ProudLion IP LLC v. Movado Group LP

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ProudLion IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Movado Group, LP (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey, LLP
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-02052, TXSD, 06/05/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly having a regular and established place of business in the Southern District of Texas and committing acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Movado Connect Smartwatch infringes a patent related to creating and implementing user-defined operational and visual profiles on a portable computing device.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns software-based customization of a device's user interface, including visual elements and notification behaviors, which is a central feature area in the competitive smartwatch market.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,967,389, was the subject of a Certificate of Correction issued on May 21, 2019, which replaced an erroneous abstract with one that aligns with the patent’s actual subject matter. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation or administrative proceedings.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,967,389 - System And Method For Selectable Alteration Of Operation And Appearance Of A Portable Computing Device

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,967,389, issued May 8, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that the use of portable computing devices can be "obtrusive" in certain environmental circumstances, such as a "darkened environment, where silence is expected or needed," due to screen lighting and other factors (’389 Patent, col. 1:36-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an application that allows a user to define a custom "altered mode" by adjusting multiple parameters (e.g., backlight, font, notification type) and aggregating various communication applications (e.g., email, messaging). A user can then manually switch between a default mode and this personalized, saved mode. The patent emphasizes that these changes are driven by "user selected actuation" rather than being automatically triggered by environmental changes (’389 Patent, col. 1:26-34; col. 1:53-56).
• Technical Importance: The described technology provides a method for users to manually create, save, and deploy comprehensive operational "skins" for a device, tailored to specific, user-determined situations (’389 Patent, col. 1:51-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20, which includes independent claims 1 (a system) and 11 (a method) (’389 Patent, col. 15:15, col. 17:11; Compl. ¶8).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A portable computing device with a touch screen, variable lighting module, frequency alteration module, processor, and non-volatile memory.
  • Processor-readable instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform a series of steps:
    • receive a first mode alteration request using a "first actuation object";
    • selectably aggregate a plurality of email, messaging, and social network applications;
    • selectably alter backlight level, font, and frequency mode;
    • "accept" the alterations/aggregations using a "second actuation object"; and
    • "implement" the mode alteration using a "third actuation object".
• The complaint reserves the right to assert all claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Movado Connect Smartwatch" (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused product by name but does not provide specific details about its technical operation or features (Compl. ¶9). The infringement theory is based on the general understanding that smartwatches like the accused product provide functionality to "selectably alter the operation and appearance of a portable computing device," such as customizing watch faces and managing notifications (Compl. ¶7). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the product's specific commercial importance. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "preliminary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶9). In the absence of a claim chart, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint's narrative allegations. The complaint broadly alleges that the Movado Connect Smartwatch infringes by being a portable computing device whose operation and appearance can be selectably altered by a user (Compl. ¶¶ 7-8).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Procedural Questions: A central question will be whether the user interaction flow of the accused smartwatch maps onto the specific three-step process recited in the claims, which requires a "first actuation object" to initiate a request, a "second actuation object" to accept alterations, and a "third actuation object" to implement the mode. The complaint does not allege facts detailing such a specific sequence.
  • Technical Questions: The claims require "selectably aggregat[ing] a plurality of... applications" (’389 Patent, col. 15:28-31). A key dispute may arise over whether the accused smartwatch’s notification management system constitutes an "aggregation of applications" as described in the patent, which illustrates displaying multiple account types (e.g., email, social media) together on a single screen for prioritization (’389 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 12:28-45).
  • Negative Limitation Questions: Claim 9 requires that, prior to the initial request, the set of executable instructions "do not run as a background code" (’389 Patent, col. 17:7-9). The patent specifies this means the application fully exits upon suspension and must be re-launched from an initial screen (’389 Patent, col. 5:26-29). It raises the question of whether the accused software architecture, likely built on a modern mobile operating system that manages application states, meets this specific negative limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "first actuation object", "second actuation object", and "third actuation object"

• Context and Importance: These terms define the specific, sequential user workflow at the heart of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused smartwatch's UI for customizing settings can be mapped to this three-part structure.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The terms are not explicitly defined, which could support an argument that they encompass any sequence of user inputs that initiate, confirm, and apply a setting change.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures illustrate a distinct, multi-step process: a user first launches the application via an icon ("first actuation object" 101), then navigates a menu to a settings screen ("second actuation object" 110, e.g., "Settings"), and finally applies the changes ("third actuation object" 120, e.g., "Apply") (’389 Patent, Fig. 1B; col. 13:5-22). This could support a narrower construction requiring distinct user actions for each step.

• The Term: "selectably aggregate"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to determining whether managing a list of notifications from different apps infringes, or if a more integrated display is required.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted broadly to mean any user-driven compilation or gathering of information sources, such as selecting which applications are permitted to display notifications in a custom mode.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes "displaying object(s) corresponding to each email application, each messaging system, and each social network application on the touch-screen display in a single screen with selectable order" (’389 Patent, col. 5:30-36). Figure 3 further depicts a list of specific accounts (e.g., "Corp. 1," "GMail," "Facebook") being ordered, suggesting the aggregation is of the applications or accounts themselves, not just their output notifications (’389 Patent, Fig. 3).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others... on how to use its products and services" to infringe, which may refer to user manuals or software tutorials (Compl. ¶10). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for the accused products (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’389 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" and seeks a finding of willfulness (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11; Prayer for Relief ¶e). This allegation appears to be based on post-suit knowledge, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are pleaded.

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

• A core issue will be one of procedural mapping: can the user interface workflow for customizing the Movado Connect Smartwatch be shown to meet the specific three-step "actuation object" sequence recited in the independent claims, or does it employ a more integrated process that falls outside the patent's prescribed method?
• A second key question will be one of functional scope: does the accused smartwatch’s functionality to manage notifications from various sources constitute "aggregat[ing]... applications" as that term is used in the patent, which appears to describe a more integrated display of the application accounts themselves for user prioritization?
• Finally, the case may turn on an important negative limitation: can Plaintiff provide evidence that the accused software "do[es] not run as a background code" as specifically defined in the patent—i.e., that it fully exits and restarts when suspended—a condition that may be contrary to the typical behavior of applications on modern mobile operating systems?