ProudLion IP LLC v. Fossil Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ProudLion IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Fossil Group, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00637, W.D. Tex., 06/05/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement in Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems and methods for altering the operational and visual characteristics of portable computing devices infringe a patent related to user-interface customization.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns software applications for personalizing the user experience on portable devices, such as smartphones or smartwatches, by allowing a user to create and apply custom profiles that alter settings like screen brightness, fonts, and notification types.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The patent is noted to be owned by assignment.

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's background section describes the problem of portable computing devices being "obtrusive" in certain environments, such as a "darkened environment, where silence is expected or needed," due to screen lighting and other factors (’389 Patent, col. 1:39-42). It also identifies a user's need to personalize a device's profile for specific situations ('389 Patent, col. 1:47-50).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an application that allows a user to adjust various device parameters—such as backlight level, font characteristics, and notification modes (e.g., audio vs. haptic)—and save these adjustments as a custom "altered mode." ('389 Patent, col. 1:28-34, col. 4:25-39). This user-created mode can then be activated as a new starting point for further alterations, distinct from the device's default settings. The solution also includes features for aggregating different types of communication applications (e.g., email, messaging, social media) within a single management interface ('389 Patent, Abstract, per Certificate of Correction).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a user-driven method for creating custom operating profiles that can be applied "without connectivity or be applied without external prompt, but rather through user selected actuation" ('389 Patent, col. 1:53-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶8, 10-11). Independent claim 1 is central.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising a portable computing device with a processor and memory containing instructions that cause the processor to perform a sequence of steps:
  • 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 reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused product or service by name. It refers generally to "The Accused Instrumentality" and to "systems and methods that selectably alter the operation and appearance of a portable computing device" that are maintained, operated, and administered by Fossil (Compl. ¶8-9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentality beyond conclusory allegations that it performs the functions recited in the patent claims (Compl. ¶8). No allegations regarding the products' commercial importance are made.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "preliminary table attached as Exhibit B" for support of its infringement allegations; this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶9). The complaint itself does not provide a narrative mapping of accused product features to claim limitations. The infringement theory is therefore limited to the general allegation that Fossil's systems and methods infringe claims 1-20 of the ’389 patent (Compl. ¶8).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent language and the general nature of the complaint, the infringement analysis may raise several questions:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires distinct "first," "second," and "third" actuation objects to perform the sequential functions of requesting, accepting, and implementing alterations. A central question will be whether any accused product workflow can be mapped to this specific three-step user-interaction model as described in the patent (e.g., launcher icon -> accept button -> apply button) ('389 Patent, Figs. 1B, 2).
  • Technical Questions: Does the accused "aggregation" of applications perform a specific function, such as creating a unified management interface as depicted in Figure 3 of the patent, or does it merely refer to the standard co-existence of different applications on an operating system? ('389 Patent, col. 12:30-45). What evidence demonstrates that an accused product contains a "frequency alteration module" that performs the claimed function of altering between audio and haptic modes, as opposed to simply having a speaker and a vibration motor? ('389 Patent, col. 4:25-39).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "selectably aggregate"

• Context and Importance: This term is recited for three different application types (email, messaging, social networks) in independent claim 1. Its construction is critical to determining whether the claim requires a specific software feature that combines or manages these applications in a unified way, or if it covers the standard functionality of a device that simply has such applications installed and selectable.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the manner of aggregation, which may support a construction covering any system where a user can select from a list of installed communication applications.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 and the accompanying description show a specific user interface where multiple email accounts and messaging services are brought together into a single "aggregated list" where their display order can be prioritized ('389 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 12:30-45). This may support an argument that "aggregate" requires more than just listing available apps and implies the creation of a unified, customizable view.

• The Term: "frequency alteration module"

• Context and Importance: This is a specific component recited in claim 1. Its definition will determine if a standard haptic engine or vibration motor found in a modern smartwatch or smartphone meets the limitation, or if a more specialized hardware or software component is required.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the module as being "configured to selectably change the output mode of the mobile device from audial to tactile (haptic) mode and vice versa" ('389 Patent, col. 4:27-30). This functional description could be argued to read on any device with both a speaker and a vibration motor that can be toggled by the user.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 5, which depends from claim 3 (which in turn depends from claim 1), specifies the module is configured for selection between a "first frequency mode" (audio) and a "second frequency mode" (haptic) ('389 Patent, col. 16:51-55). The use of distinct "modes" may suggest a specific software architecture for managing these outputs, rather than just the presence of the output hardware itself.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Fossil "actively encouraged or instructed others... on how to use its products and services" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶10). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for the accused products and services (Compl. ¶11). These allegations are not supported by specific factual assertions, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the ’389 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10-11). This basis would only support a claim for post-filing willfulness. A footnote indicates that Plaintiff reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. p. 3, n.1).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the absence of a named accused product or an infringement chart in the complaint, a threshold question is whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that any specific Fossil product or service implements the precise, multi-step process recited in claim 1, particularly the use of distinct "first, second, and third actuation objects" to request, accept, and implement user-defined settings.
• The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: Will the term "selectably aggregate", as used in the claims, be construed to require a specific, integrated user interface for managing disparate communication applications (as depicted in the patent’s figures), or is it broad enough to cover the standard functionality of a modern operating system that simply lists installed applications for notification management?
• A third key question will be one of technical correspondence: Does a standard vibration motor and speaker in a consumer electronic device constitute the "frequency alteration module" recited in the claims, or does the patent’s description of distinct "frequency modes" require a more specialized software or hardware implementation for managing haptic and audio outputs?