DCT

2:25-cv-01249

Cloud Controls LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01249, E.D. Tex., 12/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain regular and established places of business in the district and have committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of a wide range of smartphones, tablets, headphones, and smart speakers infringes six patents related to mobile device user interface, wireless connectivity, authentication, and audio management.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address fundamental aspects of the mobile device user experience that became critical as portable devices evolved from simple media players and phones into multi-functional computing platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-09-25 ’703 Patent Priority Date
2002-10-15 ’699 Patent Priority Date
2003-03-28 ’446 Patent Priority Date
2004-06-21 ’003 Patent Priority Date
2007-01-08 ’552 and ’087 Patents Priority Date
2007-01-23 ’703 Patent Issued
2009-11-03 ’446 Patent Issued
2012-06-05 ’087 Patent Issued
2017-02-28 ’003 Patent Issued
2017-04-11 ’699 Patent Issued
2018-07-17 ’552 Patent Issued
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"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that conventional locking mechanisms on portable media players were often too restrictive, forcing a user to fully unlock a device to perform a simple action like adjusting the volume, which could be cumbersome when the device is in a pocket or bag (’552 Patent, col. 1:36-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system that can "selectively lock one or more input controls" while allowing a pre-selected subset of controls to remain active (’552 Patent, col. 2:1-9). This allows a user, for instance, to keep volume controls enabled while other inputs, like track skipping or menu navigation, are disabled in the locked state. The set of enabled controls can vary depending on a selected "operational mode" (e.g., "working out" vs. "traveling") (’552 Patent, col. 4:20-29).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aimed to improve the user experience by providing more granular control over device inputs, allowing for quick adjustments to essential functions without compromising the primary purpose of the lock feature—preventing inadvertent commands (’552 Patent, col. 1:29-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
  • Claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising:
    • A "selection input" to receive selections of control components to remain enabled during a locked state for a specific "individual operational mode."
    • A first control component and a second control component.
    • A "control selection component" to switch the apparatus between a locked and an unlocked state.
    • The claim specifies that in a locked state during one operational mode, a selected first control component is active while a non-selected second is not, but in a different operational mode, the same selected first control component might be inactive.

U.S. Patent No. 8,195,087 - *"Controlling of Wireless Connection of a Portable Device Including an Illuminating Component or Switch"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that at the time of invention, wireless connectivity was not a standard feature on most media players, and users found it "difficult to manage or properly utilize the wireless capabilities" of devices that did have it (’087 Patent, col. 1:31-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a dedicated input control, such as a physical button, that serves as both a "connection initiator" and a "status indicator" for wireless communications (’087 Patent, col. 2:1-4). The button can include an "indicator light that provides a visual indication of the network connection status," using different colors or blinking patterns to signify states like searching, connecting, or connected (’087 Patent, col. 2:11-14).
  • Technical Importance: The invention sought to simplify the process of managing wireless connections on a portable device by consolidating control and status feedback into a single, intuitive hardware interface, making the feature more accessible to non-technical users (’087 Patent, col. 1:31-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Claim 1 recites a system for connecting a portable media player with a wireless network, comprising:
    • An "actuator" located on the portable media player.
    • A "wireless connection component" that searches for available networks upon user selection of the actuator when the player is not connected.
    • An "illumination component" associated with the actuator that is configured to indicate a communications state of the wireless connection via a mode of illumination.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,446 - *"Wireless Mobile Phone with Authenticated Mode of Operation Including Finger Print Based Authentication"*

Technology Synopsis

  • The patent addresses the risk of "unauthorized usage" and "data being compromised by unauthorized accesses" on mobile phones (’446 Patent, col. 1:45-48). It discloses a phone with two modes of operation—an unauthenticated mode with limited functions and an authenticated mode with full functionality, where user authentication is performed via a fingerprint reader that can be integrated into the power-on button (’446 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶71).

Accused Features

  • The complaint accuses fingerprint-based and other biometric authentication systems on the Accused Products that control user access to different device functions (Compl. ¶27, 80).

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

Technology Synopsis

  • The patent addresses the problem of an alert tone (e.g., for an incoming call) being either disruptive or inaudible when other audio (e.g., music) is playing (’699 Patent, col. 1:52-68). The solution is a system that first determines the volume level of the primary audio, then introduces the alert tone at a non-intrusive lower volume, and incrementally increases the alert's volume until the user responds (’699 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶83).

Accused Features

  • The complaint targets audio management systems in the Accused Products that adjust the volume of notifications and alerts relative to ongoing media playback (Compl. ¶31, 92).

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

Technology Synopsis

  • The patent addresses the challenge of serving data from a mobile phone, which "generally does not have a persistent connection to the Internet, nor a persistent IP address" (’003 Patent, col. 3:24-28). It describes a method using intermediary domain name and proxy servers to establish and manage a connection, allowing a client computer to access data and applications hosted on the mobile device (’003 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶95).

Accused Features

  • The complaint accuses functionality in the Accused Products for serving data and applications, such as mobile hotspot or tethering features, which are enabled by network infrastructure (Compl. ¶35, 104).

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

Technology Synopsis

  • The patent aims to overcome the "limited input capabilities" of early mobile devices to facilitate "non-verbal communications" (’703 Patent, col. 1:51-58). It discloses a method where a user can select images from predefined categories (e.g., action, location, mood) to graphically convey information. To save bandwidth, the system may transmit only an identifier for the selected image, which the receiving device then uses to retrieve the image from local storage (’703 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶107).

Accused Features

  • The complaint targets image-based messaging systems on the Accused Products, such as the sending of emojis, stickers, or other graphical icons (Compl. ¶39, 116).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as an extensive list of "Smartphones," "Tablets," "Earbuds / Headphones," and "Speakers / Smart-Speakers" sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶42, pp. 10-17). The list includes numerous models from a wide array of manufacturers, such as Apple, Google, Motorola, and Samsung.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these products incorporate various features that practice the patented technologies. These functionalities include: systems for selectively locking certain inputs while leaving others (like volume controls) active; managing wireless (e.g., Wi-Fi) connections through controls with visual status indicators; authenticating users via biometric data (e.g., fingerprint scans) to grant access to functions; contextually adjusting alert volumes during media playback; serving data to other devices (e.g., mobile hotspots); and sending graphical messages like emojis (Compl. ¶16, 21, 27, 31, 35, 39). The allegations position these products as mainstream consumer electronics sold by a major U.S. wireless carrier.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts attached as Exhibits G-L, but these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶48, 60, 72, 84, 96, 108). The infringement theories are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

'552 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe claim 1 of the ’552 Patent by implementing systems for the "selective locking of user controls" (Compl. ¶16, 47). The theory suggests that features like a smartphone's lock screen, which prevents most inputs but may allow access to volume or camera controls, meet the claim limitations. The complaint further alleges that the Accused Products contain "special features" that allow a user to "prevent any user input... when user locks it," which are material to the invention and not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶56).

'087 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary

  • The complaint alleges direct infringement of claim 1 of the ’087 Patent based on the products' functionality for "Controlling of Wireless Connection" (Compl. ¶20, 59). The infringement theory focuses on user interface elements, such as on-screen icons or physical buttons, that both initiate wireless network connections and provide visual status updates (e.g., an icon that changes appearance to show searching, connecting, or connected states). The complaint alleges the products have special features where an "illumination component indicates a communication state of the wireless connection" (Compl. ¶68).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A recurring question for several patents (’552, ’087) will be whether claim terms drafted with reference to physical hardware on early-2000s media players can be construed to read on the software-based interfaces of modern smartphones. For example, does a software-based "lock screen" constitute the "control selection component" of the ’552 Patent, and does a graphical Wi-Fi icon on a touchscreen meet the limitations of an "actuator" and "illumination component" as recited in the ’087 Patent?
  • Technical Questions: A central factual question for the ’552 Patent infringement allegation is whether the Accused Products provide a "selection input" that allows a user to configure different sets of enabled controls for different "individual operational modes" as required by claim 1, or if they offer only a single, non-configurable lock state behavior. For the ’699 Patent, the analysis may focus on whether the accused audio systems perform the specific claimed function of providing an alert at a "non-intrusively lower" volume and then "incrementally" increasing it.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term ('552 Patent, Claim 1): "individual operational mode"

  • Context and Importance: The structure of claim 1 requires that the set of enabled controls in a locked state can differ between a first "individual operational mode" and "another individual operational mode." The infringement analysis will depend on whether this term is construed broadly to include any implicit device state or narrowly to require distinct, user-selectable modes that alter locking behavior.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples such as "walking," "working out," or "traveling," which could suggest that any distinct user context or activity may qualify as an operational mode (’552 Patent, col. 4:26-29).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes these modes as something a user may select "during an initial set up of his/her player, during soft-key or menu navigation," suggesting they are explicitly defined and configured by the user rather than being implicit states (’552 Patent, col. 4:20-23).

Term ('087 Patent, Claim 1): "actuator"

  • Context and Importance: Infringement of the ’087 Patent may turn on whether a software-based icon on a touchscreen can be considered an "actuator." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's description appears to center on a physical component.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "actuator" is not explicitly defined in the patent, and its plain meaning could encompass a software element that initiates a mechanical or electrical action. The specification refers generally to an "input control, such as a button" (’087 Patent, col. 2:1-2).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly refers to a physical "network button 190" that is "placed on the top of the media player housing" (’087 Patent, col. 5:11-16). This language may support an interpretation limiting the term "actuator" to a physical, tangible component.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • For each of the six patents-in-suit, the complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants provided "extensive customer support and instructions that instructed and encouraged their customers to infringe" (Compl. ¶51, 63, 75, 87, 99, 111). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the Accused Products have "special features that are specially designed to be used in an infringing way" and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶56, 68, 80, 92, 104, 116).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful, intentional, deliberate, or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights" (Compl. ¶57, 69, 81, 93, 105, 117). The basis for knowledge is alleged to be, at a minimum, the service of the complaint itself, establishing a basis for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶49, 61, 73, 85, 97, 109). The complaint does not plead specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope versus technological evolution: Can claim terms rooted in the context of physical controls on dedicated media players from the early-to-mid 2000s (e.g., "actuator," "control selection component") be construed to encompass the integrated, software-driven user interfaces of modern, multi-functional smartphones?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: Can the plaintiff provide sufficient technical evidence to demonstrate that the Accused Products—spanning numerous manufacturers and product categories—actually perform the specific, multi-step logical functions required by the asserted claims (such as the distinct locking behaviors for different "operational modes" in the ’552 Patent or the precise volume ramping sequence in the ’699 Patent)?
  • A significant procedural question will be one of case manageability: Given the assertion of six distinct patents against an exceptionally broad array of products from diverse manufacturers, the case may raise questions about whether the allegations are sufficiently particularized for each accused product line or are overbroad, potentially leading to challenges regarding pleading sufficiency or motions to sever.