DCT

2:25-cv-01247

Cloud Controls LLC v. OnePlus Technology Shenzen Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01247, E.D. Tex., 12/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant transacts business in Texas, sells products via its online store for shipment into the district, utilizes local distribution channels such as a Best Buy in Plano, Texas, and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones, tablets, and earbuds infringe four patents related to mobile device user interface controls, context-sensitive audio management, serving data from a mobile phone, and wireless image messaging.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to foundational user experience and device functionality features that are common in the highly competitive market for modern portable electronic devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-09-25 U.S. Patent No. 7,167,703 Priority Date
2002-10-15 U.S. Patent No. 9,621,699 Priority Date
2004-06-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,585,003 Priority Date
2007-01-08 U.S. Patent No. 10,025,552 Priority Date
2007-01-23 U.S. Patent No. 7,167,703 Issue Date
2017-02-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,585,003 Issue Date
2017-04-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,621,699 Issue Date
2018-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,025,552 Issue Date
2025-12-23 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,025,552 - *"Selective Locking of Input Controls of a Portable Media Player"*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,025,552, "Selective Locking of Input Controls of a Portable Media Player," issued July 17, 2018 (Compl. ¶11).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that conventional locking mechanisms for portable media players, which disable all external input controls, can be overly restrictive for users who may wish to perform simple actions, like adjusting volume, without fully unlocking the device (’552 Patent, col. 1:38-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for the selective locking of input controls, allowing a user to configure the device for different "operational modes" (e.g., "walking," "working out") (Compl. ¶12; ’552 Patent, col. 4:26-29). In each mode, the user can pre-select a specific subset of controls (e.g., volume buttons) to remain active while the device is in a locked state, thereby preventing inadvertent inputs on other controls while preserving access to essential functions (’552 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-17).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aims to improve the user experience of portable devices by balancing the need to prevent accidental inputs with the convenience of accessing frequently used controls while the device is secured (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A selection input for receiving selections of control components to remain enabled during a specific "individual operational mode" while the apparatus is locked.
    • The configuration is mode-dependent, such that controls enabled in one locked operational mode are not enabled in another.
    • A control selection component (e.g., a lock switch) to switch the apparatus between locked and unlocked states.
    • Functionality wherein, in a locked state, the apparatus acts on input from selected (enabled) control components but is prevented from acting on input from unselected components.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," potentially reserving the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 9,621,699 - *"Mobile Digital Communication/Computing Device Having a Context Sensitive Audio System"*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,621,699, "Mobile Digital Communication/Computing Device Having a Context Sensitive Audio System," issued April 11, 2017 (Compl. ¶16).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that on mobile devices with multimedia capabilities, an alert tone for an incoming call or message can interfere with ongoing audio, such as music (’699 Patent, col. 1:52-57). A pre-set alert volume may be too quiet to be heard over the music or, if the user is wearing a headset, so loud that it is jarring or potentially harmful (’699 Patent, col. 1:57-col. 2:2).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "context sensitive" audio system that first determines the volume level of a primary audio signal (e.g., music) being played (’699 Patent, col. 4:48-51). It then introduces a secondary audio signal (e.g., a notification) at a second volume level that is initially "non-intrusively lower" than the first, and then incrementally increases until the user responds (’699 Patent, Claim 10; Compl. ¶17).
  • Technical Importance: This system provides a method of delivering alerts that are audible but not disruptive, adapting to the user's current listening environment to improve both usability and safety (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 10, a means-plus-function claim (Compl. ¶48).
  • Essential functions of the claimed "means" in Claim 10 include:
    • Providing a first audio signal at a first, user-selectable volume level.
    • Providing a second audio signal at a second volume level that is initially "non-intrusively lower" than the first.
    • Incrementally increasing the second audio signal's volume to a "discernable volume level higher than the first" until the user responds.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 9,585,003 - *"Serving Data/Applications from a Wireless Mobile Phone"*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,585,003, "Serving Data/Applications from a Wireless Mobile Phone," issued February 28, 2017 (Compl. ¶21).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical challenge that mobile phones typically lack a persistent internet connection or a persistent IP address, which prevents them from functioning as traditional servers (Compl. ¶22; ’003 Patent, col. 3:24-29). The invention discloses a method whereby a mobile phone, assisted by intermediary proxy and domain name servers, establishes an on-demand data connection to serve data or applications to a requesting computing device, effectively allowing the phone to act as a server (Compl. ¶22; ’003 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe by implementing the claimed methods for serving data and applications from a mobile device (Compl. ¶60, 69).

U.S. Patent No. 7,167,703 - *"Wireless Mobile Image Messaging"*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,167,703, "Wireless Mobile Image Messaging," issued January 23, 2007 (Compl. ¶26).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent seeks to overcome the "limited input capabilities" of early mobile devices that made non-verbal communication inefficient (Compl. ¶27; ’703 Patent, col. 1:50-54). The solution provides a method for a user to select images from pre-defined categories (e.g., mood, action, location) on their device and transmit them to another user, thereby facilitating a richer, graphical form of non-verbal communication (Compl. ¶27; ’703 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶72).
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegation targets the functionality within the Accused Products that permits users to send image messages to graphically convey information (Compl. ¶27, 81).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names a broad range of Defendant’s products, including Smartphones (the "Nord" series and OnePlus models 7 through 13), Tablets (OnePlus Pad, Pad 2, and Pad 3), and various wireless Earbuds (including "Nord," "Bullets Wireless," and "OnePlus Buds" lines) (Compl. ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these products incorporate functionalities corresponding to each of the four patents-in-suit: a selective input locking system, a context-sensitive audio alert system, a method for serving data from the device, and a system for sending graphical image messages (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 17, 22, 27). The complaint does not detail the specific technical implementation of these features in the Accused Products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach exemplary claim charts for the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶37, 49, 61, 73). The infringement theories are summarized below based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

  • ’552 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the Accused Products incorporate a "selective locking system" that allows a user to lock the device while maintaining the functionality of certain inputs, thereby infringing claim 1 (Compl. ¶12, 45). The core of the infringement theory is that the Accused Products allow for user control over inputs while in a locked state, which allegedly maps to the patent's claims for selective locking configurable for different operational modes.

  • ’699 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe claim 10 by implementing a context-sensitive audio system (Compl. ¶17). The theory is that when a primary audio source like music is playing, the devices introduce a secondary audio alert at an initial volume based on the music's volume, and then increase that alert's volume until the user responds, tracking the functionality recited in the means-plus-function claim (Compl. ¶57).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: For the ’552 Patent, a central question may be whether the term "individual operational mode," which the patent links to contexts like "walking" or "working out," can be construed to cover the more general lock-screen functionality of the Accused Products (’552 Patent, col. 4:26-29). For the ’699 Patent, the means-plus-function claims will require the court to first identify the corresponding structure in the patent's specification and then determine if the accused system's architecture is structurally equivalent.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products perform the specific functions claimed, but a key factual question will be one of operational fidelity. For instance, regarding the ’699 Patent, what evidence demonstrates that the Accused Products' alert volume "incrementally increase[s]" over time, as opposed to simply playing at a fixed level relative to the primary audio? (Compl. ¶57). Similarly, for the ’552 Patent, does the accused system allow for user "configuration" of enabled controls for different "modes" as required by claim 1, or does it offer a static set of enabled controls? (’552 Patent, col. 7:6-21).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "individual operational mode" (’552 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's customizability. The infringement analysis for the ’552 Patent may depend on whether the Accused Products' functionality constitutes distinct, configurable "modes," or a single, generic locked state. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require more than a simple, universal lock screen.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples such as "walking," "working out," "traveling" suggesting the term could encompass any user-defined or device-detected context for which a user might want a custom set of locked controls (’552 Patent, col. 4:27-29).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires that a user provide "individual selections" of controls "during a control component configuration for an individual operational mode," which may suggest a formal setup process for creating and defining these modes, rather than a single set of lock screen settings (’552 Patent, col. 7:8-12).

  • The Term: "non-intrusively lower than the first audio volume level initially" (’699 Patent, Claim 10)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the starting condition for the claimed audio alert behavior. The dispute over this term will likely concern what objective criteria, if any, define "non-intrusively lower."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a precise numerical or percentage-based definition, which could support an argument that any volume level audibly below the primary audio signal meets this limitation. The patent's focus is on improving upon prior art where alerts could be jarringly loud (’699 Patent, col. 2:1-2).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The stated goal of the invention is to provide an alert that avoids being "too low to be heard over the music or too high that it causes intrusive interference" (’699 Patent, col. 1:59-62). This balance could support a construction that requires the initial volume to be in a specific range that is both noticeable and unobtrusive, not merely any level below the primary audio.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads both induced and contributory infringement for all four patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant provides user manuals and customer support that "instructed and encouraged" users to use the accused features in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶44, 56). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused features are "specially designed" for infringement and have no substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶45, 57).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents and their infringement "at least through service of the Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶38, 50, 62, 74). The complaint also contains a placeholder allegation that discovery may reveal pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶33).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical and factual proof: can Plaintiff produce evidence showing that the accused OnePlus products operate in the specific manner required by the claims? This includes demonstrating user-configurable "operational modes" for the ’552 Patent and the precise "non-intrusively lower" start with subsequent "incremental increases" in volume for the ’699 Patent.
  • A second key issue will be one of definitional scope and structural equivalence: the outcome may depend heavily on claim construction. For the ’552 Patent, the breadth of "individual operational mode" will be dispositive. For the ’699 Patent's means-plus-function claim, the dispute will likely focus on whether the software and hardware architecture in the accused OnePlus devices is structurally equivalent to the specific audio resource and mixer configuration disclosed in the patent specification.