DCT

2:24-cv-00179

Malikie Innovations Ltd v. Acer Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00179, E.D. Tex., 03/15/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant, a foreign corporation, transacts business and has committed acts of infringement in the district, including by purposefully directing infringing products into the U.S. supply chain knowing they will be sold in the district through nationwide retailers.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s laptops, chargers, and related software infringe four patents, originally developed by Blackberry, concerning technologies for touch-based user interfaces, intelligent battery charging, video encoding, and configurable power/data cables.
  • Technical Context: The asserted patents cover technologies that are foundational to the functionality of modern portable electronics, addressing user interaction, power management, and data compression.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the successor-in-interest to a patent portfolio created by Blackberry Ltd. The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit notice of its infringement of the ’847 Patent and the ’147 Patent family since August 2016, and of the ’397 Patent since July 2020, which may form the basis for claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-02-11 ’397 Patent Priority Date
2006-03-17 ’147 Patent Priority Date
2007-10-19 ’847 Patent Priority Date
2010-04-30 ’066 Patent Priority Date
2012-12-18 ’847 Patent Issue Date
2013-12-17 ’397 Patent Issue Date
2015-11-03 ’147 Patent Issue Date
2016-03-22 ’066 Patent Issue Date
2016-08-25 Alleged Notice Date for ’847 Patent and ’147 Patent Family
2020-07-28 Alleged Notice Date for ’397 Patent
2024-03-07 Accused Acer Chromebook 315 documented as available for sale in E.D. Tex.
2024-03-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,334,847, "System having user interface using object selection and gestures," Issued December 18, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that as virtual interfaces on electronic devices become more crowded with controls and images, it can be difficult for a user to select a specific displayed object due to the close proximity of other objects (’847 Patent, col. 1:35-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this by using the magnitude of a user's touch manipulation on a screen to differentiate intent. A touch-and-drag motion with a magnitude below a set threshold is interpreted as the selection of a user interface control, while a motion exceeding that threshold is identified as a gesture intended to perform a different function (’847 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-55). The system also describes these interface controls existing in a multilayer display arrangement, where they can overlap (’847 Patent, col. 2:62-67).
  • Technical Importance: This method provided a more robust and intuitive way to manage complex interactions on touchscreens, which were becoming increasingly feature-dense, by using the physical extent of a finger's movement as a primary input differentiator.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 14 (Compl. ¶36).
  • The essential elements of claim 14 are:
    • Detecting a touch on a display in a container area that has selectable objects arranged in overlapping first and second layers.
    • Comparing the magnitude of the touch's movement to a threshold value.
    • If the magnitude exceeds the threshold, executing a function associated with the movement (a gesture).
    • If the magnitude is below the threshold, detecting if the touch is in an active area of a selectable object.
    • If so, executing a function associated with the selection of that object.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 8,610,397, "Battery Charger for Portable Devices and Related Methods," Issued December 17, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The proliferation of portable devices means users may have numerous devices and batteries with different charging requirements (e.g., voltage and current ratings); using a mismatched charger could damage the device or the battery (’397 Patent, col. 2:15-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a "smart" battery charger containing a controller. This controller is configured to cause a connected portable device to identify both its specific "device type" and its "rechargeable battery type" from among a plurality of different types. Based on this identification, the controller then directs its charging circuit to use the appropriate charging rate, thereby preventing damage from mismatched parameters (’397 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-49). The controller may select charging parameters based on the most limiting of the device or battery requirements (’397 Patent, col. 2:60-65).
  • Technical Importance: This technology enabled the development of universal chargers that could intelligently and safely power a wide variety of electronics, a critical innovation for reducing electronic waste and improving user convenience.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent apparatus claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • A battery charger for a portable wireless communications device.
    • A charging circuit.
    • A controller coupled to the charging circuit.
    • The controller is configured to cause the portable device to identify its device type and battery type and to cause the charging circuit to charge the battery based on the corresponding charging rate.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶44).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,179,147, "Soft decision and iterative video coding for MPEG and H.264," Issued November 3, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses video compression, aiming to improve the balance between file size (rate) and quality (distortion) beyond what standard "hard decision" quantizers offer. The invention uses "soft decision quantization" (SDQ) and an iterative process, where the quantized output is treated as a free parameter that can be optimized in conjunction with other encoding steps, like motion compensation and entropy coding, to achieve superior overall compression efficiency (’147 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:10-24).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent apparatus claim 10 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses certain Acer electronic devices, such as the Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 Gaming Laptop with an NVIDIA GPU, of infringing by encoding video through a process that obtains an optimal sequence of quantized coefficients for a block of transform residuals (Compl. ¶52).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,292,066, "Configuring cable lines to provide data and power," Issued March 22, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for providing more flexible power delivery over USB-type cables than what traditional standards permit. The invention allows an "upstream device" (e.g., a charger) to dynamically configure cable lines traditionally reserved for data (D+ and D-) to supply power, typically after a handshaking procedure with the "downstream device" that may request a specific voltage or current profile (’066 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-50).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Acer devices that implement the USB-C standard of infringing by supplying and/or receiving power through cable lines that can be configured to provide both data and power (Compl. ¶60, ¶62).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint broadly accuses Acer's "hardware and/or software" (Compl. ¶36). Specific examples cited include the "Acer Chromebook 315" (Compl. ¶30), the "Acer Predator Helios Neo 16 PHN16-71 Gaming Laptop with a NVIDIA® GeForce® RTX™ 4060 GPU" (Compl. ¶52), and more generally, any Acer devices, chargers, and docks that incorporate touchscreen gesture controls, the USB Power Delivery ("USB PD") standard, or the USB-C standard (Compl. ¶36, ¶44, ¶60).

Functionality and Market Context

The relevant functionalities of the accused products are alleged to be core features of modern electronics. These include:

  • Touchscreen interfaces that distinguish between different types of gestures based on motion (Compl. ¶38).
  • The use of the USB PD standard to negotiate and deliver variable power for charging (Compl. ¶44, ¶46).
  • The use of GPUs for hardware-accelerated video encoding compliant with MPEG and H.264 standards (Compl. ¶52).
  • The use of the USB-C standard to transmit both data and power over the same cable, including the ability to reconfigure lines (Compl. ¶62).

The complaint alleges these products are sold through major U.S. and online retailers, including Walmart and Best Buy locations within the Eastern District of Texas (Compl. ¶28-¶30). A visual exhibit is referenced showing the Acer Chromebook 315 available for pickup in the district (Compl. ¶30, Ex. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶36, ¶44). The following tables summarize the infringement allegations for the lead patents based on the narrative descriptions provided in the complaint.

’847 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
detecting a touch or a contact on a display in a container area having selectable objects... Acer products with touchscreen displays detect user touch input. ¶36 col. 6:31-38
comparing a magnitude of the movement of the touch or the contact to a threshold value; Acer products are advertised to control the display differently depending on the magnitude of the motion of a gesture. ¶38 col. 6:39-41
executing a function associated with the movement when the comparison indicates that the magnitude... extends beyond the threshold value; When a gesture's motion magnitude is large, a gesture-based function is executed. ¶38 col. 6:42-45
executing a function associated with a selection of the one of the selectable objects when the touch or the contact is detected to be in the active area... [and] is below the threshold value; When a gesture's motion magnitude is small, it is treated as a selection of an interface control. ¶36, ¶38 col. 6:46-56
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: A key question for the court may be how the accused Acer products measure the "magnitude of the movement." The patent describes a specific method of comparing start and end coordinates (’847 Patent, col. 3:15-19), and the infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused functionality operates in a technically equivalent manner.
    • Scope Question: The claim requires distinguishing between selection and gesture based on a "threshold value." This raises the question of whether the accused products use a comparable thresholding logic or a different method entirely to differentiate user intent.

’397 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A battery charger for a portable wireless communications device... Defendant makes and sells chargers and other devices capable of charging portable devices. ¶44 col. 12:31-32
a controller coupled to said charging circuit and configured to cause the portable wireless communications device to identify its corresponding portable device type and its corresponding rechargeable battery type... Acer devices implementing the USB PD standard use a controller that determines the device and battery type to adjust the charging rate. ¶42, ¶44 col. 12:41-47
and to cause said charging circuit to charge the rechargeable battery based on the respective charging rate thereof. Based on the identified types, the charger supplies power at the appropriate rate. ¶42 col. 12:47-50
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: Infringement may turn on the specific operation of the USB PD protocol as implemented by Acer. The claim requires the charger's controller to "cause" the device to perform identification. The court may need to determine whether the charger actively commands this identification, as the patent suggests (’397 Patent, Fig. 3, block 41), or if it merely responds to a power profile initiated and broadcast by the portable device.
    • Scope Question: The claim recites identification of both "portable device type" and "rechargeable battery type" from a "plurality of different" types. This raises the question of whether the accused USB PD implementation performs this specific dual identification or a more generic power-level negotiation that does not map onto the claim's language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’847 Patent:

  • The Term: "magnitude of the movement"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's logic for distinguishing a selection from a gesture. The infringement allegation hinges on whether the way Acer's products differentiate touch inputs falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a wide range of modern gesture-based UIs are captured by the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary refers generally to a "motion magnitude in a plane of the touchscreen display" (’847 Patent, col. 2:53-54), which could be argued to encompass any reasonable calculation of movement distance.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A specific embodiment describes the magnitude being "determined by the difference between the coordinates on the touchscreen display at which the manipulation begins and the coordinates at which the manipulation ends" (’847 Patent, col. 3:15-19). This may support an argument that the term is limited to a specific calculation of Cartesian distance between two points.

For the ’397 Patent:

  • The Term: "controller... configured to cause the portable wireless communications device to identify..."
  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the "smart" functionality and locus of control in the claimed charger. The infringement case depends on whether Acer's chargers actively direct the identification process or play a more passive role.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: One could argue that simply connecting the charger "causes" the identification to occur, as the device recognizes a power source and initiates a handshake protocol. In this view, the controller's role is fulfilled by its presence and participation in the protocol.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flowchart explicitly shows the process beginning with the charger function to "CAUSE PORTABLE DEVICE TO PROVIDE DEVICE/BATTERY IDs" (’397 Patent, Fig. 3, block 41). This suggests an active command or query from the charger's controller is required, potentially limiting the claim scope to exclude systems where the portable device unilaterally initiates the information exchange.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four asserted patents. The inducement claims are based on allegations that Acer advertises and provides instructions encouraging customers to use the infringing functionalities (e.g., Compl. ¶38, ¶46, ¶62). The contributory infringement claims are based on allegations that Acer supplies the specific hardware and software that constitute a material part of the claimed inventions, knowing they are not staple articles of commerce (e.g., Compl. ¶39, ¶47, ¶63).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all four patents. For the ’847, ’397, and ’147 patents, the claim is based on alleged pre-suit notice of infringement on specific dates, after which Defendant allegedly took no action to cease infringement (Compl. ¶35, ¶43, ¶51). For the ’066 patent, the willfulness allegation is based on notice provided by the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶59, ¶64).

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

  • Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of standards mapping: to what extent do the accused implementations of industry standards (e.g., common touchscreen gestures, USB Power Delivery, H.264 video encoding) practice the specific methods recited in the asserted patent claims, which in some cases predate the maturation of those standards? The case may turn on whether implementing a standard is legally equivalent to infringing these particular patented solutions.
  • Functional Operation: A key evidentiary question will be one of locus of control, particularly for the charging patents (’397 and ’066). Does the accused charger's controller actively "cause" and "configure" power delivery as the claims require, or does it passively respond to a negotiation initiated and controlled by the connected portable device? The distinction between an active controller and a passive power source could be dispositive.
  • Willfulness and Pre-Suit Conduct: Given the specific allegations of pre-suit notice for three of the four patents, with one notice dating to 2016, a significant focus of discovery and trial will likely be on willfulness. The key questions will be what information was conveyed in the alleged notices and what, if any, objectively reasonable steps Acer took in response, which could substantially influence the scope of potential damages.