DCT

6:21-cv-00122

Gesture Technology Partners LLC v. Len

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00122, W.D. Tex., 02/04/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper against Lenovo Group as a foreign corporation and against Lenovo US and Motorola based on their alleged maintenance of regular and established places of business, including service centers, within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ smartphones and tablets infringe four patents related to using device cameras to enable user interaction and control functions, such as gesture recognition and automated image capture.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using front- and rear-facing cameras in mobile devices to interpret user actions and environmental data, forming the basis for many common smartphone features like facial unlock, gesture-based controls, and intelligent photography.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the inventions embodied in the asserted patents were conceived in the mid-to-late-1990s by the sole inventor, Dr. Timothy Pryor. No prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-11-09 ’079 Patent Priority Date
1999-05-11 ’949 Patent Priority Date
1999-07-08 ’431 and ’924 Patent Priority Date
2011-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 Issued
2012-06-05 U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924 Issued
2013-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079 Issued
2014-11-04 U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 Issued
2021-02-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924 - Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming or Other Devices

Issued June 5, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent is directed to providing simple, optically-based input devices for computers, particularly for use with graphically intensive activities, by sensing human positions, orientations, or other inputs. (’924 Patent, col. 2:7-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a handheld device equipped with two distinct cameras: a first camera oriented to view the user (e.g., a front-facing or "selfie" camera) and a second camera oriented to view an object other than the user (e.g., a rear-facing camera). The device's computer is adapted to use the output from either of these cameras, which have non-overlapping fields of view, to perform a control function on the device itself. (’924 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: This dual-camera architecture became a foundational hardware design for modern smartphones, enabling a wide range of applications from video conferencing and facial recognition using the front camera to traditional photography and augmented reality using the rear camera. (Compl. ¶ 18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts direct infringement of at least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶ 33).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A handheld device with a housing and a computer.
    • A first camera oriented to view a user, having a first output.
    • A second camera oriented to view an object other than the user, having a second output.
    • The first and second cameras have non-overlapping fields of view.
    • The computer is adapted to perform a control function of the device based on an output from at least one of the cameras.

U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431 - Camera Based Sensing in Handheld, Mobile, Gaming, or Other Devices

Issued April 26, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for simple input devices that operate by optically sensing a human user's input to control a computer or other device. (’431 Patent, col. 2:7-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld computer apparatus with a camera that obtains an image of an object (such as a user's hand or finger) positioned by the user. A computer within the device analyzes the image to determine information about the object's position or movement. This information is then used to control a function of the apparatus, forming the basis for gesture-based control. (’431 Patent, Claim 7). The specification provides examples of using detected motion of a finger to identify a target for tracking and control. (’431 Patent, col. 7:15-24).
  • Technical Importance: This technology underpins the use of camera-based gesture controls in mobile devices, allowing users to interact with applications without direct physical contact with a screen or button. (Compl. ¶ 47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts direct infringement of at least Claim 7. (Compl. ¶ 48).
  • Independent Claim 7, a means-plus-function claim, requires:
    • A handheld computer apparatus with a housing.
    • A "camera means" for obtaining an image of an object positioned by a user.
    • A "computer means" for analyzing the image to determine the object's position or movement.
    • A "means for controlling a function" of the apparatus using that information.

U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 - Camera Based Interaction and Instruction

Issued November 4, 2014

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949, "Camera Based Interaction and Instruction," Issued November 4, 2014. (Compl. ¶ 61).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a portable device that allows a user to control it using gestures. The device includes a forward-facing portion with an "electro-optical sensor" and a separate digital camera. A processing unit determines that a gesture has been performed based on output from the sensor and, in response, controls the digital camera. (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 66, 68-69).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶ 64).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that features like "Gesture Selfie," where a user's gesture controls the camera's shutter, infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 69).

U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079 - More Useful Man Machine Interfaces and Applications

Issued October 8, 2013

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079, "More Useful Man Machine Interfaces and Applications," Issued October 8, 2013. (Compl. ¶ 76).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses an apparatus for determining gestures performed by a human body part that is illuminated by a light source integrated into the computer. A camera, also part of the computer and in a fixed relation to the light source, is oriented to observe the illuminated gestures. (Compl. ¶¶ 77, 81-82).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 11. (Compl. ¶ 79).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products contain a light source to illuminate a body part and a camera to observe gestures, which could implicate features where the screen's display acts as the light source for the front-facing camera. (Compl. ¶¶ 81-82).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are a range of smartphones and tablets sold under the Lenovo and Motorola brands, including the Lenovo Tab P11 Pro, Motorola One 5G, and Motorola G Power. (Compl. ¶ 21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these devices incorporate a suite of camera-based "Features," including "Auto Smile Capture," "Gesture Selfie," "Attentive Display," and "facial recognition." (Compl. ¶ 22). These functions use the devices' front and/or rear cameras and processors to analyze visual data and control device operations. For example, "Auto Smile Capture" analyzes the camera's view and automatically takes a photo when all subjects are smiling, as shown in a screenshot from Motorola's website. (Compl. ¶ 24; p. 6). Another feature, "Gesture Selfie," allows a user to initiate a selfie countdown timer by showing an open palm to the front-facing camera. (Compl. ¶ 26; p. 7). The complaint alleges these features are heavily marketed and "drive the popularity and sales of the Accused Products." (Compl. ¶ 23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’924 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A handheld device comprising: a housing; a computer within the housing... The Accused Products are handheld devices with a housing and a computer, including one or more System-on-Chips. ¶35 col. 26:5-13
a first camera oriented to view a user of the handheld device and having a first camera output... The Accused Products have at least one front-facing camera oriented to view a user, which has an output when used. ¶36 col. 26:14-17
a second camera oriented to view an object other than the user of the device and having a second camera output... The Accused Products have at least one rear-facing camera oriented to view an object other than the user, which has an output when used. ¶37 col. 26:18-21
wherein the first and second cameras include non-overlapping fields of view... The front and rear cameras of the Accused Products have non-overlapping fields of view. ¶38 col. 26:22-24
wherein the computer is adapted to perform a control function of the handheld device based on at least one of... The computer is adapted to perform control functions associated with the Features (e.g., facial recognition, gesture selfies) based on the camera outputs. ¶39 col. 26:25-30
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of "control function." While the complaint alleges that features like facial recognition to unlock a device are control functions, a defendant may argue the term should be construed more narrowly to exclude application-level settings or operations. The complaint's allegation that facial recognition is used to "log in" and "blur video call backgrounds from the system level," as shown in a screenshot from Lenovo's website, may support a broader interpretation. (Compl. ¶ 28; p. 8).
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory is based on the fundamental hardware architecture of modern smartphones. The primary dispute may therefore shift from infringement to validity, raising the question of whether this hardware combination was known or obvious prior to the patent's July 1999 priority date.

’431 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
Handheld computer apparatus comprising: a housing; The Accused Products are handheld computers with a housing. ¶¶50-51 col. 26:1-2
a camera means associated with said housing for obtaining an image using reflected light of at least one object... The Accused Products have cameras that obtain images of objects, such as a user's face or hand, using reflected light. ¶52 col. 26:3-7
computer means within said housing for analyzing said image to determine information concerning a position or movement... A computer (System on Chip) analyzes images to determine information about an object's position or movement. ¶53 col. 26:8-11
means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information. This information is used to control device functions, such as keeping the display on ("Attentive Display") or triggering a photo timer. ¶54 col. 26:12-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 7 is drafted in means-plus-function format, meaning its scope is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. A primary dispute will involve identifying those structures. For the "computer means," a defendant may argue the structure is limited to the specific algorithms disclosed in the specification (e.g., centroid calculation via the "moment method"), raising the question of whether the accused devices' potentially more modern algorithms (e.g., machine learning models) are structural equivalents. (’431 Patent, col. 4:60-63).
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused devices' software for analyzing images performs functions structurally equivalent to those disclosed in the patent? The complaint's allegations are high-level, and the case may require detailed analysis of both the patent's disclosed algorithms and the accused products' source code or operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "control function" (’924 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The breadth of this term is critical to the infringement analysis for the ’924 patent. A broad definition could encompass nearly any software feature that uses a camera input, whereas a narrow definition could limit the claim to more fundamental device operations. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether features like adjusting camera settings ("Shot Optimization") qualify as controlling the "handheld device."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’431 patent, incorporated by reference, discloses a wide range of functions, including controlling external devices like a fax machine or controlling features within a car's dashboard via a cell phone, suggesting the term is not limited to on-device software applications. (’431 Patent, col. 12:43-52).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Many of the patent’s primary examples relate to controlling external hardware or system-level operations (e.g., actuating vehicle functions). A defendant could argue the term should be limited to such non-application-level functions.

  • The Term: "computer means... for analyzing said image" (’431 Patent, Claim 7)

    • Context and Importance: As a means-plus-function limitation, the construction of this term defines the scope of the invention itself. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on what structures from the specification are identified as corresponding to this function and what accused structures are deemed equivalent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the "computer means" can be a general-purpose computer (e.g., a "PC computer 106"). A plaintiff may argue this supports a broad interpretation where the structure is a processor programmed to perform analysis, making any analytical algorithm an equivalent. (’431 Patent, col. 3:26-29).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific algorithms for performing the analysis, including determining a target's centroid using the "moment method" and identifying movement by "subtraction of successive images." A defendant may argue that the term's scope is limited to these specific disclosed algorithms and their structural equivalents. (’431 Patent, col. 4:60-63; col. 6:65-col. 7:1).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on Defendants advising, directing, and encouraging end-users to use the accused features through advertising, promotional materials, and user instructions. (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 59, 74, 88). The complaint provides a screenshot with explicit instructions on how to enable and use the "Gesture Selfie" feature, which may support the allegation of specific intent to induce. (Compl. ¶ 26; p. 7).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The complaint bases this allegation on knowledge of the patents "at least as of the filing of this Complaint," establishing a basis for potential post-filing willfulness. (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 58, 73, 87).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural equivalence: for the ’431 patent, can the image analysis algorithms disclosed in a specification with a 1999 priority date be considered structurally equivalent to the machine learning and AI-based methods used in modern smartphone camera systems?
  • A second key question will be one of validity and scope: for the ’924 patent, which claims the now-ubiquitous hardware combination of a handheld device with front- and rear-facing cameras, does prior art exist that anticipates or renders this configuration obvious for performing a "control function," and how broadly will that term be construed by the court?
  • A third question centers on claim differentiation: for the ’949 patent, what is the patentable distinction between the claimed "electro-optical sensor" and the "digital camera"? The case may depend on whether these terms are construed as requiring physically separate components or can read on different operational modes of a single, integrated camera module as commonly found in the accused devices.