DCT
1:23-cv-01351
Haptic Inc v. Apple Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Haptic, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Apple, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Susman Godfrey LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01351, W.D. Tex., 11/06/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant Apple maintaining regular and established places of business in the Western District of Texas, including multiple Austin locations, and committing acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Back Tap" feature, available on iPhone models, infringes a patent related to systems that use surface impacts to control electronic devices.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using an accelerometer to detect tap-based gestures on a physical surface and translating those gestures into commands for a separate terminal device.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Apple representatives met with Haptic in 2016 and 2017 to discuss Haptic’s "patent pending" technology and explore partnership opportunities, after which Apple allegedly launched the accused "Back Tap" feature.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-02-13 | ’738 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-05-23 | Apple representative allegedly contacts Haptic CEO |
| 2016-12-06 | In-person meeting allegedly held between Haptic and Apple |
| 2017-08-01 | Call allegedly held between Haptic and Apple (approx. date) |
| 2018-06-12 | U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738 issues |
| 2020-09-14 | Apple launches "Back Tap" feature with iOS 14 |
| 2023-11-06 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738 - "System and method for controlling a terminal device," issued June 12, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies limitations with conventional device control methods, such as the proliferation of single-purpose remote controls that are easily misplaced, the unreliability of voice commands in noisy environments, and the high cost and aesthetic disruption of integrating touchscreens directly into furniture or walls (col. 2:3-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a control system that turns a common, independent surface (e.g., a table or wall) into an interface for controlling a terminal device (e.g., a television or light fixture) (col. 4:30-36). A housing containing a sensor is placed on or near a "mounting surface," which then becomes an "interactive zone." When a user taps or knocks on this surface, the sensor detects the resulting vibrations, a server processes these vibration data signals into a command, and the command is transmitted to the terminal device to perform an action (col. 4:51-65; FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: The described system aims to "remove the boundary between the touch-sensitive region and non-touch regions so that an entire surface can be an interactive zone," offering a more flexible and accessible control method than dedicated buttons or touchpads (col. 4:41-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A control system comprising a "housing having an engagement means for a mounting surface."
- A "sensor contained within said housing," comprising an accelerometer, that forms an "interactive zone... aligned with said mounting surface and overlaying said mounting surface outside a perimeter of said housing."
- The sensor detects a "contact interaction" (an impact) on the mounting surface as "vibration data."
- A "server in communication with said sensor" that receives the data signals, determines a data pattern, and matches it to a "gesture profile" associated with a command.
- A "terminal device" that receives the command from the server and initiates a corresponding activity.
- The "engagement means" comprises an "attachment means" and a "transmission portion" connecting the sensor to the attachment means.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 9 (Compl. ¶52).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are identified as "Apple's Back Tap feature and every model of iPhone that Apple has introduced since the iPhone 8 series" (Compl. ¶44).
Functionality and Market Context
The "Back Tap" feature allows a user to tap the back of an iPhone handset ("double taps" and "triple taps") to execute pre-configured functions (Compl. ¶46). These functions can control the iPhone itself or external devices, including through Apple's "Shortcuts" application for creating custom automations (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 48). The complaint alleges that Back Tap was a prominently featured accessibility function upon its launch with iOS 14 and has been included in all subsequent iOS versions (Compl. ¶41).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused iPhones embody the claimed control system, with the iPhone itself containing the housing, sensor, server, and terminal device elements (Compl. ¶¶ 44-48, 58). The complaint provides a diagram illustrating the alleged "Interactive Zone" and "Tap Interaction" on the back of an iPhone (Compl. ¶47). This visual shows the user tapping the back surface of the iPhone device itself (Compl. ¶47, Figure).
'738 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing having an engagement means for a mounting surface | The iPhone chassis is alleged to be the housing. | ¶44 | col. 4:42-43 |
| a sensor contained within said housing, said sensor forming an interactive zone... comprised of an accelerometer | The iPhone contains an internal accelerometer that detects taps on the back of the device. This detection area is alleged to be the "interactive zone." | ¶45, ¶47 | col. 7:18-20 |
| said interactive zone being aligned with said mounting surface and overlaying said mounting surface outside a perimeter of said housing | The complaint alleges this element is met, with the "interactive zone" being the back surface of the iPhone. | ¶16, ¶47 | col. 7:46-49 |
| a server in communication with said sensor, said server being comprised of a... processing module... determining a data pattern corresponding to said data signals... and matching said data pattern with a gesture profile | The iPhone’s internal processor, running iOS, is alleged to be the server. It allegedly receives vibration data from the accelerometer, determines if it is a double or triple tap (the "data pattern"), and matches it to a user-configured command (the "gesture profile") via the "Shortcuts" or settings applications. | ¶46, ¶58 | col. 9:40-54 |
| a terminal device being comprised of a receiving module and means for initiating activity... in communication with said server | The terminal device is alleged to be the iPhone itself or an external device (e.g., HomeKit accessory, Apple Watch). The iPhone's iOS or the external device’s hardware/software receives the command and initiates the corresponding function. | ¶45, ¶48 | col. 10:1-16 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary issue will be the construction of the phrase "interactive zone... outside a perimeter of said housing." The complaint's theory appears to equate the interactive zone with the housing's own back surface (Compl. ¶47). The patent specification, however, consistently depicts the housing (20) as a discrete unit that makes an external, separate "mounting surface" (22) interactive (e.g., '738 Patent, FIGS. 5, 7, 8). This raises the question of whether a feature that operates on the housing itself can be "outside" its perimeter.
- Technical Questions: What constitutes the "mounting surface" in the context of the accused product? The patent describes mounting the housing on surfaces like tables and walls ('738 Patent, col. 6:65-68). The complaint does not specify what it considers the mounting surface to be when a user taps the iPhone. This ambiguity will likely be a focus of dispute.
- Scope Questions: Does the iPhone's integrated processor function as the claimed "server"? The patent describes a "server 40" that communicates with the sensor and terminal device, potentially over a network like Wi-Fi ('738 Patent, col. 5:21-26, FIG. 1). The court will need to determine if the term "server" as claimed can be construed to cover a processor integrated within the same physical unit that constitutes the housing, sensor, and terminal device.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "interactive zone ... outside a perimeter of said housing"
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is central to the infringement analysis. The plaintiff's case requires this language to read on an area that is part of the housing's own external surface. The defense may argue this is a physical impossibility and that the claim requires two distinct objects: a housing and a separate mounting surface where the interactive zone lies.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide specific evidence from the patent for this interpretation. A plaintiff might argue that "outside a perimeter" could refer to the operational zone being external to the internal components, even if it is on the physical chassis.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly shows the housing (20) being placed on or behind a separate mounting surface (22), such as a table or wall, which then becomes the interactive zone ('738 Patent, FIGS. 5, 7, 8, 9). Language stating the invention "convert[s] any independent mounting surface into a controller" further supports the interpretation that the housing and the interactive surface are separate entities (col. 4:31-33).
Term: "server"
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on the iPhone's internal processor being a "server." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether an integrated, all-in-one device can infringe a claim describing a system of distinct components.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the server by its function: it comprises a "routing module," a "processing module," and an "output module" that collectively process sensor data and generate a command ('738 Patent, col. 12:1-12). An integrated processor performs these functions, which may support a broader, function-based definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts the "server 40" as a logically separate component from the sensor (30) and the terminal devices (50), communicating via a router (42) ('738 Patent, FIG. 1). The specification also discusses communication via "wifi, Bluetooth, local area network, wired or other wireless connection," which often implies communication between separate devices (col. 5:21-26).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges contributory infringement, stating that Apple sells the iPhones, which are material components for practicing the patent, to end-users who directly infringe by using the Back Tap feature to control the iPhone or third-party devices (Compl. ¶¶ 60-61). The complaint notes Apple's control over the "HomeKit" architecture as further evidence (Compl. ¶61).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on Apple's purported pre-suit knowledge of Haptic's technology. The complaint claims Apple had "actual notice of Haptic's patent application at least as early as December 2016" through meetings where Haptic allegedly discussed its "patent pending" technology with Apple representatives (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 63).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim limitation requiring an "interactive zone... outside a perimeter of said housing" be construed to cover a feature where the interactive zone is the housing's own surface? The patent's specification and figures appear to create a significant challenge for this interpretation.
- A second key question will be one of component architecture: does the term "server," as described in the patent as a distinct logical block, read on an integrated processor within a unitary device like an iPhone? The outcome will depend on whether the court adopts a functional or a more structural interpretation of the claimed system.
- An important factual question, intertwined with the claim construction, will be one of technical mapping: how does the complaint's infringement theory reconcile the patent's system—which teaches attaching a sensor to an ordinary object to make it a controller—with the accused product, where the object being tapped is the intelligent device itself?