Zeroclick LLC v. Microsoft Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zeroclick, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00423, W.D. Tex., 05/26/2020
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas, has transacted business and committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in Austin, Texas, including corporate offices and a retail store.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s touch screen computing products infringe a patent related to a method for activating functions in a graphical user interface through specified pointer movements alone, without a physical click.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns graphical user interface (GUI) design, particularly methods for user interaction on touch-enabled devices where physical button clicks are replaced by specific, multi-part pointer gestures.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the applications leading to the asserted patent were first filed in the year 2000. No other procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative challenges to the patent, are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,818,691 - "Zeroclick"

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the conventional method for interacting with a graphical user interface (GUI) as a two-part process: first, a user moves a pointer to locate a GUI control, and second, the user performs a physical action like a button press or click to activate the control's function (’691 Patent, col. 3:3-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to combine location and activation into a continuous pointer movement, eliminating the need for a physical click (’691 Patent, col. 3:13-17). As illustrated in Figure 1, a user first moves a pointer (0) into contact with a "control area" (1). This action initiates a procedure. The user then performs a second, "subsequent movement" within a "predetermined path area" (3) to generate a simulated "'click' event," which in turn triggers the function associated with the control (’691 Patent, col. 4:5-12).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a framework for creating user interfaces operable entirely by pointer movement, a concept with potential applications in enhancing ergonomics and developing interfaces for early touch-screen or stylus-based computing devices (’691 Patent, col. 3:41-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent claim 2 as being asserted against a representative accused product (Compl. ¶12).
• The essential elements of independent claim 2 are:
  • A graphical user interface (GUI) operable by a two-step method of pointer movement.
  • Wherein, first, the pointer is immediately adjacent to or passes within a control area.
  • And second, the completion of a subsequent movement of the pointer according to a specified movement generates a "'click' event," thereby triggering one or more functions within the GUI.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "certain touch screen computing products," with the "Microsoft Surface Book 2 13.5" cited as a representative example of an Accused Product (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are "touch screen computing products" that Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or imports (Compl. ¶10). The complaint does not provide specific details regarding the technical functionality of the accused products or their market positioning, other than to allege that they infringe one or more claims of the ’691 Patent.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products satisfy all limitations of claim 2 and references an attached claim chart (Exhibit 2) comparing the claim to the Microsoft Surface Book 2 13.5 (Compl. ¶12). As this exhibit was not included with the public filing of the complaint, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the plaintiff's specific infringement theory is not possible. The complaint’s narrative theory is that the Accused Products, by their nature as touch screen computing devices, directly infringe the ’691 Patent (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). The pleading does not contain specific factual allegations mapping particular features or user gestures available on the Accused Products to the elements of the asserted claim.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent’s claims and the general nature of the accused technology, the infringement analysis raises several questions.

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether standard touch-screen gestures, such as "tap-and-drag" or "long-press-and-drag," fall within the scope of the claimed two-step method, which requires a "subsequent movement" after passing within a "control area" to generate a "'click' event."
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused touch-screen interface performs the specific two-step sequence required by the claim? For instance, does interaction with an icon on the accused device merely trigger a function directly, or does it first establish a "control area" and then await a "subsequent movement" within a "predetermined path" to simulate a distinct "'click' event" as the claim requires?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "control area"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the initial target for the pointer gesture. Its construction is critical to determining the scope of the claim, as it dictates what screen elements can serve as the first step of the patented method. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth could determine whether the claim reads on discrete, visible icons or extends to broader, or even invisible, interactive zones on a touch screen.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 2 itself states the control area "may be any size including from a pixel on the screen (300) to occupying the whole screen (300)" (’691 Patent, col. 51:6-10). The specification further states that "the control area could be invisible" (’691 Patent, col. 2:61-62).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures consistently depict "control areas" as conventional, visible GUI elements like menu items or on-screen buttons (’691 Patent, Figs. 13, 17). This context may suggest that the term, despite its broad definition in the claim language, is rooted in traditional, visually-defined interface controls.

The Term: "generates a 'click' event"

• Context and Importance: This phrase describes the outcome of the claimed two-step pointer movement. The dispute may center on whether this requires the software to generate a discrete signal analogous to a conventional mouse click, or if it simply means that a function is triggered. The viability of the infringement claim could depend on whether the accused device's software architecture includes such a simulated "click event" or if gestures trigger functions directly.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s abstract states the invention "simulates direct clicking of the control," and the claim language links the "'click' event" directly to "thereby triggering one or more functions" (’691 Patent, Abstract; col. 51:10-12). This could support an interpretation where any function activation resulting from the gesture qualifies as generating a "'click' event."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the invention as a replacement for the physical "button press/click" of a traditional mouse (’691 Patent, col. 3:6-9). This might support an argument that the generated "event" must be a close technological parallel to the event produced by a physical click within the operating system.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶11). The factual basis alleged is that Defendant provides user manuals and online instructions that encourage and instruct customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. The complaint alleges Defendant has knowledge of the ’691 Patent based on the filing and service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶11).

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused Microsoft Surface products implement the specific two-step gesture claimed in the ’691 Patent? The case will likely require a deep technical analysis of how the Windows operating system and its applications process touch inputs to determine if they map to the claimed sequence of entering a "control area" followed by a "subsequent movement" that "generates a 'click' event."
• A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "generates a 'click' event"? The dispute may turn on whether this phrase requires the accused software to create a discrete, simulated event analogous to a hardware mouse-click, or if it can be read more broadly to cover any software function that is triggered as the result of a multi-part touch gesture.