DCT
2:24-cv-00540
Hermes IP Management LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hermes IP Management LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea); Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00540, E.D. Tex., 07/16/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. maintains regular and established places of business within the district, and that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. directs and controls its U.S. subsidiary.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphone and tablet products infringe three patents related to mobile terminal user interfaces, location-based services for images, and audio processing.
- Technical Context: The technologies at issue cover fundamental smartphone features, including the management of multiple idle screens, the geotagging of photos for use with mapping services, and the use of dual microphones for noise cancellation.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual notice of the '720 Patent as of August 9, 2023, and of the '060 and '977 Patents as of October 2, 2023, forming the basis for a willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-04-19 | '060 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-06-15 | '720 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-04-10 | '977 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-09-17 | '977 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-10-31 | Android 4.4 Launch (earliest accused OS version) |
| 2014-10-07 | '720 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-04-04 | '060 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-08-09 | Alleged notice date for '720 Patent |
| 2023-10-02 | Alleged notice date for '060 and '977 Patents |
| 2024-07-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,855,720 - “Method and Apparatus for Providing a Plurality of Screens in Idle State of Mobile Terminal,” issued October 7, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem where conventional mobile terminals were limited in their idle screen functionality, making it inconvenient for users to access multiple different applications or information displays without navigating through complex menus (U.S. Patent No. 8,855,720, col. 2:21-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "spin-home" function that allows a user to designate several applications (e.g., a schedule, an address book, a shortcut list) as distinct idle screens. By operating a specific key, the user can then "circulate" or switch between these screens, each displaying its own content. The system also displays visual indicators to show the user which screen is currently active and how many screens are available ('720 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-50, col. 8:31-39).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to enhance user convenience by providing direct, one-touch access to a variety of frequently used applications from the device's idle state ('720 Patent, col. 2:13-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8, along with dependent claims 2-5 and 9-11 (Compl. ¶38). Independent claim 8 recites an apparatus comprising:
- A user interface, a display unit, and a control unit.
- The control unit is configured to select application programs and allocate each to one of a plurality of screens.
- The control unit displays one of these screens as the idle screen.
- In response to an "idle screen switch request," the control unit displays a "next one of the screens."
- The control unit displays the idle screen with "indicators corresponding to the screens."
- An indicator for the currently set idle screen is "displayed distinguishably from the rest of the indicators."
U.S. Patent No. 9,613,060 - “Location-Based Service Method and System Using Location Data Included in Image Data,” issued April 4, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent notes that a photograph taken by a conventional camera phone contains only image information, which limits its utility. A user viewing the photo cannot easily determine its geographical origin or receive services related to that location ('060 Patent, col. 1:39-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method where a terminal equipped with a camera captures location data (e.g., GPS coordinates) when a photo is taken. The system then prompts the user to insert this location data into the image file. This geotagged image, when later accessed or transmitted to another terminal, can be used to trigger location-based services, such as displaying the location on a map ('060 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-14, Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This technology creates a direct link between a user's photos and location-aware services, turning a static image into an interactive starting point for navigation and information retrieval ('060 Patent, col. 1:50-59).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 13, along with dependent claim 2 (Compl. ¶47). Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising the steps of:
- Generating a first image data at a location.
- Receiving location data for that location.
- "Prompting a user to choose whether or not to insert the received location data" into the image data.
- Inserting the location data to create a second, geotagged image data.
- Transmitting the second image data to "another terminal."
- At the other terminal, receiving a user's selection of the image.
- Displaying the image and "a menu inquiring about whether to select a location-based service."
- Receiving a selection for the service and providing it.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,537,977 - “Apparatus and Method for Voice Processing in Mobile Communication Terminal,” issued September 17, 2013
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of environmental noise degrading voice quality during calls or recordings on a mobile terminal ('977 Patent, col. 2:10-15). The proposed solution is an apparatus that uses a first (primary) microphone to capture the user's voice and a second microphone, oriented differently, to capture ambient noise. A processor then removes the noise signal from the primary voice signal to produce a clearer audio output ('977 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶28).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 6-7 (Compl. ¶56). Claim 6 is an independent apparatus claim.
- Accused Features: Samsung devices that have "dual microphones and multi-mic echo cancellation and noise suppression" (Compl. ¶36, ¶57).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint names the Samsung Galaxy A, M, S, and Z series, and "all other Samsung devices running Android Mobile Operating System 4.4 or later" ('720 and '060 Accused Products), as well as Samsung devices with dual microphones and noise cancellation features ('977 Accused Products) (Compl. ¶32, ¶34, ¶36).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are smartphones and tablets sold by Samsung's Mobile Division (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges these devices incorporate functionalities that infringe the patents-in-suit. For the '720 Patent, this includes the ability for users to swipe between multiple home screens that contain application shortcuts and display dot indicators showing the current page (Compl. ¶39). For the '060 Patent, this includes the camera's ability to embed location data into photos, which can then be used by the gallery application to provide map-based services (Compl. ¶48). For the '977 Patent, this includes the use of multiple microphones to perform noise suppression during audio capture (Compl. ¶57).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'720 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a control unit configured to: select application programs...wherein each of the selected application programs is allocated to one of the screens... | A user selects application programs and allocates them to one of the multiple home screens, which present shortcut icons. | ¶39 | col. 7:55-61 |
| display, in the idle state, one of the screens as the idle screen on the display unit of the mobile terminal... | In an idle state, the device displays one of the configured home screens. | ¶39 | col. 8:17-21 |
| display, in response to an idle screen switch request from the user interface, a next one of the screens... | In response to a user swiping the screen (the switch request), the device displays the next home screen. | ¶39 | col. 8:61-65 |
| wherein the control unit is configured to display, on the display unit, the idle screen with indicators corresponding to the screens... | The device displays indicators (e.g., small dots) at the bottom of the home screen corresponding to the available screens. | ¶39 | col. 8:31-33 |
| wherein an indicator corresponding to the screen, which is set as the idle screen, is displayed distinguishably from the rest of the indicators. | The indicator for the currently viewed home screen is highlighted or otherwise visually distinct from the other indicators. | ¶39 | col. 8:36-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the standard paginated home screen of the Android operating system constitutes the claimed "plurality of screens," where each screen has "application programs...allocated" to it. Defendant may argue that this is merely a single home screen application with multiple pages for icons, not distinct "screens" in the manner described by the '720 patent's "spin-home" embodiments (e.g., a schedule screen, an address book screen).
- Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether a swipe gesture constitutes an "idle screen switch request" as contemplated by the patent.
'060 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| generating first image data with the terminal at a predetermined location; | The user takes a picture with the device's camera. | ¶48 | col. 2:8-10 |
| prompting a user to choose whether or not to insert the received location data into the first image data... | The device prompts the user to choose whether to insert location data into the image. | ¶48 | col. 4:18-20 |
| transmitting the second image data...to another terminal; | The user shares the geotagged photo with another device. | ¶48 | col. 4:35-37 |
| displaying, at the another terminal, an image...and a menu inquiring about whether to select a location-based service; | The receiving device displays the photo and a menu to select a location-based service. | ¶48 | col. 3:49-51 |
| providing the location-based service to the another terminal by using the received location-based service data. | The receiving device provides a location-based service (e.g., a map) using the location data from the photo. | ¶48 | col. 3:51-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the interpretation of "prompting a user to choose." If this requires a per-image prompt, as suggested by the patent's flowchart ('060 Patent, Fig. 2, S206), it raises the question of whether the accused products' typical one-time, global setting to enable geotagging meets this limitation.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the receiving "another terminal" displays a "menu inquiring about whether to select a location-based service"? The infringement analysis will depend on whether the user interface on the receiving device (e.g., an icon to view map details) can be characterized as the claimed "menu."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
'720 Patent
- The Term: "plurality of screens"
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement theory for the '720 Patent rests on whether the multiple pages of a modern smartphone home screen are equivalent to the claimed "plurality of screens." Practitioners may focus on this term because Samsung could argue that its user interface presents a single "home screen" application with scrollable pages, not the distinct, functionally separate "screens" (e.g., a schedule screen, an address book screen) shown in the patent's embodiments.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit what a "screen" must contain, only that application programs are "allocated" to it (col. 10:1-5). This could support an interpretation where a page of application icons is a "screen."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the screens as functionally distinct applications, such as a "shortcut icon screen," a "schedule management" screen, and a "list of contact addresses" (Fig. 3; col. 5:49-54). This may support a narrower construction where each "screen" must be a different type of application, not just another page of shortcuts.
'060 Patent
- The Term: "prompting a user to choose"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused functionality typically involves a one-time user consent to enable location tagging in the camera settings, rather than a prompt for every photo taken. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether a single, upfront setting constitutes "prompting" under the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "prompting" is not explicitly defined as a per-instance action. Plaintiff may argue that the initial setup question asking for permission to use location services satisfies the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flowchart shows the step of "inquiring about whether to insert the location data" (S206) occurring after the user presses the "shooting key" (S204), which suggests a choice is offered for each individual photo, not as a global pre-setting ('060 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:18-20).
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had actual notice of the asserted patents prior to the lawsuit's filing ('720 Patent notice on 08/09/2023; '060 and '977 Patent notice on 10/02/2023) (Compl. ¶40, ¶49, ¶58). The claim for willfulness is based on the allegation that Defendants continued to infringe after receiving notice and "failed to take adequate steps to determine whether or not they were infringing" (Compl. ¶41, ¶50, ¶59).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of procedural alignment: For the '060 patent, does the accused products' typical one-time, global setting for location tagging satisfy the claim limitation of "prompting a user to choose" to insert location data, a step the patent specification illustrates as a per-image decision?
- A second key question will be one of architectural scope: For the '720 patent, can the standard, paginated home screen of the Android OS, which presents multiple pages of icons, be construed to meet the limitations of a "plurality of screens" to which distinct applications are allocated, as described in the patent’s "spin-home" architecture?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: The complaint makes narrative allegations about how the accused systems function, particularly regarding the "menu inquiring about whether to select a location-based service" on a receiving terminal under the '060 patent. The case may turn on whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused products actually perform these specific, claimed steps in the manner alleged.