DCT

6:19-cv-00399

Neodron Ltd v. Microsoft Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00399, W.D. Tex., 06/28/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas, has transacted business in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including corporate offices and a retail store in Austin, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Microsoft Surface Book 2 infringes five patents related to various aspects of capacitive touchscreen technology, including methods for resolving keying ambiguity and specific electrode designs.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns patented improvements in touchscreen technology, a ubiquitous and critical component in modern consumer electronics such as smartphones, tablets, and notebooks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the Asserted Patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-07-12 ’286 Patent Priority Date
2006-10-20 ’547 and ’770 Patents Priority Date
2008-04-10 ’574 and ’960 Patents Priority Date
2012-01-24 ’286 Patent Issue Date
2013-08-06 ’547 Patent Issue Date
2015-02-03 ’574 Patent Issue Date
2015-07-21 ’770 Patent Issue Date
2018-10-02 ’960 Patent Issue Date
2019-06-28 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,102,286 - "Capacitive Keyboard with Non-Locking Reduced Keying Ambiguity"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,102,286, entitled "Capacitive Keyboard with Non-Locking Reduced Keying Ambiguity," issued on January 24, 2012.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a "keying ambiguity problem" that arises in keyboards with small, tightly packed capacitive keys, where a user's finger is likely to overlap multiple keys at once, potentially causing erroneous inputs (’286 Patent, col. 1:36-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides an iterative method for resolving this ambiguity. It involves measuring the signal strength from each key, identifying the key with the maximum signal, and designating it as the uniquely selected key. This selection is "non-locking," meaning it can be superseded if another key's signal strength later exceeds the current selection's signal or if the current key's signal drops below a threshold, allowing for a smooth "rollover" as a finger moves across the keypad (’286 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-15).
  • Technical Importance: The technology addresses a fundamental usability issue for compact electronic devices by providing a more reliable way to determine user intent on crowded capacitive keypads (’286 Patent, col. 1:24-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-24, with independent claim 1 being representative (Compl. ¶13, ¶15).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method): Essential elements include:
    • Detecting a sensor value of an inactive key surpassing a sensor value of an active key by a select amount.
    • Assigning the inactive key as the active key.
    • Wherein the key assignment is biased in favor of the currently active key by increasing sensor values of the currently active key.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert all claims from 1-24 (Compl. ¶13).

U.S. Patent No. 9,086,770 - "Touch Sensor with High-Density Macro-Feature Design"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,086,770, entitled "Touch Sensor with High-Density Macro-Feature Design," issued on July 21, 2015.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the general need for touch sensors in display applications and the technical challenges associated with designing the physical patterns of the conductive electrodes that form the sensor (’770 Patent, col. 1:10-22).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a touch-sensing panel with a specific electrode structure. It comprises two layers of electrodes (e.g., drive and sense) made from a conductive mesh. A key feature is that the gaps separating the electrodes in each layer are designed to run in a "generally straight line from one side of the sensing area to an opposing side," creating what is termed a "high-density macro-feature design" (’770 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-67). This structure is intended for use in touch-sensitive displays (’770 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This design aims to provide a specific, manufacturable electrode layout for touch sensors that can be integrated with displays while managing performance and optical characteristics (’770 Patent, col. 1:10-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-15, with independent claim 1 being representative (Compl. ¶21, ¶23).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus): Essential elements include:
    • A sensing area with a substrate.
    • A plurality of first electrodes in a first layer and a plurality of second electrodes in a second layer, both comprising conductive mesh.
    • Each layer having a plurality of gaps, with each gap running in a "generally straight line from one side of the sensing area to an opposing side".
    • The gaps separating adjacent electrodes are specified to be between 5 and 20 micrometers.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert all claims from 1-15 (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 8,946,574 (Multi-Patent Capsule) - "Two-Layer Sensor Stack"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,946,574, entitled "Two-Layer Sensor Stack," issued on February 3, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a touch sensor stack, for example for use with a display, where drive and sense electrodes are formed from a conductive mesh of metal. The electrodes are disposed on opposite surfaces of a single substrate and are encapsulated by optically clear adhesive and covering sheets (’574 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:57-65).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-15 (Compl. ¶29). Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim.
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the touchscreen assembly of the Microsoft Surface Book 2 (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 8,502,547 (Multi-Patent Capsule) - "Capacitive Sensor"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,502,547, entitled "Capacitive Sensor," issued on August 6, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a capacitive sensor, such as a rotary "scroll wheel" sensor, that operates in two modes. A first mode maps a full parameter range (e.g., temperature from 0-300°C) for coarse selection, and a second "zoom" mode activates after an initial touch to allow for fine adjustment within a narrower range around the initially selected value (’547 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-11).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-17 (Compl. ¶37). Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim.
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the touchscreen assembly of the Microsoft Surface Book 2 (Compl. ¶37).

U.S. Patent No. 10,088,960 (Multi-Patent Capsule) - "Sensor Stack with Opposing Electrodes"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,088,960, entitled "Sensor Stack with Opposing Electrodes," issued on October 2, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a sensor apparatus having sense electrodes on a first substrate and drive electrodes on a second, separate substrate. The invention requires that the sense electrodes, the drive electrodes, or both, are made of a conductive mesh material (’960 Patent, Abstract). The apparatus also includes an insulating layer between the two substrates (’960 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-17 (Compl. ¶45). Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim.
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the touchscreen assembly of the Microsoft Surface Book 2 (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "Microsoft Surface Book 2 13.5" as a representative accused product, with the term "Accused Products" referring to this and other similar devices (Compl. ¶13).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint identifies the Accused Product as an electronic device that incorporates touchscreen technology (Compl. ¶1, ¶13). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the specific operation of the accused touchscreen or its components, nor does it make specific allegations regarding the product's commercial importance beyond noting the general ubiquity of touchscreens (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products satisfy all limitations of the asserted claims for each of the five patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶15, ¶23, ¶31, ¶39, ¶47). For each patent, the complaint states that a claim chart comparing the independent claim to the representative Accused Product is attached as an exhibit (e.g., Compl. ¶15 refers to Exhibit 2). However, these exhibits were not provided with the complaint document. As the complaint contains no narrative description of the infringement theories, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible from the complaint itself.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’286 Patent:

  • The Term: "non-locking"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the patent’s title and is fundamental to the described method of resolving keying ambiguity. The central infringement question for this patent may be whether the software algorithm used by the Accused Products to differentiate between intended and unintended touches constitutes a "non-locking" system as defined by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claim covers a broad class of modern touch-rejection algorithms or is limited to the specific iterative process disclosed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the invention in contrast to prior art where "the first key to win remains selected even if the maximal signal strength has shifted to a new key" (’286 Patent, col. 3:9-12). This could support a broader construction that covers any system allowing the locus of control to shift smoothly between keys without a hard "lock."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures provide a specific flowchart and logic for implementing the method, involving "detection integrator" counters and comparisons to threshold and hysteresis values (’286 Patent, col. 7:22-col. 8:36, Figs. 5A-5B). This detailed embodiment could be used to argue that "non-locking" is not a general concept but is defined by this specific implementation.

For the ’770 Patent:

  • The Term: "a plurality of gaps ... runs in a generally straight line from one side of the sensing area to an opposing side"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase from independent claim 1 defines the core structural characteristic of the patented "high-density macro-feature design." The infringement analysis will depend on whether the physical electrode structure in the Accused Product's display has gaps that meet this geometric constraint.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "generally straight" suggests some tolerance for deviation from perfect linearity. The abstract describes this feature at a high level, which may support an interpretation that focuses on the overall directional nature of the gaps rather than their precise path (’770 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures illustrating the invention depict highly regular, parallel, and linear gaps across the electrode layers (’770 Patent, Fig. 2; Fig. 4C). A party could argue that "generally straight" must be interpreted in light of these embodiments to mean substantially linear, excluding patterns with significant curvature, interruptions, or directional changes.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all five patents. It asserts that Defendant had knowledge of the patents and the alleged infringement "[t]hrough the filing and service of this Complaint" and that Defendant encourages infringement through "user manuals and online instruction materials on its website" that instruct customers on how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14, ¶22, ¶30, ¶38, ¶46).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, the allegations of knowing and intentional inducement, combined with a request for attorneys' fees for an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, lay the groundwork for such a claim (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶e). The pleading anchors the knowledge element to the date of service of the complaint, which may support a claim for post-suit willfulness.

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

Given the information provided in the complaint, the dispute will likely focus on the scope of the patent claims as applied to modern, sophisticated touchscreen devices. The central questions for the court appear to be:

  1. A question of algorithmic scope: Can the term "non-locking" from the ’286 Patent, which is described through a specific iterative hardware-oriented logic, be construed to cover the complex, software-driven touch-rejection and interpretation algorithms used in a modern operating system like Microsoft Windows?
  2. A question of structural scope: Do the physical electrode patterns, conductive meshes, and layer-stacking techniques used in the Microsoft Surface Book 2's display assembly fall within the specific geometric and structural limitations of the asserted claims, such as the '770 Patent's requirement for gaps running in a "generally straight line" or the various two-layer stack configurations of the ’574 and ’960 Patents?
  3. An evidentiary question: As the complaint relies on references to external claim charts without providing a narrative infringement theory, a key threshold issue will be what technical evidence Plaintiff can develop through discovery to map the internal, non-public hardware and software of the Accused Product to the specific limitations of the patent claims.