DCT
6:20-cv-00584
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: Folio Law Group PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00584, W.D. Tex., 08/03/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Google is registered to do business in Texas and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including multiple offices, substantial employee headcount, and physical Google Global Cache (GGC) servers hosted within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Google’s products featuring radar-based motion and presence detection, such as the Pixel 4 smartphone, Nest Hub smart display, and Nest Thermostat, infringe a patent related to using radar to detect an external object's movement to modify user notification alerts.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using short-range radar to make devices context-aware, allowing them to intelligently alter notifications based on a user's proximity or gestures, a key feature in the smart device and home automation markets.
- Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint follows an original complaint for which service was allegedly completed on June 29, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that after this date, Google developed and released new infringing products (the Nest Hub 2nd Gen and Nest Thermostat) and failed to disclose them during litigation, forming a basis for its willful infringement claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-05-13 | ’697 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-08-12 | ’697 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-06-29 | Original Complaint Service Date |
| 2020-10-01 | Alleged launch month of Nest Thermostat |
| 2021-03-30 | Alleged launch date of Nest Hub 2nd Generation |
| 2022-08-03 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,803,697 - Detecting movement for determining characteristics of user notification, Issued August 12, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the social nuisance caused by mobile devices issuing loud, persistent notification alerts, such as ringing for an incoming call, in environments like offices or theaters where it can be disruptive (’697 Patent, col. 1:15-28). Existing solutions required physical interaction with the device, such as flipping it over, to silence an alert (’697 Patent, col. 1:32-37).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where an apparatus, upon detecting an event like an incoming call, uses radar to detect the movement of an "external object" (e.g., a user) in its vicinity (’697 Patent, Abstract). If the user is detected approaching the device, the apparatus can automatically change the characteristics of the notification—for example, by decreasing the ringtone volume and turning on the display to show caller ID—assuming the user has been alerted and is coming to interact with the device (’697 Patent, col. 4:1-10; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This technology enables a more intelligent and context-aware user experience by allowing a device to react to a user's presence and intent without requiring direct physical contact, thereby reducing disruption.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint focuses on infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶76).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- Storing an association between a user notification alert and an event.
- Detecting the event and triggering the associated user notification alert.
- In response to the event, using radar to detect movement of an external object in a range outside the device.
- Changing characteristics of the user notification alert based on the detected movement.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names the "Accused Products" as devices that utilize "Motion Sense, Quick Gestures, Sleep Sensing, and Presence Sensing" (Compl. ¶46). These include the Pixel 4 smartphone, the Nest Hub 2nd Generation smart display, and the Nest Thermostat in combination with the Google Home application (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 54, 66).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products incorporate Google's "Soli" miniature radar sensor to enable various forms of touchless interaction and environmental awareness (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 54, 65).
- On the Pixel 4, the Soli chip powers "Motion Sense," allowing users to perform "Quick Gestures," such as waving a hand over the phone to silence an incoming call (Compl. ¶¶ 52-53). A diagram in the complaint illustrates the placement of the Soli radar chip and other sensors in the Pixel 4's bezel (Compl. p. 21).
- The Nest Hub 2nd Gen uses the same Soli technology for gesture control (e.g., waving to snooze an alarm) and for "Sleep Sensing," where it monitors a user's respiration and movement during sleep (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 60-61).
- The Nest Thermostat uses the Soli chip for "Presence Sensing" to determine if a user is home or away, and in conjunction with the Google Home app, automatically adjusts temperature modes (e.g., switching to an energy-saving "Eco Mode") and updates the user via notifications on the app and thermostat display (Compl. ¶¶ 69-70).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’697 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| storing, in a mobile communications device, an association between a user notification alert and an event occurring at the mobile communications device; | The accused devices store associations, such as a ringtone for an incoming call event (Pixel 4), an alarm tone for an alarm event (Nest Hub), or a scheduled temperature preset for a time-based event (Nest Thermostat). | ¶¶49, 55, 67 | col. 2:39-42 |
| detecting the event by the mobile communications device and triggering the associated user notification alert; | The devices detect events and trigger alerts, such as detecting an incoming call and playing the ringtone (Pixel 4), detecting a set alarm time and sounding the alarm (Nest Hub), or detecting a scheduled time and triggering a temperature mode change alert (Nest Thermostat). | ¶¶50, 56, 68 | col. 2:43-44 |
| in response to the detecting of the event, detecting by the mobile communications device, using radar, movement of an external object in a range outside the mobile communications device; | The accused products use the integrated Soli radar chip to detect external user movement, such as hand gestures (Pixel 4, Nest Hub), sleep movements (Nest Hub), or a user's presence or approach (Nest Thermostat). | ¶¶51-52, 58, 69, 75 | col. 2:45-48 |
| changing characteristics of the user notification alert based on the step of detecting movement. | Based on detected movement, the devices change notification characteristics. The Pixel 4 silences a call (Compl. ¶53), the Nest Hub snoozes an alarm (Compl. ¶59), and the Nest Thermostat changes from "Eco" to "Comfort" mode, which is presented as a user notification alert (Compl. ¶¶70-71). A screenshot shows the Nest Thermostat's "Wake display" setting can be configured to activate "On approach" (Compl. p. 43). | ¶¶53, 59, 70 | col. 2:49-51 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether a thermostat's change in operational state (e.g., switching to "Eco Mode" and displaying a "Nest Leaf") constitutes a "user notification alert" as contemplated by the patent. The defense may argue this is a system status update, not an "alert" in the manner of a ringtone or alarm, which are the patent's primary examples. A screenshot of the Google Home app shows this "Eco" mode notification (Compl. p. 37).
- Technical Questions: A key question for the Nest Thermostat is the causal link between the "event" and the "detecting movement." The complaint alleges the thermostat detects movement "in response to the detection of the scheduled change" (Compl. ¶69). However, it is possible that the "Presence Sensing" radar is continuously or periodically active to maintain a state of "home" or "away," rather than being specifically triggered by a scheduled time change. The court will need to determine if consulting this pre-existing state information at the time of an event satisfies the claim requirement of detecting movement "in response to" the event.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "user notification alert"
- Context and Importance: The breadth of this term is critical, particularly for the infringement allegations against the Nest Thermostat. Whether a thermostat's mode change qualifies as an "alert" will be a central dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a list of user notifications that includes "a sound signal; a vibration signal; a light signal; and a text displayed on a display of the apparatus" (’697 Patent, col. 2:60-65). Plaintiff may argue that the "Eco" mode icon or the glowing display on the thermostat qualifies as a "light signal" or "text displayed."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background and examples focus on immediate, attention-requiring notifications like an "incoming call" and a "ringing tone" (’697 Patent, col. 1:15-18, col. 4:1-3). A party could argue the term "alert" implies an active attempt to get the user's attention, not a passive change in a device's operational state.
- The Term: "in response to the detecting of the event"
- Context and Importance: This phrase establishes the required causal and temporal link between the triggering event and the activation of the radar detection. Its construction is vital to the theory against the Nest Thermostat's "Presence Sensing" feature.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify an immediate or direct trigger. A party could argue that as long as the radar detection is part of the logical sequence initiated by the event, the "in response to" requirement is met.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in Figure 4 shows "Radar activated" (420) occurring immediately after "Incoming call" (410), suggesting a direct and sequential relationship (’697 Patent, Fig. 4). This could support an interpretation requiring the radar to be activated specifically because the event was detected, not simply being consulted while in an always-on state.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Google induces infringement by providing advertising, product descriptions, manuals, and other instructions that guide end-users on how to use the accused features, such as silencing a call with a gesture on the Pixel 4 (Compl. ¶80). A screenshot of a Google support page shows instructions for "Quick Gestures" on the Nest Hub (Compl. p. 25).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged post-suit knowledge. Plaintiff asserts Google had knowledge of the ’697 Patent at least as of the service of the original complaint on June 29, 2020 (Compl. ¶79). The claim is further based on allegations that Google subsequently developed, released, and sold new products (Nest Hub 2nd Gen, Nest Thermostat) that use the same core Soli radar technology, and that Google actively concealed the relevance of these new products during litigation (Compl. ¶¶ 82, 84-86, 91, 95).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "user notification alert", which is rooted in the patent’s context of immediate, attention-seeking signals like ringtones, be construed to cover a smart thermostat's change in operational mode (e.g., "Eco Mode")?
A central evidentiary question will be one of causation and timing: For the Nest Thermostat, does the use of an ongoing "Presence Sensing" system to determine if a user is home constitute "detecting movement... in response to" a scheduled time change event, as the claim requires, or is the technical link between the event and the radar detection too attenuated?
The case will likely involve a significant factual dispute over willfulness: Did Google knowingly incorporate infringing technology into new products after being sued, and did its litigation conduct, as alleged in the complaint, amount to a deliberate strategy to conceal these products from the Plaintiff, thereby supporting a claim for enhanced damages?