DCT

1:19-cv-00874

Neodron Ltd v. Microsoft Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00399, W.D. Tex., 06/28/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas and maintains a regular and established place of business in the District, including corporate offices and a retail store in Austin.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Microsoft Surface products infringe five U.S. patents related to improvements in touchscreen technology, including methods for resolving touch ambiguity and specific electrode structures.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to the underlying construction and operation of capacitive touchscreens, a technology that is a primary user interface for a vast range of consumer electronic devices, including tablets and notebooks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-07-12 ’286 Patent Priority Date
2006-10-20 ’547 Patent Priority Date
2008-04-10 ’960 Patent Priority Date
2011-04-18 ’574 Patent Priority Date
2012-01-24 ’286 Patent Issue Date
2013-04-15 ’770 Patent Priority Date
2013-08-06 ’547 Patent Issue Date
2015-02-03 ’574 Patent Issue Date
2015-07-21 ’770 Patent Issue Date
2018-10-02 ’960 Patent Issue Date
2019-06-28 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", issued January 24, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of "keying ambiguity" on small, tightly-packed capacitive keyboards, where a user's finger is likely to overlap multiple keys simultaneously, making it difficult for the device to determine the single intended key press (’286 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an iterative method where the system measures the signal strength from each key, identifies the key with the maximum signal, and selects it as the active key. This selection is "non-locking," meaning it is maintained only until either the signal from the active key drops below a threshold or the signal from a different key exceeds the active key's signal. This logic is intended to allow for smooth "rollover" as a user's finger moves between keys, while an integrated counter system prevents undesirable "chatter" between keys with similar signal strengths (’286 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-17).
  • Technical Importance: This method provided a way to improve the reliability of compact capacitive keyboards, which were prone to false inputs, thereby facilitating their use in smaller devices (’286 Patent, col. 1:29-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-24 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Independent claim 1 requires:
    • A key panel comprising a plurality of keys.
    • Control logic coupled to the keys.
    • The control logic is configured to detect a sensor value of an inactive key surpassing that of an active key by a select amount and then assign the inactive key as the new active key.
    • The key assignment is "biased in favor of the currently active key by increasing sensor values of the currently active key."

U.S. Patent No. 9,086,770 - "Touch Sensor with High-Density Macro-Feature Design", issued July 21, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that conventional touch sensor designs can be difficult and costly to manufacture, particularly those requiring very precise, fine-pitched cuts to create complex electrode patterns, and that such patterns can have functional limitations (’770 Patent, col. 8:37-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a touch sensor panel constructed from layers of "quadrilateral" (e.g., rectangular) electrodes for the drive and sense functions. Instead of complex, interdigitated shapes, the patent teaches using these simpler geometric forms. The gaps separating these electrodes are described as running in a "generally straight line" across the sensor area. This simplified geometry is intended to be easier to manufacture while still enabling a high-density sensor design (’770 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:47-53).
  • Technical Importance: This approach offers a potential simplification of the manufacturing process for touch sensor electrodes, which could lead to lower costs and higher production yields compared to more complex prior art designs (’770 Patent, col. 13:42-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-15 (Compl. ¶21).
  • Independent claim 1 requires:
    • A touch position-sensing panel with a substrate.
    • A plurality of first electrodes in a first layer, comprising conductive mesh, arranged in a first direction, and each being a "quadrilateral electrode."
    • A plurality of second electrodes in a second layer, comprising conductive mesh, arranged in a second direction, and each being a "quadrilateral electrode."
    • The first and second layers have pluralities of gaps separating the electrodes.
    • The electrodes overlap to create a plurality of nodes.
    • Each of the gaps "runs in a generally straight line from one side of the sensing area to an opposing side."

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,946,574

  • Patent Identification: US8946574B2, "Two-Layer Sensor Stack", issued February 3, 2015 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent seeks to improve the optical properties of touch sensors by altering the geometry of the conductive mesh electrodes. To reduce visible artifacts like reflections and diffraction patterns ("starbursts"), the invention teaches forming the mesh from "sinusoidaly shaped conductive lines" instead of straight ones. It further teaches randomly displacing the vertices of the mesh grid to prevent moiré interference patterns with the underlying display pixels (’574 Patent, col. 5:9-21; col. 10:59-64).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-15 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Microsoft Surface Book 2 13.5 infringes (Compl. ¶29).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,502,547

  • Patent Identification: US8502547B2, "Capacitive Sensor", issued August 6, 2013 (Compl. ¶36).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a user interface that dynamically switches between a coarse adjustment mode and a fine adjustment mode. An initial touch on a sensor (e.g., a virtual rotary dial) selects an approximate value from a full range. Subsequent moving displacement of the finger without lifting it automatically triggers a "zoom" mode, where the same physical motion corresponds to a much smaller change in the parameter, allowing for precise control (’547 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:3-12).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-17 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Microsoft Surface Book 2 13.5 infringes (Compl. ¶37).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,088,960

  • Patent Identification: US10088960B2, "Sensor Stack with Opposing Electrodes", issued October 2, 2018 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a touch sensor architecture where sense electrodes and drive electrodes are disposed on separate, opposing substrates with an insulating layer in between. The invention specifies that one or both sets of electrodes are made from a "conductive mesh" of material. This mesh construction allows for the creation of optically transparent electrodes using opaque but highly conductive materials like metal, which can be an alternative to more expensive transparent conductors like Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) (’960 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-17 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Microsoft Surface Book 2 13.5 infringes (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "certain products ('Accused Products')," using the Microsoft Surface Book 2 13.5 as a representative example (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are electronic devices that incorporate touchscreen technology (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2). It does not provide specific details on the technical operation or construction of the accused touchscreen, but alleges that it satisfies the limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 23, 31, 39, 47). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe the asserted patents and states that claim charts are attached as exhibits (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 23, 31, 39, 47). However, these exhibits were not provided with the complaint document. The narrative infringement theory is limited to conclusory statements that the Accused Products satisfy all limitations of the asserted claims.

Identified Points of Contention

  • '286 Patent: A primary point of contention may be evidentiary. The infringement claim hinges on whether the accused Surface products' software and/or firmware implements the specific "non-locking" iterative logic and biasing scheme required by claim 1 to resolve keying ambiguity. The complaint does not provide factual support, such as source code analysis or reverse engineering, to demonstrate the operation of the accused "control logic."
  • '770 Patent: The dispute for the ’770 Patent will likely center on the physical structure of the accused touchscreen. A key technical question is whether the sensor electrodes are in fact "quadrilateral" and separated by gaps that run in a "generally straight line," as claimed. Answering this question will require discovery or physical inspection of the accused device, as the complaint offers no evidence of the internal construction.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'286 Patent

The Term: "control logic"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to claim 1 and defines the apparatus that performs the patented method. The dispute will likely focus on whether the software/firmware within the Microsoft Surface products constitutes the claimed "control logic" by performing the specific recited functions.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the invention in functional terms, suggesting that any combination of components (hardware, firmware, software) that performs the claimed steps of comparing signals, biasing the result, and assigning an active key could meet the definition (’286 Patent, col. 2:25-46).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific implementations, such as a "detection integrator counter (DI)" and detailed flow charts (FIGS. 5A, 5B) (’286 Patent, col. 2:25-32). A defendant may argue that the term "control logic" should be construed more narrowly to a structure that incorporates these or similar specific features, rather than any generic processor executing ambiguity resolution code.

'770 Patent

The Term: "quadrilateral electrode"

  • Context and Importance: Infringement of claim 1 requires the accused device to possess electrodes of this specific geometry. The construction of this term will determine whether the physical structure of the Surface touchscreen falls within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the electrodes "are generally quadrilateral in shape, and in particular, are generally rectangular" (’770 Patent, col. 9:8-10). The use of "generally" may support a construction that is not strictly limited to perfect four-sided polygons and could encompass shapes that are substantially or approximately quadrilateral.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent distinguishes its invention from prior art "interdigitated" or complex patterns (’770 Patent, col. 8:37-47). A defendant could argue that "quadrilateral electrode" must be interpreted in this context to mean a simple, non-complex, four-sided shape, and that any significant deviation or added complexity (e.g., notches or non-linear sides) would place an electrode outside the scope of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The factual basis alleged is that Defendant provides "user manuals and online instruction materials on its website" that encourage and instruct customers to use the Accused Products in a way that infringes the patents (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 14, 22, 30, 38, 46).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint establishes a basis for post-suit willful infringement by alleging that Defendant has had knowledge of the patents and their infringement "[t]hrough the filing and service of this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 14, 22, 30, 38, 46).

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

  • A central issue will be one of technical evidence: Does the Microsoft Surface Book 2's hardware and software actually practice the claimed inventions? The bare-bones complaint provides no factual support, meaning the case will turn on evidence developed during discovery regarding the physical structure of the touchscreen (for the '770, '574, and '960 patents) and the operational logic of its firmware (for the '286 and '547 patents).
  • A second key issue will be one of claim scope: Can the functional claims related to user interface logic (e.g., "control logic" in the '286 patent) be interpreted broadly enough to read on the accused software, or will they be narrowed to the specific implementations in the specification? Similarly, can the structural claims (e.g., "quadrilateral electrode" in the '770 patent) be construed to cover the precise geometry used in the accused device?