This frames the claim as one of post-suit willfulness, based on continued alleged infringement after receiving notice via the lawsuit.

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

  1. A central issue will be one of technological scope and purpose: Do Samsung's specific, purpose-driven features—a network to find lost items ("SmartThings Find") and a conversational virtual assistant ("Bixby")—fall within the scope of the patents' claims, which describe a broader, more integrated system for creating a universal, searchable "photographic memory"? The court may need to decide if there is a fundamental mismatch between the narrow accused functionalities and the broader claimed inventions.
  2. A key infringement question will be one of definitional interpretation: Can the term "location-based advertisement" in the ’163 Patent, which is described in the context of a dedicated ad server, be construed to read on the standard, location-aware informational responses provided by the Bixby virtual assistant?
  3. A critical evidentiary question for the ’929 and ’156 patents will be one of functional mapping: Does the operation of the SmartThings Find network, which relies on a crowd-sourced mesh of devices, meet the specific claim limitations requiring a mobile phone system to "directly receive," "record," and "transmit" identifications from adjacent devices to a remote database for mapping and search?