DCT
1:24-cv-01279
Ginko LLC v. Apple Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ginko, LLC (Michigan)
- Defendant: Apple, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Scheef & Stone LLP; Husch Blackwell LLP; The Simon Law Firm, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01279, W.D. Tex., 02/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including a large campus in Austin.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s NameDrop feature, available on its iPhone and Apple Watch products, infringes a patent related to proximity-based data and contact information sharing between electronic devices.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for mobile devices to detect other nearby devices and initiate a controlled exchange of contact information based on user permissions.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges Defendant had notice of the asserted patent at least as of the filing date of the initial complaint (October 24, 2024). The complaint also asserts a theory of pre-suit willful blindness, alleging that Defendant, as a sophisticated market participant, should have been aware of the patent due to its own patent clearance practices and Plaintiff’s public promotion of its technology at industry events beginning in 2019.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-07-22 | Earliest Priority Date for '573 Patent |
| 2019-03-01 | Plaintiff promotes patented technology at SXSW 2019 (approx. date) |
| 2021-06-01 | '573 Patent Issued |
| 2023-09-18 | Accused NameDrop feature released via iOS 17 update |
| 2023-10-25 | Accused NameDrop feature released via watchOS 10.1 update |
| 2024-10-24 | Date of Initial Complaint Filing (alleged date of knowledge) |
| 2025-02-03 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,025,573 - "Method and Apparatus for Data Sharing"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,025,573, "Method and Apparatus for Data Sharing", issued June 1, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for a modern alternative to physical business cards, noting that existing social media tools are geared toward online forums rather than facilitating immediate contact exchange in live, impromptu situations (’573 Patent, col. 1:26-33). It also highlights the need for users to control what information is shared and with whom (’573 Patent, col. 1:30-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method and system where a user device can identify a "potential contact" (another user's device), send a request to initiate a data exchange, and, upon acceptance, establish a mutual contact relationship (’573 Patent, Abstract). The system allows the user to define permission settings that control which subset of their data is shared with the other party, such as a "work profile" versus a "home profile" (’573 Patent, col. 5:39-45).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for location-aware, permission-based digital contact exchange, addressing a gap between legacy physical methods and asynchronous online social networking (’573 Patent, col. 1:26-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least claims 10, 11, and 14, with claim 10 being the independent claim (Compl. ¶50).
- Independent Claim 10 recites a system with a processor and memory containing instructions to perform operations, the key elements of which include:
- Identifying a potential contact for a user.
- Receiving a request from the user's device to become a contact with the potential contact.
- The request includes a permission setting indicating that a subset of the user's data is to be shared.
- Sending a communication to the potential contact to initiate a data exchange.
- In response to an acceptance, setting the user and potential contact as mutual contacts, making the subset of user data viewable to the new contact.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but its language ("at least claims 10, 11, and 14") suggests it may do so (Compl. ¶50).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Apple iPhones and Apple Watches that include the "NameDrop" feature (collectively, the "Infringing Devices") (Compl. ¶1). This feature was made available on iPhones via the iOS 17 update and on Apple Watches via the watchOS 10.1 update (Compl. ¶27, 28).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the NameDrop feature allows users to share contact information by bringing their Apple devices within close proximity (a few centimeters) of each other (Compl. ¶29, 32). This proximity detection allegedly triggers a user interface on both devices, prompting the users to confirm the exchange of contact information (Compl. ¶32).
- The functionality is alleged to rely on short-range wireless technologies such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), peer-to-peer Wi-Fi, and potentially Ultra-Wideband (UWB) to discover nearby devices and determine proximity (Compl. ¶35).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'573 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifying, for a user associated with a user device, a potential contact... | The Infringing Devices, using the NameDrop feature, are alleged to identify another user's device as a "potential contact" when brought into close proximity, using technologies like BLE and Wi-Fi to discover nearby devices. | ¶33, 35 | col. 17:4-8 |
| receiving, from the user device of the user, a request for the user to become a contact... | NameDrop allegedly activates and prompts users to share information when devices are held close together; this interaction is framed as the user's device receiving a request to initiate contact. | ¶31, 32, 33 | col. 17:9-12 |
| the request comprising a first permission setting...indicating that a subset of user data...is to be shared | The complaint alleges that through NameDrop, "depending on permission settings," the user's device transmits communications, and if accepted, the users "share corresponding user data." | ¶33 | col. 17:13-18 |
| sending, based on the request, a communication to the potential contact to initiate a data exchange | After a user initiates the process, their device allegedly "sends that user a request to become a contact" and "transmits communications to initiate the data exchange." | ¶33 | col. 17:19-21 |
| in response to receiving an acceptance...setting the user as a contact...[and] the potential contact as a contact... | The complaint alleges that if the potential contact accepts the communication, "both users become contacts and share corresponding user data," with the exchange being completed once both parties confirm. | ¶31, 33 | col. 17:22-30 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint anticipates a dispute over the term "location". It argues that "location" in the patent is not limited to absolute coordinates (like GPS) but also includes proximity detected by short-range signals (Compl. ¶39, 40). A central question will be whether NameDrop's use of BLE/UWB to detect when devices are "a few centimeters" apart meets the "location" limitations of the asserted claims.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the sequence of user actions in NameDrop—bringing devices together, seeing a visual "glow," and confirming a prompt—constitutes the "request for the user to become a contact" and the "acceptance of the communication" as recited in Claim 10. The court may need to determine if the alleged functionality maps onto the specific steps and components required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "location"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term appears central to the infringement analysis. The complaint alleges NameDrop's proximity detection infringes, while Apple might argue that its method does not involve a "location" in the sense of a specific address or set of geographic coordinates. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether proximity-based systems fall within the patent's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "location" can be relative, stating it can be computed by "calculating the distance between the user device and other user devices" (’573 Patent, col. 8:38-40) and that a device may use "peer-to-peer signals with a user device of another user located within a proximity" (’573 Patent, col. 6:21-24). This language may support an interpretation that includes relative proximity.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides examples that could support a more limited definition, such as a "global positioning system module or geolocation module" (’573 Patent, col. 4:15-16). Furthermore, dependent claim 12, which the complaint also references (Compl. ¶38), explicitly defines the "first location" as an "address," which may be used to argue for a narrower construction tied to fixed geographical places.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Apple actively encourages infringement through its official user guides, support pages, promotional videos, and public demonstrations (like its WWDC 2023 keynote) that instruct users how to use NameDrop in a manner that allegedly practices the patented methods (Compl. ¶43-46). Contributory infringement is also alleged, on the basis that NameDrop is a component especially adapted for the infringing use and lacks substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶49).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on two theories. First, it alleges post-suit willfulness, as Defendant has had knowledge of the patent since at least the filing of the initial complaint on October 24, 2024 (Compl. ¶12, 48). Second, it alleges pre-suit willful blindness, arguing that a sophisticated entity like Apple deliberately avoids confirming the existence of patents through its clearance processes and should have discovered the ’573 Patent given its industry position and Plaintiff’s promotional activities (Compl. ¶13-16).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "location," as used in the patent, be construed broadly to cover the relative proximity between two devices detected by short-range signals like UWB or BLE, or is it limited to a more traditional meaning of a fixed address or absolute geolocation coordinates?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: does the sequence of operations in Apple's NameDrop feature—where users bring devices close and confirm a prompt—contain the distinct claim elements of a "request... comprising a first permission setting" followed by an "acceptance of the communication," or is there a technical or sequential mismatch with the patented process?
- A third significant question will concern willfulness: can Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to support its claim of pre-suit willful blindness, or will the dispute over willfulness be limited to Defendant's conduct after it received notice of the lawsuit?