DCT

6:20-cv-01183

Power2B Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-01183, W.D. Tex., 12/23/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as a foreign entity and for Samsung Electronics America, Inc. based on its commission of infringing acts and its regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Galaxy smartphone and Note device product lines, as well as certain SmartTVs, infringe five patents related to non-contact gesture-sensing user interfaces.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using sensors, such as proximity and ambient light sensors, near a device's display to detect the position and movement of a user's hand or other object, translating these gestures into device commands without physical contact.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a detailed history of pre-suit interactions, including multiple meetings, technology demonstrations, and disclosures of confidential technical information by Plaintiff to Defendant between 2006 and 2012. Plaintiff alleges that after these discussions, Defendant launched its Galaxy S4 handset incorporating the accused technology. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against U.S. Patent Nos. 8,610,675 and 10,156,931. In IPR2021-01220, all asserted claims of the '675 Patent were cancelled. In IPR2021-01190, all asserted claims of the '931 Patent were cancelled. These post-filing developments may significantly impact the scope and viability of the claims as originally asserted in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-01-01 Plaintiff Power2B is founded
2005-09-08 Earliest Priority Date for '931 Patent
2006-01-01 Plaintiff and Defendant begin series of meetings and demonstrations
2006-04-03 Earliest Priority Date for '850 and '093 Patents
2007-03-14 Earliest Priority Date for '675 and '170 Patents
2012-01-01 Defendant re-engages Plaintiff for additional technical information
2013-01-01 Defendant allegedly launches Galaxy S4 with accused technology
2013-12-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,610,675 Issues
2014-01-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,624,850 Issues
2016-04-19 U.S. Patent No. 9,317,170 Issues
2017-02-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093 Issues
2018-12-18 U.S. Patent No. 10,156,931 Issues
2020-12-23 Complaint Filed
2021-06-25 IPR filed against '931 Patent
2021-07-06 IPR filed against '675 Patent
2023-04-17 IPR Certificate issues for '675 Patent, cancelling asserted claims
2023-05-17 IPR Certificate issues for '931 Patent, cancelling asserted claims

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,610,675 - "Interactive Devices," Issued December 17, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that at the time of the invention, electronic devices such as PDAs and mobile phones lacked intuitive user interfaces and were difficult to navigate (Compl. ¶23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides an interactive assembly that uses an input sensor near an "interactive surface element" to detect the "impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot." This allows the device to have different functionalities associated with different regions of the surface, enabling gesture-based control without direct physical contact ('675 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-22).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a method for non-contact, gesture-based control of electronic devices, aiming to create more intuitive and power-efficient user interfaces (Compl. ¶¶23-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and method claim 13 (Compl. ¶54). The right to assert dependent claims is not explicitly reserved.
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A position sensing assembly.
    • An interactive surface element defining a surface.
    • At least one pixel array with detector elements configured to sense an object's position based on its propinquity when detected radiation exceeds a threshold.
    • Circuitry coupled to the pixel array to provide a "non-imagewise input" representing the object's position.
    • Wherein the change in radiation results from detecting light reflected from the object in addition to a baseline level.

U.S. Patent No. 8,624,850 - "Displays and Information Input Devices," Issued January 7, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for improved information input devices for electronics, building on similar concepts as related patents in the family (Compl. ¶23; '850 Patent, col. 1:13-16).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an integrated display and input device featuring a pixel array for visual output and at least one sensor to detect the position of a proximate object. A key aspect of the solution is the structural arrangement, wherein the sensor includes a "detector assembly arranged at least one edge of a viewing plane defining plate," such as the display screen itself ('850 Patent, Abstract; Claim 15).
  • Technical Importance: This design integrates the gesture-sensing components at the periphery of the display structure, facilitating more compact and integrated device designs (Compl. ¶¶23-24; '850 Patent, col. 2:48-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 15 and 31 (Compl. ¶82). The right to assert dependent claims is not explicitly reserved.
  • Independent Claim 15 requires:
    • An integrated display and input device.
    • A pixel array for providing a visually sensible output.
    • At least one sensor configured to sense an object's position based on its propinquity to the pixel array.
    • Circuitry configured to receive the sensor's output and provide a "non-imagewise input" representing the object's position.
    • Wherein the sensor includes a detector assembly arranged at "at least one edge of a viewing plane defining plate."

U.S. Patent No. 9,317,170 - "Interactive Devices," Issued April 19, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: The '170 Patent describes an interactive assembly with a surface element having at least two distinct regions with different user-sensible functionalities. An input sensor located in proximity to the surface detects electromagnetic radiation impinging on these regions, and utilization circuitry employs the sensor's output to trigger the corresponding functions ('170 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 30 are asserted (Compl. ¶108).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that features like "Air gesture" infringe by using object-detection sensors to recognize gestures over different display regions (e.g., a swipe up in a bottom region versus a swipe down in a top region) to execute different commands (Compl. ¶¶112, 116).

U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093 - "Displays and Information Input Devices," Issued February 14, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: The '093 Patent claims an integrated display and input device that includes a sensor for detecting a proximate object, a pixel array for visual output, and an "illuminator that provides backlighting and illuminates the object." Circuitry receives the sensor's output and provides a non-imagewise input to utilization circuitry ('093 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 43 are asserted (Compl. ¶137).
  • Accused Features: The OLED/AMOLED displays of the Accused Products are alleged to function as the claimed illuminator, while object-detection sensors are alleged to sense an object illuminated by the display and provide a non-imagewise input to the device's circuitry (Compl. ¶¶143, 145, 147).

U.S. Patent No. 10,156,931 - "Displays and Information Input Devices," Issued December 18, 2018

  • Technology Synopsis: The '931 Patent discloses a device comprising a display panel, an Infra-Red (IR) emitter positioned proximate to the display to illuminate objects, and a position sensing array also near an edge of the display. The sensing array is configured to receive, through at least one layer of the display panel, light reflected from a proximate object and generate a signal that a processing unit uses to calculate the object's position and execute input functionality ('931 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 13, and 21 are asserted (Compl. ¶163).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products' IR emitters and proximity sensors, positioned near the top of the display screen, are alleged to meet the emitter and sensing array limitations. The complaint includes photographs of the Samsung Galaxy S4 device sensors, identifying an IR emitter and a proximity sensor, as evidence of these components (Compl. ¶167). The complaint alleges the processor uses the signal from these components to execute "Air gestures" and other functions (Compl. ¶173).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Samsung's Galaxy S4-S10 and S20 smartphones, Note 3-10 and Note 20 devices, and their associated product lines, as well as Samsung's F-Series SmartTVs (Compl. ¶¶35, 40).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products incorporate "object-sensing/gesture-sensing interfaces" that use components such as ambient light sensors, photosensors, and proximity sensors (Compl. ¶¶35-36). The core accused functionality is marketed as "Air gestures," which allows users to control the device by making specific gestures with their hand above the screen (Compl. ¶¶38-39). Additional accused functionalities include "gesture wake up, easy mute, and easy screen turn on" (Compl. ¶37). The complaint provides a screenshot from the Galaxy S4 User Manual which shows a menu for enabling these "Motions and Gestures" (Compl. ¶39).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,610,675 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a position sensing assembly The Accused Products are position sensing assemblies because they include one or more object-detection sensors configured to sense the position of objects. ¶56 col. 4:18-20
an interactive surface element defining a surface The Accused Products include an interactive screen, such as an OLED or AMOLED display, that defines a surface. ¶58 col. 4:18-19
at least one pixel array comprising a plurality of detector elements configured to detect electromagnetic radiation at a baseline level, the at least one pixel array being configured to sense a position of at least one object...when the at least one object has at least a predetermined degree of propinquity to the at least one pixel array. The object-detection sensors in the Accused Products allegedly include a pixel array with detector elements that detect radiation, sense an object’s position, and sense when the object has a predetermined degree of proximity based on detected radiation. ¶60 col. 4:20-27
circuitry coupled to and receiving an output from the at least one pixel array receiving, the circuitry being configured to provide a non-imagewise input representing the position of the at least one object relative to the at least one pixel array. The Accused Products have a processor (e.g., Hummingbird or Exynos) that receives a non-imagewise input from the object-detection sensor to perform functions like gesture controls. ¶64 col. 4:51-56
wherein the change in the amount of radiation detected results from ones of the plurality of detector elements detecting reflected light from the object in addition to detecting the radiation at the baseline level. The object-detection sensor includes detector elements that detect ambient light and changes in detected light caused by a proximate object reflecting light toward the sensor. ¶66 col. 4:30-32
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the term "pixel array comprising a plurality of detector elements" as used in the patent can be construed to read on the object-detection sensors (e.g., a proximity sensor) used in the Accused Products. The construction of this term will be critical, as "pixel array" may suggest a more complex, grid-like structure than what is present in the accused devices.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the signal from the accused proximity/light sensor constitutes a "non-imagewise input representing the position of the... object"? The analysis may turn on whether the sensor provides graduated positional data or a simpler binary (presence/absence) signal.

8,624,850 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an integrated display and input device The Accused Products are identified as input devices having an integrated display (e.g., OLED or AMOLED). ¶84 Abstract
a pixel array configured to provide a visually sensible output The Accused Products' OLED or AMOLED displays are alleged to be pixel arrays that provide a visually sensible output. ¶86 col. 1:44-45
at least one sensor configured to sense at least a position of at least one object with respect to the pixel array when the at least one object has at least a predetermined degree of propinquity to the pixel array The object-detection sensors are alleged to be configured to sense the position of a proximate object by detecting light or electromagnetic radiation corresponding to the object. ¶88 col. 1:45-48
circuitry configured to receive an output from the at least one sensor and to provide a non-imagewise input that is representative of the position of the at least one object relative to the pixel array The Accused Products allegedly include circuitry to convert raw signals from photodiode sensors into non-imagewise inputs that represent the object's position relative to the pixel array. ¶90 col. 1:48-51
wherein the at least one sensor includes a detector assembly arranged at least one edge of a viewing plane defining plate The object-detection sensors are alleged to be arranged at the top or an edge of the displays, and the OLED/AMOLED display itself is alleged to be the "viewing plane defining plate." ¶92 col. 2:58-61
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement theory depends on construing the term "viewing plane defining plate" to mean the display screen (e.g., OLED display) itself. The defense may argue for a narrower construction, potentially distinguishing the display from a separate plate element described in the specification.
    • Technical Questions: Does the physical placement of the sensors "at the top or at the edge of the displays" (Compl. ¶92) satisfy the claim limitation of being "arranged at least one edge of a viewing plane defining plate"? This will likely involve a factual analysis of the accused devices' internal construction.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the '675 Patent:

    • The Term: "at least one pixel array"
    • Context and Importance: This term's construction is central to whether the infringement theory for the '675 Patent is viable. Plaintiff's case requires this term to be broad enough to encompass the proximity and/or ambient light sensors in the Accused Products. Practitioners may focus on this term because a conventional understanding of "pixel array" implies a grid of elements, which may not describe the accused sensors.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the array to be configured to sense an object's position based on its "propinquity," suggesting function over a specific grid-like structure is important. The patent refers generally to a "plurality of detector elements" without specifying a grid layout ('675 Patent, Claim 1; col. 4:20-22).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The common technical meaning of "pixel array" suggests a two-dimensional grid of sensing elements, as found in image sensors. The use of this specific term, rather than a more general one like "plurality of sensors," may suggest a more limited scope was intended.

  • For the '850 Patent:

    • The Term: "non-imagewise input that is representative of the position of the at least one object"
    • Context and Importance: This term appears in both lead patents and is critical for infringement. The dispute will likely center on whether the signal generated by the accused sensors contains sufficient positional information to be "representative of the position" or if it is a more basic signal that does not meet this requirement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states the circuitry provides "a non-imagewise input to utilization circuitry," framing it as a key element of the invention ('850 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges this input is used for "gesture controls," which implies it must contain positional information (Compl. ¶62, ¶90).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification distinguishes the input from image data but offers limited affirmative definition, which may allow for an argument that the accused signal is too simplistic. The term "non-imagewise" itself implies a lower level of detail than an image, but the degree of positional representation required remains a key question.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by selling the Accused Products and encouraging infringing use through marketing, advertising, and user manuals that instruct customers on how to use features like "Air gestures" (Compl. ¶¶70-71, 96-97). Contributory infringement is also alleged on the basis that the accused components are a material part of the invention and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶72, 98).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's purported actual knowledge of Plaintiff's technology and patents dating back to meetings that began in 2006 (Compl. ¶¶26-34, 47-49). The complaint constructs a narrative that Defendant learned of the patented technology from Plaintiff under the pretense of a potential license and then incorporated it into its own products after breaking off communications (Compl. ¶¶29, 32-33).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "pixel array," as used in the '675 Patent, be construed to cover the proximity and ambient light sensors in the accused smartphones, or is its meaning limited to a more formal, grid-like structure of detectors? The outcome of the IPR cancelling this claim post-filing makes its original assertion a central point of historical analysis.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of pre-suit knowledge and causation: what specific technical information did Plaintiff disclose to Defendant during their alleged interactions, and does evidence show that this information was used to develop the accused "Air gestures" functionality? This is central to the willfulness allegation.
  • A determinative issue will be one of case strategy post-IPR: given the cancellation of all asserted claims in two of the five patents-in-suit ('675 and '931), a central question is how Plaintiff will adapt its case, which may involve asserting different claims from those patents or focusing its infringement contentions entirely on the three remaining patents.