ProudLion IP LLC v. LG Electronics USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ProudLion IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (Republic of Korea, with U.S. agent in Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00614, W.D. Tex., 06/01/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s LG Watch infringes a patent related to systems and methods for selectably altering the operation and appearance of a portable computing device.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns software applications for portable devices like smartphones and smartwatches that allow users to create customized operating modes or "skins" by adjusting visual settings and aggregating communication functions.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was assigned to the Plaintiff. The complaint alleges knowledge of the patent for willfulness and indirect infringement purposes as of the lawsuit's filing date, while reserving the right to amend if an earlier date of knowledge is discovered.

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," issued May 8, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of portable computing devices being "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. 1:40-43). The patent notes that while devices have adjustable features, a user may need to personalize a profile beyond preloaded settings to fit specific requirements (’389 Patent, col. 1:44-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a software application that allows a user to simultaneously alter both the operation and appearance of a portable device to create a custom "mode" or "skin" (’389 Patent, col. 1:26-29, col. 2:3-5). This is achieved by receiving user requests via on-screen "actuation objects" to adjust features like backlight level and font, alter the notification "frequency mode" (e.g., from audio to haptic), and aggregate various communication applications (e.g., email, messaging, social media) onto a single, customizable screen (’389 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-24). The key concept is a user-driven, on-device system for creating and implementing personalized device profiles without requiring external connectivity or running as a background process (’389 Patent, col. 1:53-55; col. 15:8-10).
• Technical Importance: The technology addresses the need for highly granular, user-initiated personalization of mobile device interfaces and notifications, combining multiple settings changes and application groupings into a single, selectable mode.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising a portable computing device with a processor and non-volatile memory, where the memory stores instructions that cause the processor to:
  • receive a first mode alteration request using a first actuation object;
  • selectably aggregate a plurality of email applications;
  • selectably aggregate a plurality of messaging systems;
  • selectably aggregate a plurality of social network applications;
  • selectably alter backlight level on the touchscreen display;
  • selectably alter font on the touchscreen display;
  • selectably alter frequency mode;
  • accept at least one of the alterations and the aggregations using a second actuation object; and
  • implement the mode alteration using a third actuation object.
• The complaint does not specifically identify which dependent claims it may assert.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "LG Watch" is identified as the Accused Instrumentality (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the LG Watch is a portable computing device and that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers systems and methods that selectably alter the operation and appearance" of it (Compl. ¶8). The functionality is broadly described as infringing the patent's claims for such alteration, but no specific features of the LG Watch (e.g., a specific settings menu or application) are detailed in the complaint body (Compl. ¶¶7-8). The complaint suggests the accused functionality is valuable, stating Defendant has procured "monetary and commercial benefit from it" (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "preliminary table attached as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations, but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶9). The analysis below is based on the general allegations in the main complaint body.

’389 Patent Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory rests on the general capability of the LG Watch to have its "operation and appearance" altered (Compl. ¶8). A central question will be whether the standard settings and personalization features of the LG Watch meet the specific, multi-step process recited in the claims, including the use of three distinct "actuation objects."
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the LG Watch performs the claimed function of "selectably aggregat[ing]" email, messaging, and social network applications. The patent describes this as displaying objects for each application in a single screen with a selectable order (’389 Patent, col. 5:30-43; Fig. 3). The infringement case will depend on whether the LG Watch's notification center or other features can be shown to operate in this specific manner.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "selectably aggregate"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in three separate limitations of claim 1 (b, c, and d) and is central to the invention's claimed novelty of combining disparate communication sources into a single, user-configurable interface. The viability of the infringement claim will depend heavily on whether the LG Watch's handling of notifications and apps qualifies as "aggregating" them in the manner described by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification summary describes the invention as causing a processor to "selectably aggregate a plurality of email applications; selectably aggregate a plurality of messaging systems; [and] selectably aggregate a plurality of social network applications" without further restriction, suggesting a general gathering function (’389 Patent, col. 2:16-19).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures provide a more specific implementation. Figure 3 shows a single screen where icons for different services (e.g., GMail, Facebook, SMS) are listed together, and the description notes the user can "prioritize the appearance of the applications on touch screen display 103 by moving up... or moving down... an application" (’389 Patent, col. 12:35-39; Fig. 3). This may support a narrower construction requiring a single, unified, and re-orderable list, not just a standard notification tray.

• The Term: "actuation object"

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a sequence of three distinct actuation objects to request, accept, and implement the mode alteration. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case requires identifying three separate user interface elements in the LG Watch that map to these claimed objects.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition, leaving the term open to its plain and ordinary meaning. The specification refers generally to actuating a "sub-menu object" (’389 Patent, col. 12:28).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific examples, such as an "application launcher object 101" for the first object, a "Settings" button (110) for the second, and an "Apply" button (120) for the third (’389 Patent, col. 4:56-59; Fig. 1B). This suggests the objects are discrete, interactive elements like icons or buttons that a user must sequentially engage to complete the claimed method.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others" on how to use its products to infringe (’389 Patent, ¶¶10, 11). It further alleges there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for the accused products and services (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged knowledge of the ’389 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶10, 11). Plaintiff seeks treble damages and a declaration that the case is exceptional (Compl. ¶V.d-e).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "selectably aggregate," as used in the patent, be construed broadly to cover standard smartwatch notification management, or is it limited to the specific embodiment of a single, unified, and re-orderable list of application icons as depicted in the patent's figures?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of procedural mapping: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the user workflow for personalizing the LG Watch involves a sequence of three distinct "actuation objects" corresponding to the "request," "accept," and "implement" steps required by claim 1, or will the accused functionality be shown to operate through a different, non-infringing process?
3. The case will also turn on a question of specificity: Given the complaint’s general allegations and lack of a detailed infringement chart, a central challenge for the Plaintiff will be to produce evidence in discovery that maps specific, identifiable features of the LG Watch to each element of the asserted claims, particularly the aggregation and multi-step actuation limitations.