DCT
6:20-cv-00578
WSOU Investments LLC v. Google LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (Delaware)
- Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Etheridge Law Group, PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00578, W.D. Tex., 06/29/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Google is registered to do business in Texas, maintains a regular and established place of business in the District (including multiple offices in Austin), employs over 1,100 people in the District, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the District, including by operating Google Global Cache (GGC) servers within its boundaries.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Google Pixel 4 and 4XL smartphones, which feature "Motion Sense" gesture control powered by the "Soli" radar chip, infringe a patent related to controlling an apparatus using radar-detected gestures.
- Technical Context: The technology involves using a device's integrated radar system to detect and interpret a user's hand gestures as commands, enabling non-contact control of device functions.
- 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
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-01-26 | '825 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-05-10 | '825 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-06-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,335,825 - “Gesture control,”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the desire to control an electronic apparatus without physically touching it or using a separate remote control device ('825 Patent, col. 5:9-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes an apparatus, such as a hand-portable electronic device, equipped with a radio transmitter and receiver that function as a radar system. The apparatus transmits radio signals, receives the signals after they are reflected by a part of a user's body (e.g., a hand), and analyzes the reflected signals to detect a "predetermined time-varying modulation" caused by the user's gesture. A controller then interprets this specific modulation as a command to change the device's operation, such as altering audio volume or navigating a display ('825 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:15-29). The system is designed to use radar to "detect a gesture, such as a hand gesture, and to interpret the detected gesture as a user input command" ('825 Patent, col. 5:27-29).
- Technical Importance: The use of radar for gesture detection allows for control even when the device is not in the user's line of sight, as the radio waves can penetrate materials like clothing ('825 Patent, col. 5:31-36).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('Compl. ¶62).
- Independent Claim 1 of the '825 Patent requires:
- An apparatus with at least one processor and memory with computer program code.
- Detecting that an application is being started on the apparatus.
- In response to the application starting, turning on a "continuous wave doppler radar" and transmitting radio signals.
- Receiving the transmitted radio signals after reflection from a user's gesture.
- Detecting a "predetermined time-varying modulation" in the received signals, which comprises detecting a "doppler frequency shift."
- Associating the detected modulation with a predetermined user input command.
- Controlling at least one operation of the application based on the associated command.
- The complaint seeks judgment on "one or more claims" of the patent, suggesting dependent claims may be asserted later ('Compl. p. 31, ¶(A)).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Google products that use "Soli" radar technology, including but not limited to the Google Pixel 4 and Pixel 4XL smartphones (collectively, "Google Pixel 4") ('Compl. ¶46).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Google Pixel 4 is a smartphone that incorporates a chip called "Soli," which includes a built-in radar system ('Compl. ¶47). This system enables a gesture detection feature that Google markets as "Motion Sense" ('Compl. ¶47).
- The Soli chip is described as a continuous wave doppler radar that emits electromagnetic radiation and measures the Doppler shift of the reflected waves to extract information about an object's motion ('Compl. ¶53). By processing these reflected signals, the phone can recognize user gestures, such as a hand swipe, and translate them into commands to control applications ('Compl. ¶¶ 57-60). A specific example cited is waving a hand over the phone to skip songs in a music application ('Compl. ¶61). A diagram in the complaint illustrates the Soli system's process flow from gesture to a "Detected Virtual Tool Gesture" ('Compl. p. 17, Fig. 1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'825 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory... | The Google Pixel 4 contains a Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 processor, 6 GB of RAM, and 64 or 128 GB of storage space. | ¶¶48-49 | col. 9:30-34 |
| detect that an application is being started on the apparatus; | The Android Operating System (OS) on the Pixel 4 is configured to detect and track running applications, as exemplified by the ActivityManager class in the Android API. A screenshot shows the getRunningAppProcesses() method, which returns a list of running applications ('Compl. p. 19). |
¶¶50-52 | col. 9:35-37 |
| in response to the application being started on the apparatus, turn on a continuous wave doppler radar...and transmit radio signals... | When an application with Motion Sense is active, "a blue glow is displayed at the top of the screen...and the radar contained in the Soli chip is confirmed to be on in response to the Motion Sense enabled application being run." | ¶55 | col. 9:38-44 |
| receive the transmitted radio signals after having been at least partially reflected by a gesture by the human body of the user; | The Soli chip contains a receiver antenna array configured to receive the radio waves transmitted by the Soli radar after they have been reflected by a user's hand gesture. | ¶56 | col. 9:45-49 |
| detect in the received radio signals a predetermined time-varying modulation...comprises detecting a doppler frequency shift... | The Soli chip is alleged to be a doppler radar that detects time-varying modulations from gestures by measuring the Doppler shift of the reflected radio waves to collect data sets of Doppler values. A diagram illustrates the "Soli Processing Pipeline," which processes the raw radar signal ('Compl. p. 23, Fig. 7). | ¶¶53, 57 | col. 9:50-59 |
| associate the detected predetermined time-varying modulation with a predetermined user input command; | The Pixel 4 allegedly uses a trained machine learning algorithm to classify the radar data and determine which predetermined gesture, such as a hand swipe, corresponds to the detected radio inputs. | ¶¶58-59 | col. 9:60-63 |
| based on the associated predetermined user input command control at least one operation of the application on the apparatus. | After classifying a gesture, the Pixel 4 uses the resulting command as input to control applications, such as waving to skip songs in a music player. A marketing image shows a hand gesture used to "Navigate your music" ('Compl. p. 28). | ¶¶60-61 | col. 9:64-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the interpretation of the phrase "in response to the application being started... turn on a continuous wave doppler radar." The infringement analysis may turn on whether the Soli radar transitions from a completely "off" state to an "on" state specifically upon an application launch, or if it operates in a persistent low-power or "listening" state that is merely fully activated once an application is running.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the Soli chip is a "continuous wave doppler radar." A potential point of dispute is whether the Soli chip's actual mode of operation (e.g., potentially as a Frequency-Modulated Continuous-Wave, or FMCW, radar) meets the technical definition of "continuous wave" as used in the patent, or if it constitutes a different, non-infringing radar technology.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "in response to the application being started on the apparatus, turn on a... doppler radar"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the trigger for activating the patented system. The entire infringement case for claim 1 depends on whether the accused Pixel 4 performs this specific sequence of operations. Practitioners may focus on this term because the precise power state and activation timing of the Soli radar relative to an application's lifecycle will be a critical factual and legal question.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee might argue that the purpose of the invention is to provide gesture control for a running application, and therefore any causal link where the radar becomes active for gesture detection because an application is running falls within the scope. The patent's focus is on using gestures to control an active application, not on the specific power-up sequence ('825 Patent, col. 10:1-3).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue this requires a discrete "off-to-on" transition directly caused by the "application... being started" event. The patent describes other external events, like an alarm, that "enable the controller 14," which in turn "enables the radio transmitter" ('825 Patent, col. 8:40-43), suggesting a distinct enablement step rather than a persistent "ready" state.
Term: "continuous wave doppler radar"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific technology required by the claim. If the Soli chip is technically not a "continuous wave" radar, it may fall outside the literal scope of the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A patentee could argue that the key inventive concept is the use of the Doppler effect to detect gestures, and "continuous wave" should be interpreted broadly to encompass any radar system that continuously monitors for Doppler shifts, even if it uses techniques like frequency modulation. The patent's general objective is to use "radar technology to detect a gesture" ('825 Patent, col. 5:27-28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant would likely argue for a strict, literal definition. The patent specification itself discusses other radar types, such as "pulsed Doppler" ('825 Patent, col. 6:34), implying that the patentees deliberately chose the more specific "continuous wave" term for this claim and knew how to claim other types if they had intended to cover them.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Google's actions in "advertising and promoting the use of the Accused Products," including disseminating product descriptions, operating manuals, and other instructions that allegedly teach end users to perform the infringing gesture controls ('Compl. ¶65). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the Accused Products are "especially made or adapted for infringing the '825 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing use" for the relevant functionality ('Compl. ¶66).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willfulness based on Google's knowledge of the '825 Patent "since at least the date of service of this Complaint" ('Compl. ¶64). This is a standard allegation of post-filing willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical scope: does Google's "Soli" system, as implemented, qualify as a "continuous wave doppler radar" under the construction of that term in the '825 patent, or does its specific technical implementation (e.g., as a possible FMCW radar) place it outside the literal claim language?
- A key question of operative sequence will be whether the accused Pixel 4's method of activating its gesture detection system satisfies the claim requirement to "turn on" the radar "in response to the application being started." The case may turn on whether the radar's activation from a low-power or standby state meets this limitation, or if a full "off-to-on" power cycle is required.