DCT
2:25-cv-00944
Hermes IP Management LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hermes IP Management LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Lenovo Group Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00944, E.D. Tex., 09/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has transacted business and committed acts of infringement within the Eastern District of Texas, directly or through subsidiaries.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones and tablets infringe three patents related to mobile device user interfaces, location-based image services, and multi-microphone voice processing.
- Technical Context: The technologies at issue involve common features in modern mobile devices: customizable idle or home screens, the geotagging of photos to enable location-based services, and noise cancellation for voice calls.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual notice of all three patents-in-suit as of October 3, 2023, forming the basis for its willful infringement claims. The complaint also cites prior Texas court decisions to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Lenovo Group Ltd.
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 Issued |
| 2014-10-07 | ’720 Patent Issued |
| 2017-04-04 | ’060 Patent Issued |
| 2023-10-03 | Alleged Date of Notice for all Asserted Patents |
| 2025-09-09 | 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"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a limitation in early mobile devices where only a single application could be set as the "idle screen," forcing users to navigate complex, "tree-structured menu items" to access other frequently used functions. (’720 Patent, col. 2:21-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "spin-home" function that allows a user to designate multiple applications (e.g., a calendar, address book, or shortcut list) as potential idle screens. By operating a specific key, the user can "circulate" or cycle through these different screens directly, without entering a main menu. (’720 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:38-50).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to enhance user convenience by providing faster, more direct access to multiple primary applications on mobile devices with limited input methods and screen space. (Compl. ¶18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts method claims 1-6 and apparatus claims 8-11 and 13-15. (Compl. ¶36, ¶38). Independent claim 8 is representative of the apparatus allegations.
- Independent Claim 8 requires:
- A user interface, a display unit, and a control unit.
- The control unit is configured to allow a user to select and allocate application programs to a plurality of screens, which present shortcut icons for those programs.
- 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 is configured to display indicators corresponding to the plurality of screens, with the indicator for the currently set idle screen being displayed "distinguishably from the rest."
U.S. Patent No. 9,613,060 - "Location-Based Service Method and System Using Location Data Included in Image Data"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent notes that a conventional camera phone produces a photo with "only image information," limiting its utility to simply viewing the image. (’060 Patent, col. 1:39-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method to embed location data (e.g., GPS coordinates) into image data at the time a photo is captured. This creates an enhanced data file that can be transmitted to another terminal, where a user can select the image to access location-based services, such as viewing the location on a map or receiving navigational guidance. (’060 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-14).
- Technical Importance: This technology, commonly known as geotagging, adds geographic context to digital images, enabling a variety of location-aware applications and services. (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts method claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-12. (Compl. ¶47). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Independent Claim 1 requires a sequence of steps including:
- Generating a "first image data" at a location.
- Receiving location data for that location.
- Prompting a user and, upon user choice, inserting the location data to generate "second image data."
- Transmitting the second image data to "another terminal."
- At the "another terminal," receiving a user selection for the image.
- At the "another terminal," displaying the image and a menu to select a location-based service.
- At the "another terminal," receiving a user selection for the service, receiving corresponding service data, and providing the service.
U.S. Patent No. 8,537,977 - "Apparatus and Method for Voice Processing in Mobile Communication Terminal"
Technology Synopsis
The patent addresses the problem of environmental noise degrading voice quality during calls or recordings on a mobile terminal. (’977 Patent, col. 1:33-52). The described solution uses two or more microphones arranged in different directions to distinguish the user's voice from ambient noise, allowing a processor to cancel the noise and output a clearer audio signal. (’977 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts apparatus claims 6-9 and method claims 18-19. (Compl. ¶57-58). The asserted independent claims are 6 and 18.
Accused Features
The complaint accuses devices "having multiple microphones with noise suppression" of infringement. (Compl. ¶34). The functionality alleged includes a voice and noise processor that can bypass, cancel, or output sound signals received from a first and second microphone. (Compl. ¶60).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies an extensive list of Motorola-branded smartphones and Lenovo-branded tablets as the accused instrumentalities. (Compl. ¶30, ¶32, ¶34). It also broadly includes "all other smartphones and tablets running Android 4.4 and above" and, for the ’977 Patent, "all other devices having multiple microphones with noise suppression." (Compl. ¶30, ¶34).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are consumer mobile devices. The complaint references Lenovo's 2024/25 Annual Report, which describes the company's product lines as including "tablets and smartphones." (Compl. ¶9). The relevant functionalities are the devices' graphical user interfaces for managing home screens, their integrated cameras capable of capturing location data with images, and their use of multiple microphones for voice processing and noise cancellation during calls and recordings. (Compl. ¶39, ¶49, ¶60).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
8,855,720 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a user interface... a display unit; and a control unit configured to: | The accused products are mobile terminals with user interfaces, displays, and processors. | ¶39 | col. 10:56-58 |
| select application programs... allocated to one of the screens so that the screens present shortcut icons of the application programs allocated thereto; | The accused products allow users to select and place application shortcut icons on multiple home screen pages. | ¶39 | col. 10:61-66 |
| display, in the idle state, one of the screens as the idle screen on the display unit of the mobile terminal, wherein the currently displayed idle screen presents the shortcut icons... | The accused products display one of the multiple home screen pages as the current idle screen, which shows the user-placed shortcut icons. | ¶39 | col. 11:2-6 |
| display, in response to an idle screen switch request... a next one of the screens on the display unit according to an order of the screens... | A user can swipe the screen (an idle screen switch request), causing the device to display the next home screen page in a sequence. | ¶39 | col. 11:7-10 |
| wherein the control unit is configured to display... the idle screen with indicators corresponding to the screens, and wherein an indicator... is displayed distinguishably from the rest... | The accused products display a series of dots or other indicators, typically at the bottom of the screen, to show how many home screen pages exist and to highlight which page is currently active. | ¶39 | col. 11:15-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A primary issue may be whether the modern smartphone interface of swiping between multiple pages of a single "home screen" application meets the claim term "displaying... one of the screens as the idle screen." The patent's specification describes cycling between distinct applications (e.g., a calendar, an address book) that each serve as the idle screen, which may suggest a different technical operation than navigating between pages within a single launcher application. (’720 Patent, col. 6:49-56).
- Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused devices "set a currently displayed screen as the idle screen"? This claimed step may imply a more formal designation than simply navigating to and displaying a different page of icons.
9,613,060 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 accused devices have cameras that capture an image. | ¶49 | col. 6:6-8 |
| receiving location data of the predetermined location; | The devices' GPS or other location services provide location data. | ¶49 | col. 6:9 |
| prompting a user to choose whether or not to insert the received location data into the first image data to generate a second image data... | The devices provide settings for users to enable or disable the automatic embedding of location data (geotagging) into photos. | ¶49 | col. 6:10-16 |
| transmitting the second image data... to another terminal; | Users can share geotagged photos with other devices via messaging or other applications. | ¶49 | col. 6:17-20 |
| receiving, at the another terminal, a selection input for an image...; | A user on the receiving terminal selects the shared photo to view it. | ¶49 | col. 6:21-24 |
| displaying, at the another terminal, an image... and a menu inquiring about whether to select a location-based service; | When viewing a geotagged photo, the receiving terminal's software presents options (a menu) to interact with the location data, such as an option to "Show on Map." | ¶49 | col. 6:25-28 |
| receiving, at the another terminal, via the displayed menu, a selection input for the location-based service...; | The user on the receiving terminal selects the option to use a location-based service. | ¶49 | col. 6:29-32 |
| receiving, at the another terminal, location-based service data corresponding to the location data...; and providing the location-based service... | The receiving terminal's mapping application uses the photo's location data to retrieve map data and displays the location. | ¶49 | col. 6:33-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: The claim recites a specific, end-to-end method involving actions on both a sending terminal and "another terminal." A central dispute may be whether the defendant can be held liable for the entire claimed method, especially for the steps that occur on a receiving terminal that it does not manufacture, sell, or control.
- Technical Question: Does the typical workflow of sharing and viewing a geotagged photo in the accused products meet the specific sequence of "prompting a user," "displaying... a menu inquiring about whether to select a location-based service," and receiving distinct inputs as required by the claim? The infringement allegation recites the claim language nearly verbatim, raising the question of how this maps to the actual user experience on the accused devices. (Compl. ¶49).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- Patent: '720 Patent
- The Term: "idle screen"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the infringement analysis. The plaintiff's theory requires "idle screen" to cover each of the multiple, swipeable pages of a modern Android home screen. A narrower construction, potentially limited to the patent's examples of swapping out entire applications (e.g., a calendar or an address book) as the single idle screen, could present a challenge to the infringement allegations.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract refers to providing a "plurality of screens in an idle state," which could support the idea of multiple screens being available simultaneously. (’720 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly refers to running a "spin-home program" to "circulate and display at least one application" designated as the spin-home. (’720 Patent, col. 3:3-7). This language may suggest that the "idle screen" is a single, active application at a time, rather than one of several static pages.
- Patent: '060 Patent
- The Term: "another terminal"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because Claim 1 is a method claim that requires specific actions to be performed on two separate devices. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case depends on attributing the actions of the "another terminal" to the defendant.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the second image data can be transmitted to "another mobile terminal through a wireless network," without further qualification of the receiving terminal's type or owner. (’060 Patent, col. 4:34-36).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that, in the context of a single method claim, all steps must be performed or controlled by a single entity. The claim's structure, which flows from an action on one terminal to a series of actions on "another terminal," raises the question of whether infringement can be found without proof that the defendant directs or controls the actions on the second, independent device.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Lenovo induces infringement by its "end user customers" for the asserted method claims of all three patents. (Compl. ¶37, ¶48, ¶59). The basis for inducement appears to be the allegation that the accused products are designed to be used in an infringing manner and that their use by customers is foreseeable and planned. (Compl. ¶37, ¶48, ¶59).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Lenovo had "actual notice" of the patents and the alleged infringement "at least as early as October 3, 2023," and subsequently failed to take adequate steps to determine whether they were infringing. (Compl. ¶40-42, ¶50-52, ¶61-63).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "idle screen," as used in the ’720 Patent, be construed to cover the individual pages of a modern, multi-page home screen launcher, or is it limited to the patent's disclosure of cycling through functionally distinct applications that each serve as the entirety of the idle screen?
- A key question of liability for third-party acts will arise from the ’060 Patent: can the plaintiff establish that the defendant is liable for direct or indirect infringement of a method claim that recites a sequence of steps performed across two independent devices, including an "another terminal" not made or sold by the defendant?
- The case will also present an evidentiary question of technical operation: for all three patents, the complaint's infringement allegations closely track the claim language. A central task for the court will be to determine whether the factual evidence of how the accused Android-based devices actually operate matches the specific functional steps and components required by the claims.