Zeroclick LLC v. Dell Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zeroclick, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Dell Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00569, W.D. Tex., 10/04/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the District, including its headquarters, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s touch screen computer products infringe a patent related to graphical user interface technologies that enable functions to be activated by pointer movement alone, without a separate physical "click."
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for interacting with graphical user interfaces (GUIs) on devices like computers and tablets, a foundational aspect of modern human-computer interaction.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patent.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,818,691, titled “Zeroclick,” issued on October 19, 2010.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the conventional method of interacting with a graphical user interface (GUI), which requires two distinct user actions: moving a pointer to locate a GUI control and then performing a separate action like a button press or "click" to activate the control's function (US 7,818,691 B2, col. 3:4-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to activate a control's function through pointer movement alone. A user first moves a pointer into a "control area," and then performs a "subsequent movement" of the pointer along a "predetermined path" associated with that control area. This two-step sequence of movements generates a "'click' event which simulates direct clicking of the control" without a physical button press (’691 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-12). Figure 1 illustrates a pointer (0) adjacent to a control area (1), which contains a predetermined path area (3) (’691 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to streamline user interaction by combining the selection and activation steps into a continuous motion, potentially increasing speed and providing an alternative interaction model for touch-sensitive surfaces or other pointing devices (’691 Patent, col. 3:13-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 2 (’691 Patent, Compl. ¶12).
• Essential elements of independent claim 2 include:
  • A graphical user interface (GUI) which may comprise an update of an existing program.
  • The GUI operates by a two-step method of pointer movement to operate one or more functions.
  • First, the pointer is immediately adjacent or passes within a control area.
  • Second, the completion of a subsequent movement of the pointer within a predetermined path area according to a specified movement generates a 'click' event.
  • This event simulates the direct clicking of a control, thereby triggering a function.
  • The subsequent movement and predetermined path are adjustable for the purpose of error prevention.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies "certain touch screen computer products," naming the Dell Latitude 7389 as a representative example (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are touch screen computers that infringe the ’691 Patent (Compl. ¶10). It does not describe the specific functionality of the accused user interface in detail, stating only that the products "satisfy all claim limitations" of the patent (Compl. ¶12).
• The complaint does not provide specific allegations regarding the products' commercial importance beyond their general sale and importation by the Defendant (Compl. ¶10, ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, such as the Dell Latitude 7389, directly infringe independent claim 2 of the ’691 Patent (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). However, it does not provide a narrative infringement theory or a detailed element-by-element breakdown of the alleged infringement in the body of the complaint. Instead, it references an "Exhibit 2" containing a claim chart, which was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of a claim chart.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Lacking a detailed infringement theory, the analysis will likely focus on fundamental questions about how the accused touch screen interfaces operate and how their functionality maps to the patent’s claim language.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a user's "tap" on a touch screen, a common interaction method, constitutes the two-step process required by the claim (first, being "adjacent" to a control area, and second, completing a "subsequent movement" over a "predetermined path"). The defense may argue a tap is a single, discrete event equivalent to a conventional click, not the continuous, path-based motion described in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The case may require evidence on whether the accused Dell products have a GUI feature that triggers a function based on a specific gesture or movement after a finger or stylus is already on or hovering over an interactive element. The nature of any such gesture would need to be compared to the "movement of the pointer over a predetermined path" required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "control area"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the initial zone the user's pointer must interact with. Its construction is critical because if the accused products do not have a feature that can be defined as a "control area" that is distinct from the subsequent "predetermined path," the infringement theory may fail. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether it can read on modern GUI elements where the interactive target and the activation gesture might not be spatially distinct in the manner contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states a control area "may be any control or object any existing program, which has the standard click to trigger any function" and can be any "pointer-sensitive area" (’691 Patent, col. 15:36-43). This language could support an argument that any interactive element on the screen, like an icon or button, qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the "control area" (1) as a visually distinct region that the pointer (0) approaches before moving into a separate "predetermined path area" (3) (’691 Patent, Fig. 1). This could support a narrower construction requiring two separate, identifiable zones for the two steps of the claimed method.

• The Term: "subsequent movement of the pointer over a predetermined path"

  • Context and Importance: This is the core of the inventive concept, replacing the physical "click." The dispute will likely center on whether any gesture or interaction with the accused touch screens constitutes this specific type of movement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes many variations, including simple directional movements (left-to-right), reverse movements, and angled movements, suggesting flexibility in what constitutes the path (’691 Patent, col. 4:31-47). The term "predetermined" could be argued to simply mean the system is programmed to recognize a specific gesture, whatever its shape.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly illustrates the "predetermined path" as a distinct area (e.g., area 3 in Fig. 1) with defined subareas (e.g., 4 and 6 in Fig. 3) that a pointer must traverse in a specific sequence. This could support a narrower requirement for a defined, multi-part trajectory, potentially excluding simple interactions like a single-point tap or a simple swipe.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant has knowledge of the ’691 Patent from the complaint itself and "actively encourage[s] and instruct[s] its customers and end users (for example, through its user manuals and online instruction materials on its website) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe" (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count or explicit allegation of willful infringement. The allegations supporting inducement are based on knowledge derived from the filing and service of the complaint itself, suggesting a focus on post-suit conduct (Compl. ¶11).

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

• A central issue will be one of operational equivalence: Does the accused functionality of the Dell touch screen interface, particularly the primary user action for selecting an on-screen element (e.g., a tap), map onto the specific two-step sequence of the asserted claim—first, pointer interaction with a "control area," followed by a "subsequent movement" along a "predetermined path"?
• A key question of claim scope will be whether the term "predetermined path," which the patent illustrates with explicit, often multi-part trajectories, can be construed broadly enough to read on common touch-screen gestures that may be inherent in the operation of the accused products.
• An evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused products contain a specific, non-obvious feature that implements the claimed two-step, clickless activation method, as distinct from the conventional "tap-to-click" functionality common to touch interfaces.