ProudLion IP LLC v. Microsoft Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ProudLion IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00615, W.D. Tex., 06/01/2023
• 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 and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Microsoft Launcher software 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 mobile devices that allow users to create customized "skins" or "modes" by adjusting user interface elements like fonts, backlighting, and notification settings, and aggregating different communication applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

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 use of conventional mobile devices as potentially "obtrusive" in certain environments, such as a "darkened environment" or where "silence is expected or needed," due to screen lighting and other factors. (’389 Patent, col. 1:39-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an application or "skin" that allows a user to adjust a device's operational and appearance parameters (e.g., brightness, font, notification modes) to create a custom "altered mode." (’389 Patent, col. 1:25-34). This altered mode can then be activated as a selectable starting point, separate from a default mode, allowing for user-defined profiles tailored to specific circumstances without requiring external prompts or network connectivity. (’389 Patent, col. 1:52-56). The system also contemplates the aggregation of various communication applications (email, messaging, social media) into a single, customizable interface. (’389 Patent, col. 2:15-18).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide a consolidated and highly personalized user experience, allowing for deep customization of a device's interface and notifications to match specific user needs or environmental contexts. (’389 Patent, col. 1:43-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 of the ’389 Patent. (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is directed to a system, and independent claim 11 is directed to a method.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A portable computing device comprising a touch screen display with a variable lighting module, a frequency alteration module, a processor, and a non-volatile memory.
  • Processor-readable instructions on the memory configured to cause the processor to:
    • receive a first mode alteration request using a first actuation object;
    • selectably aggregate a plurality of email, messaging, and social network applications;
    • selectably alter backlight level, font, and frequency mode;
    • accept at least one of the alterations and aggregations using a second actuation object; and
    • implement the mode alteration using a third actuation object.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert all dependent claims. (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is "Microsoft Launcher." (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Microsoft Launcher is a system that "selectably alter[s] the operation and appearance of a portable computing device." (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of Microsoft Launcher beyond this general allegation. It asserts that but for Microsoft’s actions in making the product available, the "claimed-inventions embodiments" would not have been put into service, generating "monetary and commercial benefit" for the Defendant. (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that support for its infringement allegations is found in a "preliminary table attached as Exhibit B." (Compl. ¶9). This exhibit was not included with the filed complaint. In the absence of a claim chart, the infringement theory must be inferred from the body of the complaint, which alleges that Microsoft Launcher infringes claims 1-20 of the ’389 Patent by being a system that "selectably alter[s] the operation and appearance of a portable computing device." (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide further narrative detail mapping specific features of Microsoft Launcher to the limitations of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the scope of "frequency alteration module." The patent describes this module as enabling selection between an "audio signal" and a "haptic output signal." (’389 Patent, col. 14:51-55). The infringement analysis will question whether Microsoft Launcher’s general notification sound/vibration settings meet this potentially more specific definition.
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether Microsoft Launcher performs the claimed "selectably aggregate" function for email, messaging, and social network applications. The complaint provides no facts explaining how the accused product aggregates these distinct application types into a customizable interface as recited in the claims and depicted in the patent’s figures (e.g., FIG. 3). The analysis will question what evidence shows that Microsoft Launcher performs this specific multi-part aggregation.
• Functional Questions: The claims require a sequence of receiving a request via a "first actuation object," accepting alterations via a "second actuation object," and implementing them via a "third actuation object." (’389 Patent, col. 14:26-40). It is an open question whether the user interaction flow within Microsoft Launcher can be mapped to this specific three-object command structure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"frequency alteration module" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because it appears to require a specific hardware or software component for managing notification types. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if standard operating system notification controls (e.g., sound on/off, vibrate on/off) meet the claimed functionality.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general and could be argued to encompass any module that alters the frequency of alerts, including simple on/off toggles for sound and vibration.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states the module "is configured to enable selection between a first frequency mode and a second frequency mode, and wherein the first frequency mode provides an audio signal and the second frequency mode provides a haptic signal." (’389 Patent, col. 14:51-55). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a distinct choice between audio and haptic outputs.

"selectably aggregate a plurality of... applications" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is repeated for email, messaging, and social network applications and forms the core of the asserted application-management functionality. The case may turn on whether "aggregate" means merely grouping icons in a folder or requires the deeper functional integration of content streams implied by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes the system as configured to "selectably aggregate a plurality of email applications," etc., without detailing the required level of integration. (’389 Patent, col. 2:15-18). This could support an argument that any form of user-selectable grouping meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 and its description depict a single screen listing multiple email accounts (141-144) and messaging/social apps (145-149), with the ability to prioritize their display order. (’389 Patent, col. 12:31-45). This suggests "aggregate" may require combining notifications or content from different sources into a unified view, rather than just organizing shortcuts.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶¶10-11). For inducement, it alleges Microsoft "actively encouraged or instructed others... on how to use its products." (Compl. ¶10). For contributory infringement, it alleges there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for Microsoft Launcher. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not cite specific instructional materials or marketing documents to support these allegations.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’389 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit." (Compl. ¶¶10-11). This allegation, as pleaded, appears to be based on post-filing knowledge rather than any pre-suit notice.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "frequency alteration module," which the patent specification links to a specific choice between audio and haptic signals, be construed to cover the general-purpose notification settings found in a modern mobile operating environment and allegedly used by Microsoft Launcher?
2. The central evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: what evidence will Plaintiff present to demonstrate that Microsoft Launcher performs the specific function of "selectably aggregat[ing]" pluralities of email, messaging, and social network applications, as required by the claims, beyond simply allowing users to group application icons?
3. A key procedural question will be one of structural equivalence: can the user workflow for applying settings in Microsoft Launcher be shown to map onto the patent’s claimed three-part structure of a "first actuation object" to initiate, a "second actuation object" to accept, and a "third actuation object" to implement the custom mode?