DCT

6:13-cv-00448

Smartflash LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:13-cv-00448, E.D. Tex., 05/01/2014
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction, conduct regular business, and committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ digital content delivery platforms and associated devices, which facilitate the purchase and controlled access of applications and media, infringe patents related to data storage and access systems that link payment validation with usage rules.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for distributing and controlling access to digital data (e.g., music, videos, games) on portable devices by storing the content, payment information, and usage rules on the same portable data carrier.
  • Key Procedural History: The original complaint was filed on May 29, 2013. The operative complaint is the Second Amended Complaint, filed May 1, 2014. The complaint alleges that Samsung had pre-suit knowledge of the technology based on a presentation given to a Samsung entity and the citation of Smartflash’s patent applications during the prosecution of Samsung's own patents. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, all asserted claims of all patents-in-suit were cancelled in a series of Covered Business Method (CBM) post-grant review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-10-25 Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
c. 2002-01-01 Inventor collaborates with Britney Spears to commercialize technology
2008-02-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720 Issues
2011-05-17 U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317 Issues
2011-10-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458 Issues
2011-11-22 U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598 Issues
2012-02-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221 Issues
2012-12-25 U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772 Issues
2013-05-29 Original Complaint Filed
2014-05-01 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720 - "Data Storage and Access Systems"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,334,720, "Data Storage and Access Systems", issued February 26, 2008.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the growing problem of internet data piracy for digital media like compressed audio and the difficulty of monetizing such content, as well as the exclusion of users under 18 from e-commerce because they typically lack credit cards (’720 Patent, col. 1:15-43, col. 2:5-14).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a portable data carrier, such as a smart card, that integrates both downloaded content data and payment validation data (’720 Patent, col. 2:46-55). This carrier can be pre-loaded with "e-cash" and contains "use rules" (e.g., pay-per-play) that govern access to the stored content, thereby linking access rights directly to payment on a single, portable device (’720 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-14).
    • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a secure mechanism for distributing and monetizing digital content while mitigating piracy, a foundational concept for later digital rights management (DRM) and digital storefront systems (Compl. ¶21).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint does not assert specific claims, instead alleging infringement of the patents-in-suit generally (Compl. ¶49). The following analysis is based on a representative independent claim.
    • Independent Claim 1 (as issued, subsequently cancelled): A method of controlling access to content data on a data carrier, with the essential elements being:
      • The data carrier has non-volatile memory storing both content and parameters, where the parameters include "use status data" and "use rules."
      • Receiving a data access request from a user for a content item.
      • Reading the use status data and use rules from the parameter memory.
      • Evaluating the use status data with the use rules to determine if access is permitted.
      • Displaying to the user whether access is permitted.

U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317 - "Data Storage and Access Systems"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,942,317, "Data Storage and Access Systems", issued May 17, 2011.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The ’317 Patent addresses the same general problem of data piracy and the need for a reliable digital content payment and distribution system (’317 Patent, col. 1:19-51).
    • The Patented Solution: This patent describes a network-based computer system that acts as an intermediary or "system owner" for data distribution (’317 Patent, col. 6:40-45). The system receives a request for a data item from a user terminal, validates payment data, retrieves the requested content from a separate content provider, and transmits the data to the user, thereby managing the transaction and the distribution of access rules without necessarily storing the content itself permanently (’317 Patent, col. 7:1-9).
    • Technical Importance: The invention describes a server-side architecture for a digital marketplace, separating the roles of storefront, payment gateway, and content host, which mirrors the structure of modern application and media stores (Compl. ¶21).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    The complaint does not assert specific claims. The following analysis is based on a representative independent claim.
    • Independent Claim 1 (as issued, subsequently cancelled): A computer system for providing data to a requester, with the essential elements being:
      • A communication interface.
      • A data access data store containing records of available data items, with each record including a pointer to a content provider.
      • A processor executing code to perform the steps of:
        • Receiving a request for a data item.
        • Receiving payment data for the requested item.
        • In response to the request and payment, reading the data from the content provider.
        • Transmitting the read data to the requester.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • *U.S. Patent No. 8,033,458, "Data Storage and Access Systems", issued October 11, 2011*

    • Technology Synopsis: The ’458 Patent focuses on the architecture of the portable data carrier itself. It claims a carrier with distinct memory regions for storing content data, payment validation data, use rules data, and a record of access made to the content (’458 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claims are not specified in the complaint.
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the combination of user devices (e.g., smartphones) and associated application store accounts, which store both downloaded content and payment/entitlement information, infringes this patent (Compl. ¶¶40-42).

  • *U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598, "Data Storage and Access Systems", issued November 22, 2011*

    • Technology Synopsis: The ’598 Patent is directed to the data access terminal used for acquiring content. The claimed terminal includes an interface for the data carrier and is programmed to read payment data from the carrier, forward it to a payment validation system, and, upon receiving validation, retrieve data from a supplier to write onto the carrier (’598 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claims are not specified in the complaint.
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the client-side applications (e.g., Google Play, Samsung Apps) on user devices that manage the purchase and download of digital content by communicating with back-end payment and content servers (Compl. ¶¶40-42).

  • *U.S. Patent No. 8,118,221, "Data Storage and Access Systems", issued February 21, 2012*

    • Technology Synopsis: The ’221 Patent claims a data access device (i.e., a player) for retrieving and using stored data. The device interfaces with a data carrier and executes code to retrieve use status and use rules from the carrier, evaluate them to determine if access is permitted, and then access the stored data if permitted (’221 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claims are not specified in the complaint.
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the hardware (smartphones, tablets) and software environments that play or run the downloaded digital content, allegedly by checking access rights tied to a user account before allowing access (Compl. ¶¶40-42).

  • *U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772, "Data Storage and Access Systems", issued December 25, 2012*

    • Technology Synopsis: The ’772 Patent claims a handheld multimedia terminal with a wireless interface for accessing a remote computer system. The terminal has non-volatile memory for storing content and is programmed to manage the entire transaction, from requesting identifier data and content information to transmitting payment data for validation and retrieving the selected content (’772 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claims are not specified in the complaint.
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the smartphones and tablets running Android OS with applications like Google Play, which perform the functions of browsing, purchasing, and downloading content via wireless networks (Compl. ¶¶40-42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are broadly defined to include hardware, software, and services offered by Samsung, HTC, and Game Circus (Compl. ¶¶40-42). This includes:
    • Samsung: Media Hub, Music Hub, Samsung Apps, the Google Play app on Samsung Android devices, and associated internal servers, cloud services, Smart TVs, and Blu-ray players (Compl. ¶40).
    • HTC: The Google Play app or HTC Watch apps on HTC Android devices and associated internal servers (Compl. ¶41).
    • Game Circus: Applications, such as "Coin Dozer – Halloween," that run on Samsung and HTC devices and use Android's in-application payment functionality (Compl. ¶39, ¶42).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint describes a digital content ecosystem where users on devices like the Samsung Galaxy or HTC One series phones use storefront applications (e.g., Google Play) to purchase and download digital content such as applications, music, and video (Compl. ¶30, ¶32). This functionality extends to in-application purchases, where a developer uses an Android API to collect payment for enhanced features or content (Compl. ¶33).
    • The technical process involves the device application conveying payment requests to back-end servers (e.g., Google Play servers) for approval. Upon approval, the application receives a purchase token that enables access to the digital content (Compl. ¶35-37). The complaint positions these ecosystems as the primary means by which Defendants sell and deliver digital content to end-users (Compl. ¶29).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or allege infringement of specific claims. The following tables summarize the infringement theory for representative independent claims based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

’720 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of controlling access to content data on a data carrier...[having] parameter memory storing use status data and use rules The Android device, in combination with its user account, acts as a data carrier storing content and access rights (use rules/status) ¶21, ¶40, ¶41 col. 3:5-14
receiving a data access request from a user for at least one content item A user selects an application or in-app item for purchase through the Google Play store or a third-party application like those from Game Circus ¶30, ¶33, ¶39 col. 25:15-18
reading the use status data and use rules from the parameter memory The system checks the user's entitlements, which necessitates a payment request if the content is not already owned, thereby reading the access status ¶35-¶36 col. 25:19-21
evaluating the use status data using the use rules to determine whether access...is permitted Google Play servers receive a payment request and determine whether to approve the transaction based on the user's payment information and the price of the item ¶36 col. 25:22-26
displaying to the user whether access is permitted The application either proceeds with the download/unlock upon successful payment or displays an error/further payment instructions, thereby indicating whether access is permitted ¶27, ¶37 col. 25:27-31

’317 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A computer system for providing data to a data requester The network of servers operated by Google and/or Samsung that supports the Google Play store and Samsung's Media/Music Hubs ¶21, ¶36, ¶40 col. 6:40-45
code to receive a request for a data item from the requester A user's device running the Google Play app sends a request to the servers when the user initiates a download or purchase ¶35-¶36 col. 8:10-12
code to receive...payment data...relating to payment for the requested data item The Google Play app conveys payment requests from the user's device to the Google Play servers for approval ¶36 col. 8:5-9
code...to read data for the requested data item from a content provider The system facilitates the download of applications and content from developers and publishers, who act as content providers ¶27, ¶33 col. 8:13-17
code to transmit the read data to the requester The system supports the download of the requested application or digital content from the servers to the user's device after payment is approved ¶27, ¶30, ¶37 col. 8:18-20
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether a smartphone connected to a cloud-based account system constitutes the "portable data carrier" described in the patents. The patents’ specification frequently refers to physical smart cards and "e-cash" stored on the carrier, which may suggest a narrower scope than what is alleged in the complaint (’720 Patent, col. 3:27-29, col. 2:15-17). The question is whether the term can be construed to cover a system where payment validation and usage rules are primarily managed by remote servers rather than on the device itself.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused systems practice the claimed methods of using "use status data" and "use rules." A potential point of contention is whether the binary "owned/not owned" status typical of app store purchases performs the same function as the more granular "use rules" (e.g., pay-per-play, time-based rental) described in the patent specifications (’720 Patent, col. 3:5-14).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "portable data carrier"

    • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical. The plaintiff's infringement theory depends on this term covering a modern smartphone or tablet, whereas the patent's disclosure is heavily focused on smart card technology. Practitioners may focus on this term because the alleged infringement hinges on whether a general-purpose device like a smartphone, which relies on network connectivity for many of its functions, falls within the scope of a term described with the characteristics of a self-contained, portable memory and payment device.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the carrier "may also be integrated into other apparatus, such as a mobile communications device" (’720 Patent, col. 4:26-29).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses language associated with smart cards, such as describing it as an "IC card or smart card" with a "credit card-type format" and a "push-fit within the retrieval device" (’720 Patent, col. 3:27-29, col. 6:26-27). Figure 2 depicts a physical card with contact pads.

  • The Term: "use rules"

    • Context and Importance: The definition of "use rules" is key to determining whether the accused systems perform the claimed methods. The dispute may center on whether a simple access right based on a one-time purchase is a "use rule" in the sense contemplated by the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general, and the claims do not appear to limit its structure. A rule granting permanent access upon payment could be argued to be the simplest form of a "use rule."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of "use rules" that are more complex than a simple ownership flag, such as rules for "pay-per-play," "rental access...for a time period or for a specified number of access events," and rental-to-purchase options (’720 Patent, col. 3:64-67, col. 5:8-14). This may support a narrower construction limited to such conditional access schemes.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants instruct and encourage end-users to install and use the accused applications and encourage developers to use the in-application payment systems (Compl. ¶53). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that Defendants provide software components (e.g., the Google Play app, in-application payment functionality) that are a material part of the invention, are not staple articles of commerce, and are known to be especially made for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶56).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on purported pre-suit knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶60). The complaint alleges that Samsung was aware of the technology from a presentation given to "Samsung Richardson" and that Smartflash's patent applications were cited as prior art during the prosecution of two of Samsung's own U.S. patents (Compl. ¶¶24-26).

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

This case presents several fundamental questions regarding the application of patent claims drafted in the era of smart cards to the modern ecosystem of smartphones and application stores. The resolution of the dispute will likely depend on the following core issues:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "portable data carrier," rooted in the patent's disclosure of a physical smart card containing on-board "e-cash," be construed to cover a smartphone that relies on remote servers for payment validation and management of content access rights?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technological operation: do the accused digital storefronts, which typically grant permanent access to content after a one-time purchase, implement the claimed "use rules" and "use status data," which the patents describe primarily in the context of granular, conditional access schemes like pay-per-play or time-limited rentals?
  • A fundamental question, ultimately addressed in post-grant proceedings that followed this complaint, is one of patent eligibility: do claims directed to systems for controlling access to data based on payment and usage rules constitute a patent-eligible invention, or are they directed to an abstract idea of conditioning access to content on payment?