Televo LLC v. Kyocera Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Televo LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Kyocera Corporation (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00721, E.D. Tex., 07/16/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation, and that it has committed acts of infringement and caused harm within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed products infringe a patent related to a unified system for text entry on electronic devices that combines predictive and non-predictive input methods.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for improving the speed and accuracy of typing on compact keypads, such as those on early-generation mobile phones, where single keys often represent multiple letters.
• 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. The allegation of knowledge to support enhanced damages is based solely on the filing of the instant complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent 8,521,927: “System and method for text entry” (Issued Aug. 27, 2013)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a central challenge in mobile text entry: conventional systems force a user to choose between two imperfect modes. "Predictive-text" systems (like T9) are fast for common words but fail when a word is not in the dictionary, causing "a considerable degradation in typing speed and comfort." Conversely, traditional "single-letter" entry (like multi-tap) is precise but slow and cumbersome. The patent states that none of the prior art "combines the predictive text method together with simple single letter text entry into one unified text entry system." (’927 Patent, col. 1:5-35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a unified text entry system where the user can, on a letter-by-letter basis, decide whether to input a "letter group" (an ambiguous input for the predictive system) or a "single letter" (a precise, unambiguous input). This is achieved by interpreting different user actions on the same key—for example, a simple "press" could be a letter group operation, while a "swipe" gesture starting on the same key could be a single letter operation. (’927 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:15-21; col. 6:1-6). This allows the user to seamlessly mix fast, predictive inputs for common word parts with precise inputs for uncommon letters or words, without formally switching modes.
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to provide the "best of both worlds" by integrating ambiguous and unambiguous input signals from a single keypad, aiming to improve text entry speed and user experience on devices with limited physical keys. (’927 Patent, col. 5:15-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, with the provided infringement chart exhibit (not included with the complaint) presumably identifying them. (’927 Patent, col. 9:10-12:49; Compl. ¶11, 16). Independent claim 1 is central to the patent.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • An input subsystem that receives user operations on a plurality of keys, where each operation is a "single keystroke" on a "single key" interpreted as a "single letter location entry."
  • Crucially, each "single letter location entry" comprises both "(1) single letter operations that select any possible letter from the alphabet, or (2) letter group operations that select a group of possible letters from the alphabet."
  • A text prediction subsystem that receives a sequence of these mixed single letter and letter group operations and produces a list of possible words from a database.
  • A word processing subsystem that displays the word list to the user and processes the selection.
• The complaint does not specify if dependent claims are asserted but reserves the right to do so.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts" and "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶11). These charts were allegedly attached as Exhibit 2 but were not provided with the publicly filed complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality or market context. It merely makes the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '927 Patent." (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are made by incorporating by reference an external document, "Exhibit 2," which purportedly contains claim charts. (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed analysis based on specific factual allegations is not possible. The complaint’s narrative theory is that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '927 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Lacking specific infringement allegations, any analysis of contention points is necessarily predictive. Based on the patent's claims, key disputes may arise over:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the text input methods on modern smartphones (e.g., a tap on a virtual key versus a long-press to reveal alternate characters, or a swipe gesture) can be characterized as the claimed "single keystroke performed on a single key" that is interpreted as a "single letter location entry." The definition of a "single keystroke" will be a focal point.
  • Technical Questions: A factual dispute may center on whether the accused devices' software architecture aligns with the claimed three-part structure of an "input subsystem," a "text prediction subsystem," and a "word processing subsystem." (’927 Patent, Claim 1). The court may need to determine if the accused software distinguishes between "single letter operations" and "letter group operations" and feeds them to a prediction engine in the manner claimed, or if it uses a fundamentally different architecture.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a single keystroke performed on a single key"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to Claim 1, as it defines the user action that triggers the dual-capability input system. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s viability against modern touchscreen devices depends on whether a variety of gestures (tap, long-press, swipe, etc.) performed on or originating from a virtual key area can be considered a "single keystroke." The defendant may argue for a narrower definition tied to the physical keypads of the era, while the plaintiff will likely advocate for a broader interpretation covering modern input gestures.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Dependent claim 3 explicitly defines "keystroke" to include "touching, pressing, moving, swiping, titling, sliding or performing any other gesture, movement or displacement over a key." (’927 Patent, col. 10:62-66).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s primary examples describe distinct actions on a physical numeric keypad, such as a "press" for a letter group versus a "swipe" for a single letter, which could be argued to set the context for the term. (’927 Patent, col. 6:1-6).

• The Term: "single letter location entry"

• Context and Importance: This term appears to be a neologism created by the patentee to describe the conceptual input that is passed from the input subsystem to the prediction subsystem. Its construction is critical because it links the user's "single keystroke" to the system's dual-mode interpretation. The dispute will be whether this "entry" is a specific data structure required by the claim or a more general concept covering any input that the prediction system can process.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system in functional block-diagram terms, which may suggest the "entry" is simply the data passed between modules, regardless of its specific format. (’927 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires that this "entry" comprise both single letter and letter group operations. This could be interpreted to mean that the "single letter location entry" itself must be a data element capable of representing either possibility, potentially limiting the claim to systems with a specific type of internal data representation. (’927 Patent, col. 9:35-39).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." It alleges that the service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement," which may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement. (Compl. ¶13). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

1. Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "single keystroke performed on a single key," which is rooted in the patent’s examples of physical keypads, be construed broadly enough to read on the varied input gestures (e.g., tap, long-press, swipe-typing) used with the virtual keyboards of modern accused devices?
2. Architectural Equivalence: A key evidentiary question will be whether the software architecture of the accused products matches the three-part system recited in Claim 1. Specifically, discovery will likely focus on whether the accused systems process inputs as distinct "single letter operations" and "letter group operations" that are fed into a text prediction subsystem, or if they employ a different, non-infringing method for handling ambiguous and unambiguous inputs.
3. Identification of Instrumentalities: Before any technical analysis can proceed, the primary question is which specific Kyocera products are being accused. The complaint's failure to identify any products by name, relying instead on an unprovided exhibit, leaves the precise scope of the lawsuit undefined.