ProudLion IP LLC v. Guang Dong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ProudLion IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Guang Dong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00619, W.D. Tex., 06/01/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed acts of infringement there, and conducts substantial business in the forum.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Oppo Watch infringes a patent related to systems and methods for selectably altering the operational and visual parameters of a portable computing device.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns user interface customization on portable devices, allowing users to create and apply custom "skins" or operating modes with pre-set visual and functional characteristics for different environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation or administrative proceedings. Notably, the asserted patent was the subject of a Certificate of Correction, issued on May 21, 2019, which replaced the original, unrelated abstract with one that correctly describes the invention.

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 identifies the problem of conventional mobile devices being "obtrusive" in certain environments, such as a darkened hall or a quiet location, due to screen brightness and audible alerts (’389 Patent, col. 1:36-42). It also notes the need for users to personalize device profiles for specific requirements without necessarily having external network connectivity (’389 Patent, col. 1:50-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an application on a portable device that allows a user to create a customized operating mode or "skin" by simultaneously altering multiple parameters, such as backlight level, font characteristics, and alert frequency (e.g., audio vs. haptic) (’389 Patent, col. 2:3-24). The system also allows for the aggregation of various communication applications (e.g., email, messaging, social media) into a single, customized interface, with the user able to save and apply these altered settings for future use (’389 Patent, col. 2:16-24; col. 4:32-43).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a unified interface for creating and deploying comprehensive, user-defined device profiles that go beyond simple "silent" or "airplane" modes, tailoring both appearance and function to specific user contexts.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20, which includes independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 11 (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1 (System):
  • A portable computing device comprising a touch screen display with a variable lighting module, a frequency alteration module, a processor, and non-volatile memory.
  • The processor is configured by instructions 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 on the touchscreen display;
    • selectably alter font on the touchscreen display;
    • selectably alter 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 dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Oppo 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). No specific features of the Oppo Watch (e.g., specific settings menus, operating system features, or applications) are described. The complaint provides no specific allegations regarding the product's market position beyond a general claim that Defendant procured "monetary and commercial benefit" from the alleged infringement (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary claim chart in "Exhibit B" but does not attach it (Compl. ¶9). The complaint's narrative allegations are conclusory and do not map specific features of the Oppo Watch to the elements of the asserted claims. The infringement theory is broadly stated as Defendant providing systems that "selectably alter the operation and appearance of a portable computing device" in a way that infringes one or more claims of the ’389 Patent (Compl. ¶8).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Lacking a detailed infringement theory, the central questions will likely emerge during claim construction and discovery. Based on the claim language, key disputes may arise regarding:
  • Scope Questions:
    • Does the accused Oppo Watch perform the claimed step of "selectably aggregat[ing]" pluralities of separate email, messaging, and social network applications, or does it merely provide settings that apply universally to notifications from such applications?
    • What is the scope of the distinct "first," "second," and "third" actuation objects, and can these three distinct user actions be mapped to the operation of the Oppo Watch?
  • Technical Questions:
    • What specific feature of the Oppo Watch constitutes the claimed "frequency alteration module"?
    • What evidence will show that the Oppo Watch performs all the claimed alteration steps (backlight, font, frequency) and aggregation steps as part of a single, unified "mode alteration" process as recited in the claims?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "selectably aggregate a plurality of [email/messaging/social network] applications" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of "aggregate" is central to the infringement analysis. The dispute will likely focus on whether this requires compiling the applications themselves into a new interface, as some embodiments suggest, or whether it can be met by simply managing notifications or settings related to those applications.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "aggregate," which could be argued to cover a range of collection or management functions. The summary of the invention also refers broadly to "aggregating applications on a portable and/or mobile computing device" (’389 Patent, col. 2:66-68).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures illustrate aggregation as displaying objects for each application on a single screen for prioritization and integrated management (e.g., displaying icons for "primary work email 141," "GMAIL™ account 142," etc. on a single sub-menu) (’389 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 12:30-45). This could support a narrower construction requiring the creation of a unified dashboard or list.

The Term: "first actuation object" / "second actuation object" / "third actuation object" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The claim requires three distinct "actuation objects" to perform three distinct functions: requesting alteration, accepting alterations, and implementing alterations. Infringement will depend on whether three separate, corresponding user interactions can be identified in the accused product.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides flexible examples, describing an "actuation object" as potentially an "application launcher object," a "shortcut icon," or a "sub menu icon associated with a touched menu element" (’389 Patent, col. 4:56-58; col. 15:3-5). This could allow for different types of UI elements to meet the limitations.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes a sequence: a user launches the app (first object, e.g., 101), selects and confirms settings (second object, e.g., 110/112-116), and then applies the changes (third object, e.g., 120 "Apply") (’389 Patent, col. 5:45-50; Fig. 1B). A defendant may argue this specific three-step sequence (Launch -> Configure/Accept -> Apply) is required.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others" on how to use its products to infringe (Compl. ¶10). The basis for contributory infringement includes the same allegation, plus the conclusory statement that there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for the accused products (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant's knowledge of the ’389 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10, footnote 1; Compl. ¶11, footnote 2). This frames the allegation as one of post-suit willfulness.

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

1. A primary question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations, a key issue will be whether discovery reveals evidence that the accused Oppo Watch actually performs the multi-step process of aggregating disparate applications and altering multiple device parameters as claimed, or if its functionality is more limited.
2. The case will likely turn on claim construction, specifically the definitional scope of "aggregate": The outcome may depend on whether "to aggregate" applications requires the creation of a new, unified user interface (as patent figures suggest) or can be construed more broadly to cover consolidated notification management or settings that apply across multiple apps.
3. A third critical issue will be mapping the accused product's operation to the claim structure: Plaintiff must demonstrate that the Oppo Watch utilizes three distinct "actuation objects" to perform the separate functions of requesting, accepting, and implementing a mode alteration, a structural requirement that may be a significant point of contention.