DCT

1:19-cv-00873

Neodron Ltd v. HP Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00397, W.D. Tex., 08/27/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas, has transacted business and committed acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including data centers and offices.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s notebook computers and other products with touchscreen capabilities infringe eight patents related to various aspects of touchscreen sensor technology and operation.
  • Technical Context: The patents address specific improvements in capacitive touchscreen functionality, a critical technology for user interfaces in a wide range of consumer electronics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is an Amended Complaint, though it does not detail the nature of or reason for the amendment. No other prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-07-12 ’286 Patent Priority Date
2005-07-08 ’502 Patent Priority Date
2006-10-20 ’547 Patent Priority Date
2008-04-10 ’960 Patent Priority Date
2008-07-14 ’237 Patent Priority Date
2010-10-26 ’502 Patent Issue Date
2011-03-21 ’898 Patent Priority Date
2011-04-18 ’574 Patent Priority Date
2012-01-24 ’286 Patent Issue Date
2013-04-15 ’770 Patent Priority Date
2013-05-28 ’237 Patent Issue Date
2013-08-06 ’547 Patent Issue Date
2014-09-30 ’898 Patent Issue Date
2015-02-03 ’574 Patent Issue Date
2015-07-21 ’770 Patent Issue Date
2018-10-02 ’960 Patent Issue Date
2019-08-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,102,286 - “Capacitive Keyboard with Non-Locking Reduced Keying Ambiguity”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses "keying ambiguity" on keyboards with small, tightly packed capacitive keys, where a user's finger is likely to overlap and actuate more than one key at a time (’286 Patent, col. 1:25-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an iterative method to resolve this ambiguity. The system measures the signal strength from each key, identifies the key with the maximum signal as the user's selection, and maintains that selection. Critically, the selection is "non-locking," meaning it can be superseded if another key's signal strength later exceeds the currently selected key's signal, allowing for smooth "rollover" as a finger moves across the keypad (’286 Patent, col. 2:9-17). This process is distinct from one that simply locks onto the first key to pass a signal threshold.
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve the accuracy and usability of capacitive keypads on compact electronic devices where physical space is at a premium (’286 Patent, col. 1:25-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A key panel with a plurality of keys.
    • Control logic configured to detect a sensor value of an inactive key surpassing that of an active key by a select amount.
    • Assigning the inactive key as the new active key.
    • The key assignment is biased in favor of the currently active key by increasing the sensor values of the currently active key.
  • The complaint asserts claims 1-24, reserving the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶13).

U.S. Patent No. 8,847,898 - “Signal-to-Noise Ratio in Touch Sensors”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background implicitly addresses the issue of electrical noise, which can interfere with the accurate measurement of capacitance changes used to detect a touch on a sensor (’898 Patent, col. 1:11-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) by driving at least two drive lines of the touch sensor at a time with electrical pulses, rather than driving them one by one. By driving multiple lines simultaneously, the resulting signal is stronger relative to the ambient electrical noise, making touch detection more reliable (’898 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:45-61). Figure 4 of the patent illustrates driving adjacent pairs of drive lines (e.g., X0+X1, then X1+X2) in sequence.
  • Technical Importance: This technique allows for more robust touch sensor performance in electrically noisy environments or on larger touch surfaces where signals can be weaker (’898 Patent, col. 6:53-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • An apparatus with a touch sensor having a plurality of drive lines and sense lines.
    • Logic configured to drive, at a first time, first and second adjacent drive lines with electrical pulses.
    • Logic configured to drive, at a second time, the second drive line and a third adjacent drive line, without driving the first.
  • The complaint asserts claims 1-24, reserving the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 8,451,237 - “Sensitivity Control as a Function of Touch Shape”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for distinguishing between different types of touches (e.g., a finger versus a stylus) based on the "shape" of the signal signature they produce across the sensor nodes. The system can then enter a different detection mode or adjust its sensitivity based on whether a finger or stylus is determined to be in use (’237 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-24 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the touchscreen functionality of HP products, such as the HP 15-br095ms, infringes the patent (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 8,502,547 - “Capacitive Sensor”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a capacitive sensor system, such as a rotary dial, where the sensor can operate in two modes. A first mode allows for coarse selection of a parameter value, and a second mode, triggered by a specific user interaction, allows for fine adjustment of that value (’547 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-17 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the touchscreen functionality of HP products, such as the HP 15-bs289wm, infringes the patent (Compl. ¶37).

U.S. Patent No. 8,946,574 - “Two-Layer Sensor Stack”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes the physical construction of a touch sensor. It discloses a sensor stack with an optically clear adhesive layer between a cover sheet and a substrate, where the drive or sense electrodes are formed from a conductive mesh made of metal on the substrate surfaces (’574 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-15 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the touchscreen construction of HP products, such as the HP 15-br095ms, infringes the patent (Compl. ¶45).

U.S. Patent No. 9,086,770 - “Touch Sensor with High-Density Macro-Feature Design”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a touch sensor design where straight-line gaps are formed in conductive mesh layers to define the electrodes. The design specifies that these gaps run from one side of the sensing area to an opposing side, creating quadrilateral-shaped electrodes without complex "digit" patterns (’770 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-15 (Compl. ¶53).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the sensor design of HP products, such as the HP 15-br095ms, infringes the patent (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 10,088,960 - “Sensor Stack with Opposing Electrodes”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a sensor apparatus with sense electrodes on a first substrate and drive electrodes on a second substrate. The invention covers embodiments where one or both sets of electrodes are made of a conductive mesh material, with an insulating layer between the two substrates (’960 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-17 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the sensor construction of HP products, such as the HP 15-br095ms, infringes the patent (Compl. ¶61).

U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502 - “Two-Dimensional Position Sensor”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an electrode arrangement for a capacitive sensor where all electrodes are mounted on a single surface of a substrate. To avoid crossovers on the sensor surface, row electrodes at opposing ends of a row are connected by a "wrap-around" connection made outside of the main sensing area (’502 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-24 (Compl. ¶69).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the sensor electrode layout of HP products, such as the HP 15-br095ms, infringes the patent (Compl. ¶69).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "Accused Products" as certain HP products incorporating touchscreen technology, naming the HP 15-bs289wm, HP 15-da0073ms, and HP 15-br095ms models as representative examples (Compl. ¶¶13, 21, 29).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these products are notebooks and similar devices that incorporate touchscreens, which have become ubiquitous in modern electronics (Compl. ¶¶2, 5). The infringement allegations center on the underlying technology of how these touchscreens are constructed and how they process touch inputs to determine location, distinguish touch types, and resolve ambiguities (Compl. ¶¶1, 4).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint references claim chart exhibits that compare patent claims to the accused products, but these exhibits are not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶15, 23, 31, 39, 47, 55, 63, 71).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits that detail its infringement theories. The following is a prose summary of the apparent infringement allegations for the lead patents.

  • '286 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe claims 1-24 of the ’286 Patent (Compl. ¶13). Although the specific evidence is not provided, the infringement theory appears to be that the software and/or hardware in HP's touchscreen devices employs a method for resolving ambiguous key presses (e.g., on a virtual keyboard) that reads on the patent's claims. This likely involves analyzing signal strengths from multiple keys affected by a single touch and using a "non-locking" logic to determine the user's final selection (Compl. ¶15).

  • '898 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe claims 1-24 of the ’898 Patent (Compl. ¶21). The infringement theory appears to be that the touch sensor controllers in the accused HP products drive multiple drive lines simultaneously or in overlapping fashion to increase the signal strength of a touch event relative to background electrical noise. This method of improving the signal-to-noise ratio is alleged to be covered by the patent's claims (Compl. ¶23).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • ’286 Patent Scope Question: A central issue may be whether the logic used by HP to select a key when a touch spans multiple sensors constitutes "maintaining that selection until...a second key's signal strength exceeds the first key's signal strength" as claimed. The dispute could focus on whether HP's system uses a different condition, such as a time-based lock or a different comparison metric, that would fall outside the claim's scope.
    • ’898 Patent Technical Question: A key factual question is whether HP's touch controllers physically operate by "driving at least two...drive lines...at a time" as required by the claim. Answering this question may require discovery into the specific hardware and firmware of the accused products to determine if they use the claimed simultaneous driving technique or a conventional, non-infringing sequential scanning method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’286 Patent:

    • The Term: "key assignment is biased in favor of the currently active key" (from claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the "non-locking" but "sticky" nature of the invention. The definition of how a "bias" is implemented will be critical. HP may argue its system lacks such a bias or that its method for preventing rapid switching between keys (chatter) is technically different from the claimed "bias."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the bias can be implemented in multiple ways, such as "by subtracting a small amount off the signals of non-selected keys, or by adding a small amount onto the selected key's signal" (’286 Patent, col. 3:1-4). This language may support a construction covering a range of algorithmic techniques that favor the current selection.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description focuses on an iterative method where a non-selected key's signal must exceed the selected key's signal "by a small amount" (’286 Patent, col. 2:1-3). This might be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring a specific additive or subtractive comparison.

  • For the ’898 Patent:

    • The Term: "drive, at a first time, first and second drive lines...at a time" (from claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: The interpretation of "at a time" will be dispositive. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to require perfect, clock-cycle-level simultaneity, infringement may be harder to prove than if it is construed to cover rapid, overlapping, or immediately sequential driving signals that achieve the same technical purpose of signal summation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to improve SNR by combining signals (’898 Patent, col. 6:45-55). This purpose could support a construction that includes not just perfectly simultaneous pulses, but any driving scheme where the signals from multiple lines are effectively summed before noise can degrade them.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 of the patent depicts distinct sets of pulses for adjacent line pairs (e.g., X0+X1, then X1+X2). This could support an argument that "at a time" refers to the driving of a specific group of lines during a discrete time interval, rather than a more general concept of overlapping signals.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). It asserts that by filing the complaint, HP has knowledge of the patents. It further alleges that HP encourages and instructs end users to infringe through user manuals and online materials, and that HP knows and intends for this infringement to occur (Compl. ¶¶14, 22, 30, 38, 46, 54, 62, 70).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often predicated on a finding of willful infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e). The factual basis for willfulness appears to be alleged knowledge of infringement obtained post-suit, upon service of the complaint itself.

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

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the hardware and software in HP's touchscreen products function in the specific manner required by the patent claims—particularly the '898 patent's simultaneous multi-line driving and the '286 patent's "non-locking" iterative logic for resolving key ambiguity—or do they achieve similar outcomes through different, non-infringing technical methods?
  • A key legal question will be one of claim construction: How will the court define the scope of critical terms such as the "bias in favor of the currently active key" ('286 patent) and the requirement to drive multiple lines "at a time" ('898 patent)? The outcome of the case for these and other patents will likely depend on whether the evidence of the accused products' operation falls within the court's construction of these terms.