DCT

1:24-cv-00170

KP Innovations 2 LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00170, W.D. Tex., 02/19/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas due to Defendants’ business activities, including the operation of a Samsung Austin Research and Development Center, the Samsung Austin Semiconductor manufacturing facility, and the sale of accused products through retail stores within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s foldable smartphones in the Galaxy Z Fold and Galaxy Z Flip series infringe a patent related to handheld communication devices featuring input and display components on two opposing sides of a single housing.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns dual-sided user interfaces on portable electronic devices, a hardware configuration that has gained market prominence with the development of foldable smartphones.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a divisional of an application filed in 2001 and claims priority to a provisional application from 2000. The patent’s term was extended by 852 days pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(b). The complaint notes that the inventors formed the company that ultimately became the plaintiff entity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-25 ’168 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/243,162)
2001-10-25 Parent Application Filing Date (for U.S. Pat. 7,792,676)
2019-12-03 U.S. Patent No. 10,499,168 Issue Date
2024-02-19 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,499,168 - System, Method, and Apparatus for Providing Interpretive Communication on a Network (issued Dec. 3, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the logistical and financial challenges of providing timely, on-site, live human interpreters for location-specific interactions, particularly for the hearing impaired in environments like hospitals or police stations (’168 Patent, col. 2:20-29). It notes that existing remote solutions were often cumbersome and not readily available where needed (’168 Patent, col. 2:55-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system for providing network-based, real-time interpretation services. While the overall system is broad, the asserted claims focus on a specific apparatus: a handheld communication device (’168 Patent, col. 21:18-22:17). As depicted in the patent’s figures, this device comprises a single housing with cameras and screens on two opposite sides, designed to facilitate communication between two individuals facing each other, potentially with a remote interpreter mediating the conversation (’168 Patent, Fig. 3, Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: The invention conceived of a portable, dual-interface device for remote-mediated, face-to-face communication, anticipating a hardware paradigm that would later be commercialized in dual-screen and foldable smartphones (Compl. ¶30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent Claim 21, which incorporates independent Claim 18 and dependent Claim 19 (Compl. ¶¶37-39). The asserted independent claim is therefore Claim 18.
  • Independent Claim 18 requires:
    • A communication service device operable with a communication network.
    • The device is configured to receive and transmit information over the network.
    • The device has a housing with a "first side" and a "second side."
    • A "first input device" and "first display device" for visual information reside on the first side.
    • A "second input device" for visual information resides on the second side.
    • The components are oriented to allow a user to "access" the first input/display from the first side "at the same time as" the second input device from the second side.
  • The complaint states that Plaintiff reserves the right to modify its infringement theories and asserted claims as the case progresses (Compl. ¶44, ¶48).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are identified as Samsung smartphones that "include a first camera and display on a first side and a second camera and display on a second side accessible from the first side" (Compl. ¶34). The complaint specifically names the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold, Galaxy Z Flip, and their subsequent generations through the Galaxy Z Fold5 and Galaxy Z Flip5 (Compl. ¶35).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are foldable smartphones. The complaint alleges these devices possess cameras and displays on what it characterizes as two distinct sides: the exterior "cover" and the interior "main" surfaces (Compl. ¶¶41, 43). The complaint highlights features such as "Director's View," which allegedly allows for simultaneous recording from front and rear cameras, and "dual preview," which displays a camera preview on both the main and cover screens at the same time (Compl. p. 14, p. 17). This diagram of the Galaxy Z Fold5 shows the device's main components, including cameras and speakers on different surfaces (Compl. p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’168 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18 and Dependent Claims 19, 21) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A communication service device operable with a communication network, comprising: at least one user communication device configured to receive and transmit information over the communication network; The accused Galaxy Z Fold5 and Z Flip5 are alleged to be devices that manage connections to mobile networks to send and receive data (Compl. ¶41, p. 9). ¶41 col. 21:40-44
the at least one user communication device comprising a housing having a first side and a second side... The complaint identifies the body of the foldable phone as the "housing." It maps the "first side" to the surface with the cover screen and rear cameras, and the "second side" to the surface with the main screen and front/under-display camera (Compl. ¶41, p. 11). ¶41 col. 21:45-47
at least one first input device and first display device...resides on the first side of the housing... The "cover camera" is identified as the first input device and the "cover screen" is identified as the first display device, both on the exterior of the folded phone (Compl. ¶41, pp. 10-12). ¶41 col. 21:48-54
at least one second input device...resides on the second side of the housing; The "under display camera" (on the Fold5) or "front camera" (on the Flip5) is identified as the second input device, located on the interior of the unfolded phone (Compl. ¶41, pp. 10-12). ¶41 col. 21:55-58
wherein the first side of the housing and the second side of the housing face mutually opposite directions. [from Claim 19] The complaint uses diagrams of the accused products to allege that their exterior and interior faces are on opposite sides of the housing (Compl. ¶41, p. 15). ¶41 col. 22:5-8
includes, a second display device residing on the second side of the housing. [from Claim 21] The large, interior "main screen" of the accused foldable phones is alleged to be the second display device (Compl. ¶41, p. 17, citing manual for "dual preview" feature). ¶41 col. 22:15-17
wherein the first and second input devices and first display devices are carried by the housing in an orientation to allow...access [to both]...at the same time... The complaint alleges this is met by features like "Director's View," which can "record with the front and rear cameras at the same time," and the UI button for switching between cameras (Compl. ¶41, pp. 13-14). This screenshot shows the camera interface with a button to switch between camera views (Compl. p. 13). ¶41 col. 21:59-68
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the terms "first side" and "second side," as used in a patent depicting a rigid, non-folding device, can be construed to read on the outer (cover) and inner (main) surfaces of a modern foldable smartphone. The interpretation of "housing" in the context of a device with a hinge will be critical.
    • Technical Questions: The claim requires the ability to "access" inputs from both sides "at the same time." The complaint provides evidence of both simultaneous operation (Director's View) and rapid switching. A question for the court will be whether the ability to simply switch between cameras constitutes simultaneous "access" as required by the claim, or if concurrent data capture from both inputs is necessary to meet the limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "first side" and "second side" (of the housing)

    • Context and Importance: The entire infringement case rests on mapping these terms from the patent's rigid device embodiment to the distinct exterior and interior surfaces of the accused foldable phones. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification and figures do not explicitly describe a folding or hinged housing.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language uses the general term "housing" without specifying that it must be a single, rigid, non-articulating structure ('168 Patent, col. 21:46). Plaintiff may argue this term is broad enough to encompass any single device structure that contains the claimed components.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures consistently depict a unitary, non-folding "candy bar" style device where the two sides are permanently opposed back-to-back surfaces ('168 Patent, Figs. 3, 4). A party could argue these embodiments limit the scope of "side" to such a configuration, excluding the reconfigurable surfaces of a foldable device.

  • The Term: "access...at the same time"

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this phrase determines whether features that allow for rapid switching between cameras infringe, or if only features with proven simultaneous, concurrent operation can meet the limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "access" refers to the user's ability to control or select either input from within a single interface or application mode, and that having a button to instantly switch between them provides simultaneous "access" to both functions ('168 Patent, col. 21:62-68).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's overall goal of facilitating real-time, face-to-face interpreted conversations between two people suggests that the intended meaning was concurrent, simultaneous operation of the inputs and displays on both sides to enable a seamless interaction ('168 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 19:28-36).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations that would support a claim for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The allegations focus on direct infringement by Defendants for making, using, selling, and importing the accused products (Compl. ¶37).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief includes a request for "enhanced damages, including Plaintiff's attorneys' fees...pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285" (Compl. p. 19, ¶d). The complaint body does not plead facts typically used to support willfulness, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Can the term "housing" with a "first side" and "second side," originating from a 2000-era patent that illustrates a rigid device, be construed to encompass the hinged chassis and distinct inner/outer surfaces of a modern foldable smartphone?
  • A second key issue will be one of functional operation: Does the ability to rapidly switch between front and rear cameras, as alleged for the accused products, satisfy the claim requirement for "access...at the same time," or does the claim, read in light of the specification, require simultaneous and concurrent operation of the inputs on both sides of the device?