Kaifi LLC v. Apple Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kaifi LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00023, W.D. Tex., 01/06/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains regular and established places of business there, including corporate offices, a manufacturing facility, an engineering center, and multiple retail stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s iPad and Apple Pencil products, which feature hover detection capabilities, infringe a patent related to operating a touch panel by detecting a pointing means at different distances and switching detection sensitivities.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for enabling touch-sensitive surfaces to detect user inputs not just upon contact, but also upon close proximity (hovering), allowing for more nuanced user interactions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was originally assigned to JVC Kenwood Corporation and subsequently assigned to Plaintiff Kaifi LLC on December 2, 2025.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-05-28	U.S. Patent No. 8,446,385 Priority Date
2013-05-21	U.S. Patent No. 8,446,385 Issues
2025-12-02	’385 Patent assigned from JVC Kenwood Corporation to Plaintiff KAIFI
2026-01-06	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,446,385 - *"Electronic Device Having a Touch Panel and Operating Control Method"*

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that prior art methods for detecting the direction of a user's gesture (e.g., from the right or left side of a touch panel) required additional hardware like an infrared sensor, which resulted in a "complex configuration," increased cost, and a higher "load of calculation" (’385 Patent, col. 1:26-32; Compl. ¶19).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system within the touch panel itself that can distinguish between a pointing means (e.g., a finger) that is close to the screen (hovering) and one that is making contact. It accomplishes this by first operating at a high "close detection sensitivity" to detect a "close coordinate" when a finger approaches a "close plane" away from the panel, and then switching to a lower "contact detection sensitivity" to detect a "contact coordinate" as the finger moves to a "contact plane" nearer to or on the panel surface (’385 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:52-67). By comparing the initial close coordinate with the final contact coordinate, the device can determine the direction of the user's operation without needing external sensors (Compl. ¶20).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a device to interpret more complex directional inputs based on pre-touch proximity, enabling different operations "depending on a situation before a user touches the touch panel under a simple configuration" (’385 Patent, col. 2:18-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 (Compl. ¶29).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A touch panel to be operated by a pointing means.
  • A position detecting portion that detects a first coordinate when the pointing means is at a first position (away from the panel) and a second coordinate when the pointing means is at a second position (closer to the panel).
  • An operating control portion that controls an operation based on the first and second coordinates.
  • A detection sensitivity control portion that switches the detection sensitivity from a "first sensitivity" to a "second sensitivity" after the pointing means is sensed at the first position.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Instrumentalities include, but are not limited to, "Apple iPad, Apple iPad Air, Apple iPad Mini, Apple iPad Pro, Apple Pencil, and Apple Pencil Pro devices" (Compl. ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "implement touch panels with hover detection and control operations" (Compl. ¶26). This functionality allows devices like the iPad Pro, when used with an Apple Pencil, to detect the stylus when it is held near the screen without making physical contact. This "hover" capability enables features such as previewing tool sizes in drawing applications or expanding app widgets before selection. The complaint does not provide specific technical details on how Apple's hover feature is implemented. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "Appendix B" containing a claim chart, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶30). The narrative infringement theory alleges that the "hover detection" features of the Accused Instrumentalities practice the patented method. The core of the allegation is that when an Apple Pencil approaches an iPad screen, the device first detects the Pencil's position at a distance (the "close coordinate" with "first sensitivity") and then detects its position upon contact or nearer proximity (the "second coordinate" with "second sensitivity"). The device then allegedly uses these two distinct coordinates to control an operation, thereby meeting the limitations of the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a detection sensitivity control portion that switches...detection sensitivity...from first sensitivity to the second sensitivity"

  • Context and Importance: This "switching" element is the central mechanism of the claimed invention. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused Apple products perform a discrete "switch" between two different sensitivity levels, as opposed to using a different method for proximity sensing. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires two distinct, pre-defined operational states or if it can cover a more dynamic or continuous adjustment of sensing capability.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the switch can be accomplished in multiple ways, including by "changing a threshold for sensing movement of the pointing means" (’385 Patent, col. 7:37-39). This language could support an argument that any change in the sensing criteria to detect objects at different distances meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment describes a specific technical method for switching sensitivity: shortening the "time interval at which the position detecting portion...detects an amount of change of a capacitance value," which in turn "enhances accuracy of detection" for contact events (’385 Patent, col. 7:14-24). A defendant may argue that the claim should be construed to require this or a similar specific mechanism involving discrete changes in capacitance measurement timing.

• The Term: "a first coordinate on the touch panel corresponding to the first position"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines how the location of a hovering "pointing means" is translated into a data point. The dispute will likely center on whether Apple's method of determining a hover coordinate is equivalent to the method described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general, requiring only that a "coordinate on the touch panel" corresponds to the external position. This could be read to cover any system that maps a 3D hover point to a 2D screen coordinate.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific geometric method for determining this coordinate: it is "a coordinate of a point at which a line that crosses the position [Ppc] and is perpendicular to the touch panel 12 crosses the touch panel 12" (’385 Patent, col. 4:60-64). This description of a perpendicular projection could be used to argue for a narrower construction that excludes other mapping or estimation methods.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant encourages infringement through "advertisement, marketing," and the creation of "promotional and marketing materials, supporting materials, product manuals, and/or technical support and information" that instruct end-users on how to operate the accused hover features (Compl. ¶¶ 34-35).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patent "no later than the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶31). The complaint also pleads pre-suit willful blindness, alleging that to the extent Defendant lacked earlier actual knowledge, "it was willfully blind by deliberately avoiding investigating" (Compl. ¶31).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: Does Apple's hover detection technology operate by executing the claimed sequence of (1) detecting a coordinate with a first sensitivity, (2) discretely switching to a second sensitivity, and (3) detecting a second coordinate with that second sensitivity, or does it utilize a fundamentally different, non-infringing method for processing proximity and contact data?
• The case will also turn on a question of claim scope: Will the term "switches detection sensitivity" be construed broadly to cover any change in sensing thresholds, or will it be limited to the specific capacitance charge-timing embodiments detailed in the patent’s specification? The answer will determine whether the patent can read on the potentially different technology used in modern consumer electronics.