ProudLion IP LLC v. Amazon.com Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ProudLion IP, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc. (Delaware / Washington)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:24-cv-00297, W.D. Tex., 11/20/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for altering the operation and appearance of portable computing devices infringe a patent related to user-customizable device modes.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns software applications that allow users to create personalized "skins" or operating modes for portable devices like smartphones by adjusting settings and aggregating various communication applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, but alleges these licenses were to end litigation and did not grant rights to produce a patented article, a point raised to preemptively address potential defenses related to patent marking requirements.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,967,389 - "System And Method For Selectable Alteration Of Operation And Appearance Of A Portable Computing Device"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes that conventional portable computing devices can be "obtrusive" in certain environments, such as a "darkened hall, or the necessity for silencing certain features" (’389 Patent, col. 1:40-52). Pre-loaded profiles or skins are often not sufficiently personalized for a user's specific needs in these situations (id.).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an application that allows a user to create a custom operating mode by adjusting multiple parameters (e.g., backlight, font, notification type) and "aggregating" different types of applications (e.g., email, messaging, social media) into a single, customized interface (’389 Patent, col. 2:3-24). This is achieved through a sequence of user selections on the device's touchscreen without needing external connectivity, allowing for on-the-fly personalization based on user-selected actions (’389 Patent, col. 1:53-57). A Certificate of Correction clarifies that the invention relates to a "personalized appearance or 'skin'" for a portable device (’389 Patent, Certificate of Correction).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for deep, user-driven customization of a device's user interface and operational characteristics that goes beyond standard operating system settings.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 of the ’389 patent (Compl. ¶8).
• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
  • A portable computing device with a touch screen, variable lighting module, frequency alteration module, processor, and non-volatile memory.
  • The memory contains instructions for the processor to perform a sequence of steps:
    • (a) receive a first mode alteration request using a "first actuation object";
    • (b-d) "selectably aggregate" pluralities of email, messaging, and social network applications;
    • (e-g) "selectably alter" backlight level, font, and frequency mode;
    • (h) accept the alterations/aggregations using a "second actuation object"; and
    • (i) implement the mode alteration using a "third actuation object".
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the assertion of claims 1-20 covers all claims in the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint broadly accuses "systems, apparatuses and methods that selectably alter the operation and appearance of a portable computing device" developed, sold, or administered by Defendant (Compl. ¶8). It provides a URL to a single exemplary product, the "SKG-Android-Smartwatch-Bluetooth-Waterproof" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products and services embody the claimed invention but does not describe the specific functionality of the accused smartwatch or any other Amazon system (Compl. ¶8). It asserts that the accused products have "no evidence to the contrary" of being used in an infringing manner and are not staple commercial products (Compl. ¶11).

• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an exemplary claim chart in "Exhibit B" but this exhibit was not attached to the filed document (Compl. ¶9). The infringement theory must be inferred from the general allegations.

’389 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: The complaint does not identify any specific feature of the accused smartwatch or other Amazon system that performs the claimed functions. A central issue will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence mapping accused features to the claim elements, particularly the aggregation and multi-step actuation requirements.
• Scope Question: A dispute may arise over whether standard user interface actions in an operating system (e.g., creating a folder for apps, accessing a settings menu, and hitting an "apply" button) meet the specific limitations of a "first," "second," and "third actuation object" as recited sequentially in the claim.
• Technical Question: The complaint provides no detail on how the accused products "selectably aggregate" applications. This raises the question of whether the accused functionality involves merely grouping icons or a deeper integration, such as creating a unified notification stream as depicted in the patent’s figures (’389 Patent, Fig. 3, 6).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "selectably aggregate" (Claim 1, elements b, c, d)

• Context and Importance: This term is repeated for three different application types and is central to the invention's customization feature. Its definition will determine whether simple UI grouping (like creating a folder) infringes, or if a more sophisticated functional integration is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "aggregate" suggests gathering or compiling, which could support an argument that any user-directed grouping of application icons falls within the claim scope.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a process of displaying aggregated applications "in a single screen with selectable order" and providing a "display [of an] aggregated list of messaging" (’389 Patent, col. 5:32-39, Fig. 4 element 406). This may support a narrower construction requiring the creation of a new, unified functional view, not just an icon folder.

The Term: "first actuation object", "second actuation object", "third actuation object" (Claim 1, elements a, h, i)

• Context and Importance: The claim recites a specific three-step sequence of user actions. The interpretation of these terms will determine if a generic settings-change workflow infringes, or if the specific, structured process described in the patent is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "actuation object" could be argued to cover any user-interactive element on a screen, such as an icon or button.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links these terms to a distinct sequence: a "first actuation object" is the "app launcher 101"; a "second actuation object" is an item like "Settings" (110) or "Confirm" (116a) within the app's menu; and a "third actuation object" is used to "implement the mode alteration," such as an "Apply" button (120) (’389 Patent, col. 8:52-61; Fig. 1B, 2). This suggests a specific, multi-layered UI path that may be narrower than a general interpretation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" customers on how to use its products to infringe (Compl. ¶10). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products are not staple commercial goods and their "only reasonable use is an infringing use" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not cite specific instructions or manuals to support these claims.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶10). The complaint reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶10, n.1).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: can the Plaintiff, through discovery, identify specific features within an Amazon product that map to the detailed, multi-step process of claim 1? The complaint’s lack of factual specificity makes this the central threshold question.
• A key legal question will be one of claim scope: can the three-part "actuation object" sequence be construed broadly to read on a generic "open-settings-apply" user action, or is it limited to the more structured, application-specific workflow detailed in the patent’s specification and figures?
• The case may also turn on the technical meaning of "aggregate": does creating a folder of app icons on a home screen constitute "selectably aggregat[ing]" applications, or does the patent require a functional consolidation of content or notifications into a new, unified interface?