Zeroclick LLC v. Dell Technologies

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Zeroclick, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Dell Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00569, W.D. Tex., 10/04/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has transacted business, committed acts of infringement, and has a regular and established place of business, including its headquarters, within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s touch screen computer products infringe a patent related to graphical user interface (GUI) interactions that replace traditional mouse "clicks" with specific pointer movements.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for activating functions in a GUI without a physical click, aiming to improve speed and ergonomics while preventing accidental activation common in early touch/hover systems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,818,691 - "Zeroclick"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,818,691, "Zeroclick," issued October 19, 2010 (’691 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the conventional GUI interaction model—using a pointer device like a mouse to locate a control and then performing a separate "click" action to activate it—as a foundational but potentially inefficient paradigm (Compl. ¶2; ’691 Patent, col. 3:1-12). It also implicitly addresses the problem of accidental activation in prior art systems that triggered functions merely by moving a pointer over a control area (’691 Patent, col. 2:10-18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-step method to simulate a "click" using pointer movement alone. First, a user moves a pointer into a "control area" associated with a function, which initiates a procedure. Second, the user performs a "subsequent movement of the pointer over a predetermined path" to generate the 'click' event and trigger the function (’691 Patent, Abstract). This specific, multi-part movement is designed to be intentional, distinguishing it from an accidental pass-over and thereby reducing unintentional triggers (’691 Patent, col. 4:45-54).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a more ergonomic, user-friendly, and intuitive method for controlling a GUI by making the entire interaction a series of fluid pointer movements, eliminating the need to switch between locating and clicking actions (’691 Patent, col. 3:45-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 2 of the ’691 Patent (Compl. ¶12).
• Essential elements of independent claim 2 include:
  • A graphical user interface (GUI) which may comprise an update of an existing program, that may fully operate a GUI by a two step method of movement of a pointer to operate one or more functions.
  • Wherein the GUI executes one or more functions by the completion of a two-step method.
  • The first step involves the pointer being immediately adjacent to or passing within a "control area."
  • The second step involves the "completion of a subsequent movement of said pointer" within a "predetermined path area" according to a "specified movement," which generates a "click" event.
  • This generated "click" event triggers one or more functions within the GUI.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "certain touch screen computer products," naming the Dell Latitude 7389 as a representative "Accused Product" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentalities are computers equipped with touch screens that allow users to interact with the operating system and software applications via a GUI (Compl. ¶10). Such devices are central to the modern personal and professional computing markets. The complaint alleges these products are made, used, sold, and imported by the Defendant (Compl. ¶10). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products satisfy all limitations of one or more claims of the ’691 Patent (Compl. ¶12). It references an attached claim chart (Exhibit 2) comparing independent claim 2 to the Dell Latitude 7389; however, this exhibit was not filed with the public complaint. The infringement theory, inferred from the patent and the nature of the accused product, is that the touch-based GUI on Dell's products implements a system where specific user gestures (e.g., a touch followed by a swipe in a particular direction) constitute the two-step pointer movement required by the asserted claims.

• Identified Points of Contention: The complaint’s lack of a public claim chart raises several threshold questions for the litigation.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "pointer", described in the patent’s background in the context of a mouse (’691 Patent, col. 3:1-12), can be construed to cover a user's finger or a stylus on a modern touch screen interface. A further question is what specific on-screen element in the accused devices functions as the claimed "control area".
  • Technical Questions: The analysis will depend on evidence showing how the accused Dell products technically operate. A key question will be what specific user interaction on the Dell Latitude 7389 is alleged to constitute the two-part sequence of (1) entering a "control area" and (2) subsequently moving along a "predetermined path" to generate a 'click' event, as required by claim 2.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "pointer"

  • Context and Importance: This term's definition is fundamental to the scope of the patent. Whether it is limited to a traditional mouse-driven cursor or can encompass a finger or stylus on a touch screen will be critical for the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "pointer" without limiting it to a mouse. The specification also contemplates the invention's use with a "touchscreen" in the context of an internet browser, which may support an interpretation that includes non-mouse pointing methods (’691 Patent, col. 50:1-3).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s "Background of the Invention" section exclusively discusses the invention in the context of the "invention of the mouse" and its functions, which might be argued to limit the term's scope to traditional cursors controlled by such devices (’691 Patent, col. 3:1-12).

• The Term: "predetermined path"

  • Context and Importance: The nature of this "path" is a core inventive concept intended to prevent accidental activation. The dispute will likely focus on how defined this path must be in the accused devices and whether it must be visibly presented to the user.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests the path is an area within which a specific movement occurs, not necessarily a visible line. The specification states the "pathways from the specific control should be accessed with the most appropriate hierarchical structure," suggesting a logical or functional path rather than a purely visual one (’691 Patent, col. 6:42-44).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures 3-10 depict the "predetermined path area" as a distinct visual region containing subareas (e.g., 4, 6, 7, 8, 9) that guide the pointer movement (’691 Patent, col. 4:26-44). An accused infringer may argue that these specific embodiments limit the term to a visibly delineated path.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶11). It alleges that Defendant gained knowledge of the ’691 Patent "Through the filing and service of this Complaint" and continues to encourage infringement by providing "user manuals and online instruction materials" that instruct customers on using the accused features (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement or allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent. However, the prayer for relief requests a finding that this is an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is often associated with findings of willfulness or other litigation misconduct (Compl. p. 5, ¶e).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim terms "pointer" and "predetermined path", which originate in the context of mouse-driven GUIs, be construed to read on the finger- and stylus-based gestures common to modern touch screen interfaces like that of the Dell Latitude 7389?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: Assuming a favorable claim construction for the Plaintiff, what specific software functionality in the accused Dell products will be identified to meet the two-step "control area" entry and subsequent "predetermined path" traversal required by the claims, given the absence of such details in the complaint?