DCT
6:23-cv-00568
Omnitek Partners LLC v. Google LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Omnitek Partners, LLC (New York)
- Defendant: Google, LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC; SpencePC
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00568, W.D. Tex., 08/04/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Google maintains a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas, employs personnel in the district, and has committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartwatch products infringe a patent related to using a device's physical casing as a communication bus for its internal electronic components.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the miniaturization and robustness of electronic devices by replacing traditional, fragile internal wiring with a system where signals are transmitted through the device’s own structure.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant Google acquired Fitbit, Inc. in January 2021, making Google the party of interest for accused Fitbit products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-08-12 | ’293 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-09-18 | ’293 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-01-01 | Google acquires Fitbit, Inc. |
| 2023-08-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,272,293 - "Device having a casing and/or interior acting as a communication bus between electronic components," issued September 18, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the disadvantages of conventional internal wiring used to connect electronic components within a device. These disadvantages include susceptibility to noise and shock, brittleness, consumption of valuable internal space, and the potential for poor connections. (’293 Patent, col. 2:31-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a device where at least a portion of the physical casing is engineered to function as a communication bus, such as an optical or ultrasonic waveguide, to transmit signals between internal components. This solution aims to replace conventional wiring, thereby creating a more robust and space-efficient design. (’293 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:43-48). For example, Figure 1 illustrates a casing (102) with an integrated waveguide portion (108) that acts as a bus for various electronic components (112, 116). (’293 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to enable the design of smaller, more durable portable electronic devices by eliminating the physical and electrical-interference problems associated with traditional internal wiring. (’293 Patent, col. 6:43-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, and 18.
- Independent Claim 1 (Device):
- A device other than a projectile;
- A plurality of electronic/electrical components;
- A casing with at least a portion acting as a communication bus for transmitting a signal in a "point-to-many links manner" between the components;
- Wherein the transmitted signal is available to each of the plurality of components on the bus.
- Independent Claim 17 (Device):
- A device other than a projectile;
- A casing for holding a plurality of electronic/electrical components;
- A communication bus formed at least in part by the casing;
- Wherein the components are operatively connected to the bus in a "point-to-many links manner" and are capable of transmitting and detecting a signal on the bus;
- And the signal is available to each of the components on the bus.
- Independent Claim 18 (Method):
- A method of communication in a device (other than a projectile) having a casing;
- Providing the casing with a portion acting as a communication bus;
- Operatively connecting components to the bus such that a signal transmitted in a "point-to-many links manner" is available to each component.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claim 2 and reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶22).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as the Google Pixel Watch and the Fitbit Ionic, Charge, Versa, and Flex smartwatches (collectively, the "Smartwatches"). (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Smartwatches contain a plurality of electronic components within a casing. (Compl. ¶23).
- It further alleges that a portion of the casing is an "optical waveguide" that acts as a communication bus, transmitting optical signals between a transmitter on one component and a detector on another. (Compl. ¶24).
- The complaint asserts that Google sells all accused products, including the Fitbit-branded devices acquired through its purchase of Fitbit, Inc. (Compl. ¶20, fn. 1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’293 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A device other than a projectile | The accused Smartwatches are devices other than projectiles. | ¶26 | col. 10:28 |
| a plurality of electronic/electrical components | The Smartwatches have a plurality of electronic/electrical components. | ¶23 | col. 1:50-54 |
| a casing, the casing having at least a portion thereof acting as a communication bus for transmitting a signal in a point-to-many links manner between the plurality of electronic/electrical components | The Smartwatches have a casing with a portion (alleged to be an optical waveguide) that acts as a communication bus to transmit signals in a point-to-many links manner between components. | ¶¶23, 24 | col. 2:43-48 |
| wherein the transmitted signal is available to each of the plurality of electronic/electrical components on the communication bus | The signal transmitted on the bus is available to each of the plurality of electronic/electrical components. | ¶23 | col. 2:20-23 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that a portion of the Smartwatch casing is an "optical waveguide" used for inter-component communication (Compl. ¶24). A primary question of fact will be whether any part of the accused devices' casings actually functions in this manner. The court may need to distinguish between a casing that is engineered to act as a waveguide for communication (as described in the patent) and, for example, a casing that merely has a transparent window for an optical sensor (like a heart rate monitor) to function. The complaint does not provide specific evidence to support its technical assertion.
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the scope of "point-to-many links manner." The complaint asserts this functionality (Compl. ¶23), but a key question will be whether the accused devices broadcast a single signal to multiple distinct components via the casing, or whether they employ a series of point-to-point communications that do not meet this limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "communication bus"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention. Its construction will determine whether the claims cover any structure that incidentally passes a signal or if they are limited to a structure specifically designed and integrated into the casing for the purpose of replacing conventional wiring.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a very broad definition, stating that "a communication bus is anything that transmits one or more signals between two or more components." (’293 Patent, col. 2:14-16).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently frames the invention as a solution to the problems of "internal wiring." (’293 Patent, col. 2:31-34). The embodiments exclusively depict a dedicated "waveguide portion" (e.g., 108, 208, 308) integrated into the casing to serve this bus function, suggesting a purpose-built feature rather than an incidental signal path. (’293 Patent, Figs. 1, 3, 4; col. 5:6-12).
The Term: "operatively connected"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of the "connection" between the electronic components and the casing-bus is critical. The dispute will question whether simply placing a component near the casing constitutes an operative connection or if a more direct, functional interface is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes various connection methods, including direct adhesion and mechanical fastening with brackets, suggesting flexibility in how components interface with the bus. (’293 Patent, col. 2:23-34, col. 5:47-59).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed descriptions and figures show components like transmitters and detectors being mounted directly on, or in close proximity to, the waveguide to ensure reliable signal transfer, implying a deliberate and structured physical arrangement for communication. (’293 Patent, Fig. 2B; col. 5:24-34).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement. (Compl. ¶10). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for induced infringement, such as references to user manuals or other instructional materials provided by the Defendant.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's knowledge of the ’293 patent "at least by virtue of service or acknowledged delivery of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶27). This constitutes an allegation of post-suit willfulness only; no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged. (Compl. ¶28).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary question will be one of technical function: does the complaint’s theory rest on a valid technical premise? Specifically, does discovery show that a portion of the accused smartwatch casings is in fact used as an "optical waveguide" for "point-to-many" communication between internal electronic components, or is this allegation a mischaracterization of a different technology, such as the operation of optical health sensors?
- The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: how will the court construe the term "communication bus"? Will it adopt the patent’s broad abstract definition of "anything that transmits" a signal, or will the prosecution history and specification limit the term to a purpose-built structure integrated into the casing to replace traditional wiring, as depicted in the patent's embodiments? The resolution of this issue could significantly impact the infringement analysis.