DCT
2:25-cv-00944
Hermes IP Management LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd
Key Events
Amended Complaint
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., 12/01/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Lenovo has transacted business and committed acts of infringement in the Eastern District of Texas, and alternatively because Lenovo is a foreign corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Motorola-branded smartphones and Lenovo-branded tablets infringe three patents related to mobile terminal user interfaces, location-based photo services, and multi-microphone voice processing.
- Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address foundational software and hardware features in the modern smartphone and tablet market, a highly mature and competitive technology sector.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual notice of the patents-in-suit and the alleged infringement as of October 3, 2023, a fact that will serve as the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-04-19 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,613,060 |
| 2006-06-15 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,855,720 |
| 2007-04-10 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,537,977 |
| 2013-09-17 | U.S. Patent No. 8,537,977 Issued |
| 2014-10-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,855,720 Issued |
| 2017-04-04 | U.S. Patent No. 9,613,060 Issued |
| 2023-10-03 | Alleged Date of Actual Notice for All Asserted Patents |
| 2025-12-01 | 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 conventional mobile terminal idle screens as static and inefficient, noting that it was impossible to present more than one application on the idle screen, inconvenient to modify the screen through complex menus, and impractical to assign shortcuts for a growing number of applications due to a limited number of physical keys (Compl. ¶21; ’720 Patent, col. 2:23-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a user can designate multiple applications to serve as distinct, switchable idle screens. A user can then circulate or "spin" through these pre-selected screens using a dedicated key input, allowing for quick access to different sets of information or shortcuts from the idle state (’720 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-67).
- Technical Importance: This technology aimed to increase the functional density of the mobile device home screen, allowing users faster access to a wider range of preferred applications without navigating traditional menu structures (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts method claims 1-6 and apparatus claims 8-11, 13-15 (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 43). Independent claims 1 (method) and 8 (apparatus) are asserted.
- Essential elements of independent claim 8 include:
- 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 that present shortcut icons.
- The control unit displays one screen as the idle screen.
- In response to an "idle screen switch request," the control unit displays a next screen in order.
- The control unit sets the currently displayed screen as the one to be displayed in the idle state.
- The idle screen is displayed with "indicators corresponding to the screens," where the indicator for the currently set idle screen is "displayed distinguishably from the rest of the indicators."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 43).
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 early camera phones were limited to transmitting only image information, meaning the geographical context of where a photo was taken was lost (Compl. ¶28; ’060 Patent, col. 1:38-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for embedding location data (e.g., from GPS) into image data at the time of capture. When that image is later accessed on the same or another terminal, the system can use the embedded data to offer location-based services, such as displaying a map of the photo's location or providing navigation guidance to that spot (’060 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-14).
- Technical Importance: This invention describes the integration of digital photography with location awareness, a concept that is now a standard feature known as "geotagging" in modern smartphones and digital cameras (Compl. ¶27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts method claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-12 (Compl. ¶52). Independent claim 1 is asserted.
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Generating first image data at a location with a first terminal.
- Receiving location data for that location.
- Prompting a user to choose whether to insert the location data.
- If chosen, inserting the location data to create second image data.
- Transmitting the second image data to "another terminal."
- At the other terminal, receiving a selection for the image.
- Displaying the image and a menu inquiring about a location-based service.
- Receiving a user selection for the service and providing it.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶52).
U.S. Patent No. 8,537,977 - Apparatus and Method for Voice Processing in Mobile Communication Terminal
Issued September 17, 2013
Multi-Patent Capsule
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,537,977 (Compl. ¶30).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of environmental noise degrading voice quality during mobile phone calls. The proposed solution uses a primary microphone and a secondary microphone arranged in different directions to identify and cancel ambient noise from the user's voice signal, thereby improving call clarity (’977 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-16).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts apparatus claims 6-9 and method claims 18-19 (Compl. ¶¶ 62-63).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses devices "having multiple microphones with noise suppression" (Compl. ¶39).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies an extensive list of Motorola-branded smartphones and Lenovo-branded tablets, broadly described as devices running Android 4.4 and above (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 37, 39). The same list of products is accused of infringing all three patents-in-suit.
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that these devices are consumer electronics that incorporate the technologies claimed by the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 36, 38). The complaint asserts that Lenovo sells these products in the United States and the Eastern District of Texas through its websites and authorized retailers like Best Buy, Costco, Target, and Wal-Mart (Compl. ¶4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’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 from application programs installed in the mobile terminal | The mobile terminal's control unit selects application programs installed on the device. | ¶44 | col. 4:11-21 |
| wherein each of the selected application programs is allocated to one of the screens so that the screens present shortcut icons of the application programs allocated thereto | Selected application programs are allocated to different home screens, which present shortcut icons for those programs. | ¶44 | col. 5:25-29 |
| display, in the idle state, one of the screens as the idle screen on the display unit of the mobile terminal | One of the user-configured screens is displayed as the idle, or home, screen. | ¶44 | col. 5:60-65 |
| display, in response to an idle screen switch request from the user interface, a next one of the screens on the display unit according to an order of the screens | In response to a user input (e.g., a swipe), the device displays the next screen in the sequence. | ¶44 | col. 6:1-5 |
| and set a currently displayed screen as the idle screen to be displayed in the idle state | The screen currently being displayed is set as the active idle screen. | ¶44 | col. 2:65-3:1 |
| wherein the control unit is configured to display, on the display unit, the idle screen with indicators corresponding to the screens | The idle screen is displayed with visual indicators (e.g., dots) showing the number and position of available screens. | ¶44 | col. 8:14-16 |
| and 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 current screen is visually differentiated (e.g., highlighted) from the indicators for other screens. | ¶44 | col. 8:17-21 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the construction of "indicators corresponding to the screens" and the requirement that one be "displayed distinguishably." The dispute will likely focus on whether common user interface elements in Android, such as dots or pills at the bottom of a home screen, meet these limitations as construed by the court.
- Technical Questions: The patent frequently references a "key button" for initiating the screen switch (’720 Patent, col. 2:63). A point of contention may be whether a swipe gesture on a modern touchscreen constitutes an "idle screen switch request" that is technically and legally equivalent to the button-based input contemplated in 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 terminal's camera generates image data when a photo is taken at a specific location. | ¶54 | col. 4:20-22 |
| receiving location data of the predetermined location | The terminal receives location data (e.g., from GPS) corresponding to where the photo was taken. | ¶54 | col. 3:38-42 |
| prompting a user to choose whether or not to insert the received location data into the first image data | The user is prompted to decide whether to embed the location data into the image file. | ¶54 | col. 4:18-20 |
| inserting the received location data into the first image data to generate a second image data | Upon user approval, the location data is inserted into the image file, creating a geotagged photo. | ¶54 | col. 4:30-34 |
| transmitting the second image data... to another terminal | The geotagged photo is transmitted to a different device. | ¶54 | col. 4:35-37 |
| receiving, at the another terminal, a selection input for an image corresponding to the second image data, from the user | A user on the receiving terminal selects the geotagged photo. | ¶54 | col. 4:44-54 |
| displaying... an image corresponding to the first image data, and a menu inquiring about whether to select a location-based service | The receiving terminal displays the photo and presents a menu option for a location-based service. | ¶54 | col. 4:50-54 |
| receiving... a selection input for the location-based service... and providing the location-based service | The user selects the service, and the terminal provides it (e.g., displays a map) using the embedded location data. | ¶54 | col. 4:54-59 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Infringement may turn on the construction of "prompting a user to choose." The question is whether this requires a distinct, per-photo prompt for user consent, or if it can be satisfied by a one-time, system-level setting where the user enables location tagging for the camera application.
- Legal Questions: Claim 1 recites steps performed by a sending terminal and a receiving terminal. This raises the potential for a divided infringement defense, where the defendant argues that no single entity performs or controls all the required steps of the claim. The plaintiff will need to establish how Lenovo is liable for the actions performed by users on both ends of the transmission.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
’720 Patent
- The Term: "indicators corresponding to the screens"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because modern mobile operating systems commonly use visual cues like a series of dots to signify multiple home screens. Whether these common UI elements fall within the scope of the claim will be a central point of the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain and ordinary meaning of "indicator" is broad. A party could argue it covers any visual cue that informs the user of the number of available screens and which one is currently active. The claim language does not impose specific structural limitations on the form of the indicator.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification does not provide a specific definition or embodiment of an "indicator." A party could argue that in the absence of explicit disclosure, the term should be narrowly construed or that it implies more than simple dots, though this argument may be difficult without limiting language in the specification.
’060 Patent
- The Term: "prompting a user to choose"
- Context and Importance: The meaning of this term will determine the specific user action required for infringement. The dispute will be whether this is an active, recurring step or a passive, one-time setting.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that a "prompt" includes the initial setup process for a camera application, where a user is asked for permission to access location data. The user's one-time "choice" to grant permission could be argued to satisfy this element for all subsequent photos.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s flowchart (Fig. 2) places the "insert location data?" step (S206) after the user presses the "shooting key" (S204). This sequence suggests an interactive choice presented to the user in the context of a specific photo-capture event, supporting an interpretation that requires a per-photo or per-session prompt.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all three patents, stating that Lenovo encourages its subsidiaries, partners, and customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner by placing them into the stream of commerce (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 42, 53, 64). The complaint does not cite specific evidence of intent, such as user manuals or advertisements that instruct on the infringing use.
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged for all three patents based on Defendant having received "actual notice" of the patents and the alleged infringement on October 3, 2023, more than two years before the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 47, 55, 57, 66, 68).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused Android user interface on Lenovo's devices implement the "distinguishably displayed indicators" for multiple screens as required by the '720 Patent, and does its camera software present a "prompt" to the user for location data insertion in a manner consistent with the '060 Patent's claims?
- A central legal issue for the '060 Patent will be divided infringement: As the asserted method claim involves actions on both a sending and a receiving device, a core question will be whether the plaintiff can prove that Lenovo directs or controls the performance of all claimed steps, including those taken by end-users, to establish liability for direct infringement.
- The case may also turn on a question of temporal scope: To what extent are the button-centric user interactions described in the '720 patent, which has a 2006 priority date, applicable to the swipe-based gestures that are standard on the modern accused touchscreen devices?