Neodron Ltd v. Microsoft Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Neodron Ltd. (Ireland)
  • Defendant: Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00321, W.D. Tex., 05/21/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Microsoft is registered to do business in Texas, has transacted business in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including corporate offices and a retail store in Austin.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Microsoft Surface Book 2 infringes four patents related to touchscreen and capacitive keyboard technology.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns patented improvements to capacitive touch-sensing technology, which is a key component in modern consumer electronics such as notebooks, tablets, and smartphones.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant was also put on notice of the asserted patents and its alleged infringement through the filing of a parallel complaint at the United States International Trade Commission (ITC), a venue known for expedited proceedings that can result in exclusion orders barring the importation of infringing products.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173 - “Capacitive Position Sensor”

Issued April 30, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes limitations in prior art user interfaces for adjusting parameters like volume or temperature using a touch sensor. These systems either force a user to wait a fixed time (e.g., 10 seconds) to enter a "zoom" or fine-adjustment mode, or they transition automatically upon an initial touch, which may not be the user's intent. (’173 Patent, col. 2:51-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a two-mode sensor system. In a first mode, a user's initial touch on a sensor path selects an approximate or "coarse" value from a full range. The system then switches to a second, "fine-adjustment" mode in response to the user sliding their finger along the sensor path. This displacement-based trigger allows for an immediate transition from coarse to fine control without a mandatory waiting period. (’173 Patent, col. 4:21-34; Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to make user interfaces more efficient and intuitive by allowing a rapid "point and slide" action to set a precise value, overcoming the usability trade-offs of prior systems. (’173 Patent, col. 2:39-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 10, and 19 (Compl. ¶15).
• Independent Claim 1 (method) requires:
  • Receiving one or more first signals indicating an object's initial capacitive coupling at a first position on a sensing path.
  • Determining the first position and setting a parameter to an initial value based on that position.
  • Receiving one or more second signals indicating a displacement of the object along the sensing path from the first position.
  • Determining the displacement and adjusting the parameter based on the displacement.
• Independent claim 10 recites a computer-readable medium with logic to perform these steps, and independent claim 19 recites an apparatus comprising a sensing element and logic to do the same. The complaint also asserts claims 2-9 and 11-18 (Compl. ¶13).

U.S. Patent No. 8,791,910 - “Capacitive Keyboard With Position-Dependent Reduced Keying Ambiguity”

Issued July 29, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: On small, tightly packed capacitive keypads, a user's finger often overlaps multiple keys at once. This creates ambiguity, as the system cannot be certain which key was intended. This problem is exacerbated by "handshadow," where the finger's approach from below might generate a strong signal on a key below the intended target. (’910 Patent, col. 1:44-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes resolving this ambiguity by using a "predefined ranking scheme" based on key position. For example, keys in an upper row are assigned a higher rank than keys in a lower row. When multiple keys are activated simultaneously, the controller is configured to select the key with the highest positional rank as the intended one, even if another activated key has a stronger signal. (’910 Patent, col. 3:25-45; FIG. 3).
• Technical Importance: This method sought to improve typing accuracy on small devices by using positional logic that reflects common user behavior (e.g., a finger approaching a keypad from the bottom up). (’910 Patent, col. 5:25-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 13, and 25 (Compl. ¶23).
• Independent Claim 1 (method) requires:
  • Receiving two or more output signals from two or more sensing areas, where each area has a position.
  • If two or more output signals exceed a predefined activation level, then selecting a particular one of those sensing areas as the intended one.
  • The selection is based on a "predefined ranking scheme that prioritizes the two or more sensing areas based on the positions of the two or more sensing areas."
• Independent claim 13 recites a computer-readable medium embodying logic to perform the method, and independent claim 25 recites a corresponding apparatus. The complaint also asserts claims 2-12 and 14-24, and 26-37 (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 9,024,790 - “Capacitive Keyboard With Non-Locking Reduced Keying Ambiguity”

Issued May 5, 2015

• Technology Synopsis: This patent also addresses keying ambiguity. It describes an iterative, "non-locking" method where a first key is selected based on having the maximum signal strength, but this selection is released if a second key's signal strength later exceeds the first. This allows for a smooth "rollover" from one key to the next as a user's finger slides across a keyboard, rather than having the first key remain "locked" as active. (’790 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-19).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are asserted (Compl. ¶31).
• Accused Features: The touchscreen keyboard functionality of the Microsoft Surface Book 2 13.5 is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 9,372,580 - “Enhanced Touch Detection Methods”

Issued June 21, 2016

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses touch detection inaccuracies caused by environmental factors or "free space effects," such as poor grounding or signal retransmission between multiple touch points. The invention describes methods of sending different types of signals to the touch sensor lines (e.g., driving signals while other lines are grounded versus floating) and using the resulting measurements to compensate the final touch data, thereby filtering out noise and improving accuracy. (’580 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:26-41).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 are asserted (Compl. ¶39).
• Accused Features: The touch detection methods used in the Microsoft Surface Book 2 13.5 are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶37).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names the "Microsoft Surface Book 2 13.5" as a representative accused product, along with other unspecified products that are "not materially different" (Compl. ¶13, ¶21, ¶29, ¶37).

Functionality and Market Context

• The allegations target the device's core touchscreen and virtual keyboard functionalities. The complaint broadly asserts that these products incorporate the patented technologies for adjusting settings via touch, resolving ambiguous key presses on the virtual keyboard, and compensating for environmental noise to improve touch accuracy (Compl. ¶15, ¶23, ¶31, ¶39). The complaint frames touchscreen technology as being of ubiquitous importance to the user experience in modern computing devices (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the asserted patents but refers to claim-chart exhibits that were not provided with the filed complaint. It therefore does not contain a narrative infringement theory or specific, element-by-element allegations in the body of the document.

’173 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products satisfy the limitations of at least claims 1-19, including independent claims 1, 10, and 19, and refers to a forthcoming claim chart in Exhibit 2 for the specific mapping of product features to claim elements (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). Without this exhibit, the precise factual basis for the infringement allegation is not detailed in the complaint.

’910 Patent Infringement Allegations

Similarly, the complaint alleges that the Accused Products satisfy the limitations of at least claims 1-37, including independent claims 1, 13, and 25, citing a claim chart in Exhibit 4 that was not provided (Compl. ¶21, ¶23). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a limitation-by-limitation analysis of the infringement theory.

Identified Points of Contention

• For the ’173 Patent, a central question may be one of functional implementation: Do any parameter adjustment controls in the accused software (e.g., a brightness or volume slider) operate using the claimed two-mode method? The analysis will likely focus on whether the software transitions from a coarse setting mode to a fine-tuning mode specifically in response to a moving displacement of a touch, as required, or if it uses a different mechanism.
• For the ’910 Patent, the dispute may center on algorithmic architecture: When a touch spans multiple virtual keys, does the accused software employ a predefined, position-based ranking scheme to resolve the ambiguity? The case could turn on whether the accused algorithm prioritizes keys based on their location (e.g., upper vs. lower row) or relies on other heuristics like signal strength, timing, or a more dynamic, non-positional logic.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’173 Patent

• The Term: "adjusting the parameter...based on the displacement of the object" (Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the infringement analysis. The dispute may focus on whether this requires the specific two-mode "zoom" functionality described in the specification or if it can read on any standard slider input where movement changes a value.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not explicitly recite separate "modes" of operation, which could support an argument that any adjustment that is mathematically dependent on finger displacement meets the limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily frames the invention around a transition from a first, coarse-selection mode to a second, fine-adjustment "zoom mode" that is triggered by finger displacement, as illustrated in Figures 2A and 2B. Language describing this two-mode operation as a key feature could be used to argue that "based on the displacement" implies this specific fine-tuning functionality. (’173 Patent, col. 8:10-36).

’910 Patent

• The Term: "a predefined ranking scheme that prioritizes...based on the positions" (Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This is the core inventive concept. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether Microsoft's software uses a "ranking scheme" that is both "predefined" and "based on...positions."
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that this term covers any algorithm that incorporates key position as a factor in resolving ambiguity, even if combined with other metrics like signal strength or timing.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term requires a fixed, static hierarchy of keys based on their location, as exemplified in the patent's figures which assign explicit numerical ranks to keys. (’910 Patent, FIG. 3-5). This interpretation would suggest that position must be the primary or determinative basis for the prioritization, not merely one input into a complex, dynamic heuristic.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four asserted patents. It claims Microsoft had knowledge of the patents and the alleged infringement via the filing of this complaint and a parallel ITC complaint. It further alleges Microsoft induces its customers to infringe by providing user manuals and instructions that direct users to operate the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14, ¶22, ¶30, ¶38).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, the allegations that Microsoft has knowledge of its alleged infringement and "continues to actively encourage" infringing acts may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness, which could lead to enhanced damages if infringement is found (Compl. ¶14, ¶22, ¶30, ¶38).

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

• Algorithmic Deep Dive: For the '910, '790, and '580 patents, the central issue will be one of algorithmic equivalence. The case will likely depend on a highly technical, code-level analysis to determine if the touch-processing software in Microsoft's Surface products implements the specific, patented methods for position-based key ranking ('910), "non-locking" key rollover ('790), and multi-signal environmental compensation ('580).
• Definitional Scope: The construction of key claim terms will be critical. A core question is whether terms like "predefined ranking scheme" ('910 patent) will be interpreted narrowly to mean the static, position-determinative systems shown in the patent, or broadly enough to cover modern, complex software heuristics where position is merely one of many factors.
• Functional Operation vs. Claim Language: For the '173 patent, a key question will be whether the accused interface performs the specific two-mode "coarse-to-fine" adjustment function detailed in the specification. The dispute may turn on whether the claim language can be limited to that specific function or if its plain meaning covers more conventional slider behavior.