DCT

3:13-cv-01859

Wireless Mobile Devices LLC v. HTC Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:13-cv-01859, N.D. Tex., 12/12/2013
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because each Defendant is deemed to reside in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district, has transacted business involving the accused products in the district, and/or has regular and established places of business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' HTC-branded mobile devices, which utilize Google's Android operating system and associated applications like Google Maps, infringe six patents related to dynamically updating device features, performing location-based point-of-interest searches, and enabling off-board navigation.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern foundational smartphone functionalities, including over-the-air software management and location-based services, which are central to the modern mobile device user experience and market.
  • Key Procedural History: This filing is a First Amended Complaint, superseding an original complaint. The filing date of the original complaint is referenced as the point in time when Defendants allegedly gained knowledge of the patents-in-suit for the purposes of indirect infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-03-10 U.S. Patent No. 6,560,604 Priority Date
2001-08-16 Priority Date for ’365, ’939, ’826, and ’371 Patents
2003-05-06 U.S. Patent No. 6,560,604 Issues
2004-10-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,856,315 Priority Date
2006-07-25 U.S. Patent No. 7,082,365 Issues
2008-01-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,321,826 Issues
2010-12-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,856,315 Issues
2011-09-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,014,939 Issues
2011-10-19 Alleged Accused Product Component (Android OS v4.x) Launch
2012-07-09 Alleged Accused Product Component (Google Now Service) Launch
2012-10-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,301,371 Issues
2013-12-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,560,604 - "System, method, and apparatus for automatically and dynamically updating options, features, and/or services available to a client device"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the logistical difficulty and expense of reconfiguring numerous, geographically dispersed wireless client devices (e.g., pagers) to add new services or features. Traditional methods required redeveloping client application software and were inefficient for selectively updating only the devices that required it. (’604 Patent, col. 2:15-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server system where a client device stores configuration "templates." When the client sends an information request to a server, it includes an identifier and version number for its current template. The server compares this version to the latest version in its database. If the client's template is outdated, the server sends an updated template along with the requested information, thereby dynamically reconfiguring the device on an as-needed, per-access basis. (’604 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:26-44).
  • Technical Importance: This method provided a mechanism for efficient over-the-air updates for early wireless data devices, conserving bandwidth by avoiding broadcast downloads and eliminating the need for physical device recalls or manual user configuration. (’604 Patent, col. 3:15-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least claim 14 (Compl. ¶17), which depends from claim 7, which in turn depends from independent claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1 (method) includes the following essential elements:
    • Sending a client request from the client device to the server.
    • Receiving a server response from the server, where the response includes a template identifier.
    • Determining whether the server response includes template update information.
    • Updating a template in a template database with the update information when the response includes it, thereby reconfiguring the client device.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,082,365 - "Point of interest spatial rating search method and system"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that prior art systems for searching for points of interest (POIs) were based on static, non-spatial searches using broad criteria like city or zip code and lacked capabilities for searches based on user ratings or a user's real-time position. (’365 Patent, col. 1:15-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method and system, implemented on a navigational device, that retrieves the device's real-time position and receives search criteria specifying a spatial distance or area. The system retrieves POI information from a database and can incorporate various rating metrics (e.g., best categorical rating, personal favorites) to generate an indexed list of results, and can determine the distance from the user to the POI. (’365 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-44).
  • Technical Importance: The technology enabled more dynamic, personalized, and context-aware search capabilities on mobile devices, shifting from simple directory lookups to location-based, user-centric recommendations. (’365 Patent, col. 2:1-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least claims 1-10, 12, 13, 15, and 38-46 (Compl. ¶27). Independent claims appear to be 1 (method) and 38 (device).
  • Independent Claim 1 (method) includes the following essential elements:
    • Retrieving, via a global positioning system, a real-time position information of the mobile device.
    • Receiving a search criteria specifying one of a spatial distance from the real-time position and a pre-defined geographical area.
    • Retrieving, from a database, location information associated with at least one point of interest located within the specified distance or area.
    • Determining a distance between the real-time position and the location of the point of interest.
    • Displaying the retrieved location information and the determined distance.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,856,315 - "Method and system for enabling an off board navigation solution"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses enabling navigation on resource-constrained mobile devices by offloading the intensive task of route calculation to a remote server. The server computes the route and transmits navigation information, including routing data and audible voice prompts, back to the mobile device for presentation to the user. (’315 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 9-14 and 16 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses HTC mobile devices running the Google Maps Application v6.x and higher and the Android Operating System v4.x. (Compl. ¶37).

U.S. Patent No. 8,014,939 - "Point of interest spatial rating search"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’365 Patent, describes a system for searching and retrieving location information for POIs. The search criteria can depend on the user's real-time position, preferences, or restrictions, such as rating information. (’939 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 9-16 and claims 24, 25, 27, and 30 (Compl. ¶¶47, 52).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses HTC mobile devices running Google Maps v6.x, Android v4.x, and the Google Now Service. (Compl. ¶¶47, 52).

U.S. Patent No. 7,321,826 - "Point of interest spatial rating search"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also related to the ’365 Patent, describes a method and system for searching for POIs based on a user's location and rating-based criteria. The system can provide directions and proximity notifications for selected POIs. (’826 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1-5 and 11-15 (Compl. ¶62).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses HTC mobile devices running the Google Maps Application v6.x and higher and the Android Operating System v4.x. (Compl. ¶62).

U.S. Patent No. 8,301,371 - "Point of interest spatial rating search method and system"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also part of the same family, describes methods for searching for items associated with POIs within a given search zone, incorporating rating metrics to provide an indexed response of the highest-rated POIs based on the user's criteria. (’371 Patent, col. 2:12-24).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1-3, 5-9, 10-14, and 17 (Compl. ¶¶72, 87).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses HTC mobile devices running Google Maps v6.x, Android v4.x, and the Google Now Service. (Compl. ¶¶72, 87).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are HTC-branded mobile devices, including but not limited to the Droid DNA, Droid Incredible 4G LTE, EVO 4G LTE, and various "One" series models (Compl. ¶¶17, 27). The infringement allegations are tied to specific software running on these devices: the Open Mobile Alliance – Device Management (OMA-DM) specification for the ’604 patent, and versions of Google's Android OS (v4.x and higher), Google Maps (v6.x and higher), and the Google Now Service for the remaining patents (Compl. ¶¶17, 27, 37, 47, 52, 62, 72, 87).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused devices use the OMA-DM standard for over-the-air configuration and updates by wireless carriers (Compl. ¶17). It further alleges that the combination of the Android OS and Google applications like Maps and Now enables users to perform location-aware searches for points of interest, receive navigation instructions, and see results filtered or sorted by user ratings (Compl. ¶¶27, 37, 47, 52). These functionalities are central to the value proposition of modern smartphones in a highly competitive market.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but does not provide claim charts or detailed mappings of accused functionality to specific claim elements. The analysis below summarizes the infringement theory based on the general allegations.

6,560,604 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that devices supporting the OMA-DM specification practice the claimed method.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
sending a client request from the client device to the server Initiating an over-the-air management session with a carrier server using the OMA-DM protocol. ¶17 col. 21:26-28
receiving a server response from the server, said server response including a template identifier Receiving a management or data package from the server as part of an OMA-DM session. ¶17 col. 22:50-54
determining whether the server response includes template update information Processing the OMA-DM package to determine if it contains new configuration data, firmware, or software updates. ¶17 col. 22:55-59
updating a template corresponding to said template identifier in a template database with said template update information when the server response includes said template update information, to thereby reconfigure the client device Applying the received configuration data or software update to modify the device's settings or functionality. ¶17 col. 22:55-59
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the objects and protocols of the OMA-DM standard constitute the claimed "templates" and "template update information." Defendants could argue that OMA-DM is a general device management framework that is technically distinct from the patent's specific system of user-interface templates that are checked for updates in response to user information requests.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how or when the accused devices send a "template identifier" and "version identifier" with a "client request," as recited in dependent claims. A key factual question will be whether the OMA-DM protocol as implemented on the accused devices performs these specific steps, or if its update mechanism operates differently.

7,082,365 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that devices running Google Maps v6.x and Android v4.x practice the claimed method.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
retrieving, via a global positioning system, a real-time position information of the mobile device The Google Maps application accessing the device's GPS hardware to determine the user's current location for a search. ¶27 col. 21:30-34
receiving a search criteria specifying one of a spatial distance from the real-time position of the mobile device and a pre-defined geographical area A user inputting a search query (e.g., "restaurants near me") or defining a search area on the map within the Google Maps application. ¶27 col. 21:35-39
retrieving, from a database, location information associated with at least one point of interest... The Google Maps application querying its backend servers to find business listings and locations that match the user's search query. ¶27 col. 21:40-46
determining a distance between the real-time position and a location of the at least one point of interest The Google Maps application calculating and displaying the distance from the user's current location to the resulting POIs. ¶27 col. 21:47-50
displaying on said display the retrieved location information... and the determined distance... The Google Maps user interface presenting a list of search results that includes the name, location, and distance to each POI. ¶27 col. 21:51-57
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the construction of "rating information" as used in the patent's dependent claims. The question will be whether Google's user-generated star rating system is equivalent to the more structured "rating search" methods and metrics described in the patent's specification.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused devices perform all the claimed steps in the required order? For example, the claim requires displaying both the retrieved location information and the determined distance. A factual inquiry will focus on whether the specific user interface of Google Maps v6.x consistently performed this function as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’604 Patent

  • The Term: "template"
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to determining if the configuration data, management objects, or firmware packages used in the OMA-DM standard fall within the scope of the claims. The infringement theory for the '604 patent hinges on this construction.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that templates define "a configuration of the client device" which in turn determines the "options, features, and/or services available." (’604 Patent, col. 3:31-34). This language could support a broad reading covering any data that configures device functionality.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed examples and figures depict templates as defining specific user interface layouts, display fields, and user-selectable actions (e.g., "menu action definitions"). (’604 Patent, Fig. 4A; col. 11:9-21). This may support an argument that a "template" must have a user-facing, graphical or interactive component, which may not be true of all OMA-DM objects.

For the ’365 Patent

  • The Term: "rating information"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in many asserted dependent claims. Its construction will determine whether Google's widely used star-rating system meets the claim limitation, or if a more specific type of rating system is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract refers generally to "rating information about the point of interest," which could be argued to encompass any form of user-provided quality score. (’365 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly discusses specific, structured search methodologies, such as "Best Categorical Rating Search," "Aggregate Average Population Rating Search," and "Personal-Favorites Rating Search." (’365 Patent, col. 4:40-44). This may support a narrower construction requiring a system capable of implementing these specific, multi-faceted rating and search types, not just a simple numerical rating.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges contributory infringement for the ’371 patent. It asserts that Defendants had knowledge of the patent at least from the filing of the original complaint, that the accused devices are a material component of the invention, and that the devices have no substantial non-infringing uses as they relate to the patent's claims for retrieving and collecting rating information. The complaint also alleges the underlying direct infringement by end users. (Compl. ¶¶72-74, 87-89).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. However, the contributory infringement allegations are based on alleged knowledge obtained after the filing of the original complaint, which could form a basis for post-suit enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. (Compl. ¶74).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "template," as described in the ’604 patent in the context of updating user interfaces, be construed to cover the standardized objects and protocols of the OMA-DM device management framework? Similarly, for the ’365 patent family, can the term "rating information," rooted in the patent's specific search methodologies, be construed to cover the general-purpose star-rating system used in Google Maps?
  • A second key issue will be one of technical specificity: The complaint makes broad allegations tying industry-wide standards and widely used applications to the patent claims without detailed factual support. The case will likely turn on whether discovery reveals evidence that the accused systems operate in the specific manner required by the claims, such as the version-checking protocol of the ’604 patent or the integrated distance calculation and display step of the ’365 patent.