DCT

6:21-cv-01095

Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Samsung Group

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:21-cv-01095, W.D. Tex., 10/20/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Samsung having a "regular and established place[] of business" in the district, specifically its campus in Austin, Texas, and committing acts of alleged infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the animated graphical user interface of the Samsung Pay mobile payment service, as implemented on Samsung Galaxy products, infringes a design patent for an animated user interface.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the ornamental design of animated graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for mobile applications, which are a critical component of the user experience in the competitive smartphone market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint contains notable drafting errors, including naming "PayPal" instead of Samsung in the prayer for relief and inconsistently identifying the patent-in-suit in a count heading. More significantly, subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the patent-in-suit (D930,702) was the subject of post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the USPTO. These proceedings concluded with a certificate issued on May 1, 2023, confirming that the patent's single claim "is cancelled." The patent owner also filed a formal disclaimer on September 20, 2022, disclaiming the entire remaining term of the patent. These post-filing events are likely dispositive of the litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-09-03 Priority Date (Filing Date of D'702 Patent)
2021-09-14 Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. D930,702
2021-10-20 Complaint Filing Date
2022-04-05 Post-Grant Review (PGR2022-00031) Filed against D'702 Patent
2022-09-20 Assignee Files Disclaimer of D'702 Patent's Remaining Term
2023-05-01 USPTO Issues Certificate Cancelling the Claim of the D'702 Patent

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D930,702 - Display screen portion with animated graphical user interface

Issued September 14, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the specification does not articulate a technical problem. The patent protects the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental visual appearance of an animated graphical user interface. (’702 Patent, Title, CLAIM).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a GUI, presented in two embodiments. The complaint asserts the second embodiment, which consists of a three-stage animation. The sequence transitions between the images shown in FIGS. 3, 4, and 5. (’702 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The design is for the specific visual elements shown in solid lines, while elements in broken lines (such as the outline of a mobile device and certain text) form no part of the claimed design. (’702 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
  • Technical Importance: The design provides a specific visual sequence for a user interface, likely within a mobile payment or transaction context, where animated feedback can enhance usability and user confidence. (’702 Patent, FIGS. 3-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim of a design patent protects the overall ornamental visual appearance as depicted in the drawings. The claim states: "The ornamental design for a display screen portion with animated graphical user interface, as shown and described." (’702 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The complaint specifically asserts the "second embodiment" of this design. (Compl. ¶12).
  • The essential visual elements of the asserted second embodiment are the three-image sequence:
    • An initial screen with a large amount display and a field of icons below it (FIG. 3).
    • A transitional screen showing a specific pattern of circles (FIG. 4).
    • A final screen with a large amount display and a rectangular button area below it (FIG. 5).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Samsung Galaxy computer products with the Samsung Pay display screen graphical user interface." (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Samsung’s products embody the design covered by the ’702 Patent. (Compl. ¶12). The complaint states that a side-by-side claim chart comparison is provided in an "Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶10); however, that exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint. The complaint itself does not contain any images or detailed descriptions of the accused Samsung Pay interface.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim-chart exhibit that is not provided, so a detailed, element-by-element analysis is not possible. The infringement theory must be summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations.

The plaintiff alleges that Samsung manufactures, uses, and sells products featuring the Samsung Pay GUI, which "embodies the design covered by the ’702 patent." (Compl. ¶12). The standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The central merits dispute would be a factual one: does the animation sequence in the accused Samsung Pay interface create substantially the same overall visual impression as the sequence shown in FIGS. 3-5 of the ’702 Patent? Without visuals of the accused product, this question cannot be analyzed.
    • Scope Question: The scope of the claimed design is limited to the elements shown in solid lines in the patent figures. (’702 Patent, DESCRIPTION). A court would have to determine whether the specific arrangement of icons in FIG. 3 and the particular pattern of circles in FIG. 4 are present in the accused design, or if the differences are significant enough to avoid infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, claim construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than on discrete text-based terms. The "claim" is understood through the patent's figures.

  • The "Claim": The ornamental design as depicted in FIGS. 3, 4, and 5.
  • Context and Importance: The outcome of the infringement analysis depends entirely on the visual comparison between the patent figures and the accused product. The key question is how closely the accused design must track the patented figures to be considered substantially similar.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that the claim should be viewed more broadly as the overall concept of a three-stage animation with a payment screen, a transitional pattern, and a confirmation screen, suggesting minor differences in the specific icons or patterns are immaterial to the overall visual impression.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant would argue the claim is narrowly limited to the specific visual details shown in the solid-line drawings. This would include the precise 2x3 grid of circles in FIG. 4 and the specific layout of the initial screen in FIG. 3. The patent’s explicit disclaimer of the device shape and text content further narrows the protected design to only the specific GUI elements shown. (’702 Patent, DESCRIPTION).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks a judgment for indirect infringement. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶(a)). However, the body of the complaint fails to plead any specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and intent for either induced or contributory infringement.

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

  1. Case Viability: The most critical issue is whether the plaintiff's case can survive at all. The subsequent cancellation of the patent’s only claim in post-grant review, combined with the patent owner’s terminal disclaimer, presents a likely insurmountable barrier to obtaining an injunction or future damages, and it severely complicates any claim for past damages.
  2. Pleading Deficiencies: A threshold procedural question is whether the complaint is legally sufficient given its significant drafting errors, including naming the wrong entity ("PayPal") in the prayer for relief and inconsistently identifying the patent-in-suit. (Compl. p. 3, p. 4).
  3. Substantial Similarity: If the case were to proceed on the merits, the core issue would be one of visual comparison: does the accused Samsung Pay GUI, in the eyes of an ordinary observer, create a visual impression substantially the same as the specific, three-stage animated sequence depicted in Figures 3, 4, and 5 of the ’702 Patent?