DCT
6:23-cv-00138
Koji IP LLC v. Google LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Koji IP, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Google, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00138, W.D. Tex., 02/22/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for automatically setting up application programs on portable devices to communicate with nearby appliances infringe a patent related to methods for discovering such appliances and managing the application's user interface.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the setup and user experience for "Internet of Things" (IoT) devices, aiming to simplify the process by which a portable device like a smartphone discovers and installs the necessary software to control a new smart appliance.
- 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 |
|---|---|
| 2016-08-04 | '599 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-11-05 | '599 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-02-22 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,469,599 - "Automatic setting up of application program in portable computing device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,469,599, "Automatic setting up of application program in portable computing device," issued November 5, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to address improvements in the setup of application programs designed for wireless communication between portable computing devices (e.g., smartphones) and various appliances (e.g., IoT devices) (ʼ599 Patent, col. 1:46-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a portable device discovers a nearby appliance over a close-range wireless network. In response, the device enables a user interface for a corresponding control application. A key aspect of the invention is managing the visibility and accessibility of the application's icon on the device's home screen based on whether the appliance is currently discovered or not (ʼ599 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-9, col. 3:26-31). The application itself can be downloaded from the appliance or a remote server using a URI provided by the appliance ('599 Patent, col. 2:15-20, col. 2:41-53).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to streamline the user experience for connecting and managing smart devices, a critical factor for the adoption and usability of IoT ecosystems ('599 Patent, col. 1:46-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-19 of the '599 patent (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is central to the allegations.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1, a computer program product, require instructions for a processor to perform operations including:
- Displaying a home screen with selectable icons for installed applications.
- Performing a discovery process to find a nearby appliance on a wireless network.
- Disabling the display of the specific application's icon in a selectable form on the home screen when the appliance is not discovered.
- Enabling the display of the specific application's icon in a selectable form on the home screen when the appliance is discovered.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the patent ('599 Patent, Compl. ¶8).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint does not name any specific accused product or service (Compl. ¶8). It refers broadly to Defendant’s "systems, products, and services" that perform the function of "automatically setting up an application program in a portable computing device in wireless communication with an appliance" (Compl. ¶7).
Functionality and Market Context
Based on the general allegations, the accused functionality involves a portable device discovering a nearby appliance and automatically configuring an application to communicate with it (Compl. ¶7, ¶10). The complaint does not provide details on the specific operation or market context of any particular Google product.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶9). The following summary is based on the narrative allegations.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| performing a discovery process to discover an appliance which is present within a range of a close-range wireless communication network... | The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products and services perform a discovery process to find and communicate with nearby appliances (Compl. ¶7). | ¶7 | col. 10:58-64 |
| in displaying the home screen, disabling display of a first icon associated with a first app in the selectable form on the home screen even if the first app has been installed... when the appliance is not being discovered... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. | N/A | col. 34:57-col. 35:4 |
| in displaying the home screen, enabling display of the first icon in the selectable form on the home screen when the appliance is being discovered over the close-range wireless communication network. | The complaint alleges that Defendant's systems and services automatically set up an application program upon discovery of an appliance (Compl. ¶7). | ¶7 | col. 35:5-9 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: A central issue will be evidentiary. The complaint's failure to identify any specific Google product (e.g., Android Fast Pair, Google Home/Nest device setup) raises the question of what specific instrumentality is accused and what factual basis exists for the infringement allegations. This lack of specificity may be an early focus of the litigation.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the accused, but unidentified, Google services actually perform the claimed steps of "enabling" and "disabling" an application icon on the "home screen." The court may need to determine if modern mobile OS user interface paradigms, such as temporary notifications, system-level pairing prompts, or app drawer management, meet these specific claim limitations.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "disabling display of a first icon ... on the home screen"
Context and Importance: The definition is critical because infringement will depend on whether the accused functionality, whatever it is, performs an action that falls within the scope of "disabling display." Practitioners may focus on this term because modern operating systems may manage application accessibility in ways that do not involve altering a static home screen icon.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests this can include "changing the icon... into... a non-selectable manner," which may support an argument that graying-out an icon or otherwise making it inactive, without removing it, constitutes "disabling" (ʼ599 Patent, col. 3:29-31).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes "removing the icon off the screen" and "deleting, removing, or stopping displaying the icon," which may support a narrower construction requiring the icon to be hidden or removed from view entirely (ʼ599 Patent, col. 3:27-28; col. 25:9-10).
The Term: "enabling display of the first icon ... on the home screen"
Context and Importance: This term is the counterpart to "disabling display" and is equally central to the infringement analysis. The specific user interface action taken by an accused product upon discovering a device will be compared against the court's construction of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes this action as "popping up an icon... in a selectable manner on a screen, such as a home screen," which could be argued to cover temporary, interactive notifications that allow an application to be launched (ʼ599 Patent, col. 3:1-4).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and description of making a previously deactivated icon "active" or "more vivid" could support a construction that requires the manipulation of a persistent icon already on the home screen, rather than a transient pop-up (ʼ599 Patent, col. 25:11-20; FIGs. 29A-B).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant encourages and instructs customers on how to use its products to perform the allegedly infringing automatic setup (Compl. ¶10). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for the accused products and services (Compl. ¶11).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged knowledge of the '599 patent and its underlying technology "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10-11). Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to amend the complaint to allege pre-suit knowledge if it is revealed during discovery (Compl. ¶10, fn. 1).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary threshold issue will be one of specificity and evidence: which of Google’s numerous device-pairing and software-provisioning services are being accused, and what factual evidence demonstrates that they practice the specific claim limitations, particularly the dynamic enabling and disabling of an application icon on a "home screen"? The complaint's current generality suggests this will be a central point of contention.
- The case will likely also turn on a question of claim construction and scope: can the terms "enabling display" and "disabling display" of an icon "on the home screen," which are rooted in the patent's specific embodiments, be construed to cover the diverse and evolving user interface mechanisms—such as system-level notifications, temporary prompts, and app library management—that are used in modern mobile operating systems?