DCT

7:25-cv-00400

Cerence Operating Co v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00400, W.D. Tex., 09/04/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Apple Inc. maintains multiple regular and established places of business in the district, including a major campus in Austin where it employs personnel in engineering, research, and development roles related to the accused device input features.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s text input functionalities (e.g., "slide to type") and voice command features (e.g., "Hey Siri") in its iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and HomePod products infringe six patents related to gesture-based text entry on virtual keyboards and low-power voice command detection.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to fundamental user interface methods for modern smart devices, addressing how users can input text more efficiently via continuous gestures on a touchscreen and activate voice assistants while a device is in an idle or low-power state.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement for all six asserted patents during licensing discussions between May and October 2021, including the provision of claim charts for several of the patents. These allegations form the basis of Plaintiff's claims for willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-12-20 Earliest Priority Date for ’367, ’755, ’580 Patents
2003-01-16 Earliest Priority Date for ’439 Patent
2003-04-09 Earliest Priority Date for ’891 Patent
2007-07-31 ’367 Patent Issued
2008-11-18 ’439 Patent Issued
2010-07-06 ’891 Patent Issued
2011-10-12 iOS 5+ (Accused Product Version) Released
2012-03-12 Earliest Priority Date for ’885 Patent
2014-04-29 ’755 Patent Issued
2016-02-09 ’580 Patent Issued
2016-06-07 ’885 Patent Issued
2018-02-09 Apple HomePod (Accused Product) Released
2018-09-17 watchOS 5+ (Accused Product Version) Released
2019-09-19 iOS 13+ (Accused Product Version) Released
2021-05-11 Apple Allegedly Notified of ’367, ’439, ’891, ’755 Patents
2021-07-12 Apple Allegedly Notified of ’580, ’885 Patents
2025-09-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,251,367 - System And Method For Recognizing Word Patterns Based On A Virtual Keyboard Layout

Issued July 31, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the inefficiency of text input on mobile devices, noting that both serial stylus tapping and traditional handwriting recognition are slow and require significant user attention (’367 Patent, col. 1:17-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method of "shorthand gesturing" where a user enters a word by tracing a single, continuous stroke that approximates the shape formed by the word's letters on a virtual keyboard. The system is designed to recognize this overall "word pattern" independent of its precise scale or location on the screen, matching the gesture's shape against a database of known word patterns to identify the user's intent (’367 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:15-31).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to accelerate text entry on touch-input devices by replacing discrete, high-precision taps with a single, fluid, and more forgiving gesture for each word (Compl. ¶14; ’367 Patent, col. 3:21-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶14). Independent Claim 1 is analyzed here as representative.
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
    • Defining word patterns for known words based on paths connecting letters on a virtual keyboard layout.
    • Accepting a user's input as a "stroke" on that layout.
    • Matching the inputted stroke to a word pattern that it "approximates."
    • Generating the matched word.
      (’367 Patent, col. 12:26-39).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,453,439 - System And Method For Continuous Stroke Word-Based Text Input

Issued November 18, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the slow speed and high cognitive load of "point and tap" text entry on touch screens, where the user must lift and reset the stylus for each character. It also notes the inaccuracy of handwriting recognition as a viable alternative for generating substantial text (’439 Patent, col. 1:56-2:2).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user enters a word with a single continuous stroke, starting on or near the first letter's key and tracing a path "through or near" the keys of subsequent letters before lifting the stylus. A key aspect is a scoring algorithm that matches the imprecise input path against a word database, calculating a score based on factors like the weighted distances from the path to the associated keys and the word's frequency of use (’439 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:45-8:61).
  • Technical Importance: This method improved the practicality of gesture-typing by building in tolerance for user imprecision, allowing for faster and less visually demanding input compared to discrete tapping methods (Compl. ¶23; ’439 Patent, col. 3:32-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶23). Independent Claim 1 is analyzed here as representative.
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
    • A system comprising a display for a keyboard, an input device for detecting a trace of an input path, a database of words, and a processor.
    • The processor records input path data.
    • The processor identifies words from the database where the letters are associated with keys "within a determined threshold distance" of points on the input path.
    • The processor compares the input path with the identified words.
      (’439 Patent, col. 29:5-30).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,750,891 - Selective Input System Based On Tracking Of Motion Parameters Of An Input Device

Issued July 6, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an input system that identifies user selections by tracking motion parameters of a pointing device. Selections are determined by detecting changes in motion, such as direction or velocity, or a lack of motion at specific locations corresponding to features on a keyboard or pad (’891 Patent, Abstract). (Compl. ¶31).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims, including at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶32).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Apple iPhones and iPads with iOS13+ have a selective input system that infringes by tracking the motion of a pointing device over an area (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 8,712,755 - System And Method For Improving Text Input In A Shorthand-On-Keyboard Interface

Issued April 29, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a word pattern recognition system for text input on a shorthand-on-keyboard interface. The system uses a "core lexicon" of common words and an "extended lexicon" for less common words, with mechanisms to promote words from the extended to the core lexicon based on user selection (’755 Patent, Abstract). (Compl. ¶40).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims, including at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Apple iPhones and iPads with iOS13+ that utilize a word pattern recognition system for shorthand-on-keyboard input (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 9,256,580 - System And Method For Improving Text Input In A Shorthand-On-Keyboard Interface

Issued February 9, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent appears related to the ’755 patent and describes a word pattern recognition system for improving text input. It also features a core lexicon for common words and an extended lexicon for others, with a system for outputting and promoting words based on user interaction (’580 Patent, Abstract). (Compl. ¶49).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims, including at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Apple iPhones and iPads with iOS13+ that utilize a word pattern recognition system for shorthand-on-keyboard input (Compl. ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 9,361,885 - Methods And Apparatus For Detecting A Voice Command

Issued June 7, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for monitoring for voice commands on a mobile device while it is operating in a low-power or idle mode. The system uses a multi-stage process, potentially with a first, low-power processor for initial evaluation, to detect a voice command without requiring an explicit trigger from the user (’885 Patent, Abstract). (Compl. ¶58).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims, including at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶59).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Apple iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, and HomePods that utilize methods for monitoring for voice commands (e.g., "Hey Siri") while in low-power or idle modes (Compl. ¶59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies two categories of accused instrumentalities:
    1. Text Input Products: Apple iPhones and iPads with iOS13+ or later, which include the "slide to type" (also known as QuickPath) keyboard functionality (Compl. ¶¶14, 23).
    2. Voice Command Products: Apple iPhones and iPads with iOS5+, Apple Watches with watchOS 5+, and Apple HomePods released on or after February 2018, which include functionality for monitoring and detecting voice commands in a low-power state (e.g., "Hey Siri") (Compl. ¶59).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused "slide to type" functionality allows users to input text by dragging a finger from one letter to the next on the virtual keyboard without lifting it, forming a continuous path for each word (Compl. ¶23). This feature is a primary text-entry method on iOS devices.
  • The accused voice command functionality allows devices to continuously listen for a wake word or phrase (e.g., "Hey Siri") while in an idle or sleep state, enabling hands-free activation of the device's virtual assistant (Compl. ¶59). This is a core feature of Apple's device ecosystem.
  • The complaint does not provide specific allegations regarding the products' market positioning beyond identifying Cerence as a leading provider of automotive assistant technology (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint references claim chart exhibits that are not provided; the narrative infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

  • ’367 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe by utilizing systems and methods that recognize word patterns from user input (Compl. ¶14). The alleged infringement theory is that a user's finger-swiping gesture constitutes a "stroke," which the Apple device matches to a stored list of word patterns to generate and display the intended word (Compl. ¶14). This functionality is alleged to meet all limitations of at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶15).

  • ’439 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that Apple's "slide to type" functionality infringes by allowing a user to enter a word through a continuous stroke that traces through or near the keys of each letter in sequence (Compl. ¶23). The system is alleged to match this input pattern against a database of words to determine the correct entry, thereby satisfying the limitations of at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶24).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the text-input patents (’367, ’439, ’891, ’755, ’580) may be whether claim terms drafted in the context of early-2000s stylus-based technology (e.g., "stroke," "stylus") can be construed to cover modern finger-based input on capacitive touchscreens. For the ’885 voice command patent, a key scope question will be how the patent's description of a multi-stage, multi-processor architecture for low-power listening maps onto the specific hardware and software implementation of Apple's "Hey Siri" feature.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations for the text-input patents are functional and do not detail the specific algorithms Apple uses to match a gesture path to a word. A key technical question will be whether Apple's matching algorithm—which likely involves complex weighting of path geometry, speed, and linguistic models—performs the same steps as those required by the claims, or does so in a fundamentally different way.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "stroke" (from ’367 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the text-input patents. Its construction will determine whether a continuous finger gesture on a modern capacitive touchscreen falls within the scope of a patent drafted during the era of resistive touchscreens and styluses. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s specification repeatedly refers to a "stylus" as the input tool.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, requiring only "accepting an input as a stroke," without limiting the input device (’367 Patent, col. 12:32-33). This may support an argument that any continuous path input, regardless of the tool, is a "stroke."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description consistently uses the term "stylus" when describing the user's interaction with the virtual keyboard (e.g., ’367 Patent, col. 2:33, 2:38, 3:20). This could support an argument that a "stroke" in the context of the invention is one made by a pen-like instrument, not a finger.

  • The Term: "approximates" (from ’367 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the necessary level of similarity between the user's gesture and the ideal word pattern. Its construction is critical because the core of the dispute is about how much imprecision the patented system tolerates versus how much the accused Apple products tolerate.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s core purpose is to move away from precise tapping, allowing users to "produce these patterns with much less visual attention, in a more open-loop fashion" (’367 Patent, col. 3:32-35). This suggests "approximates" should be construed broadly to cover significant deviation from the ideal path.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes using an "elastic matching algorithm" to compute the "minimum distance" between the user's shape and a prototype (’367 Patent, col. 5:65-6:7). This could support a narrower definition tied to a specific mathematical standard of closeness, potentially excluding systems that use different matching logic.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apple induces infringement of all asserted patents by "actively encourage[ing] and instruct[ing] customers" to use the accused features, knowing these actions constitute infringement (Compl. ¶¶16, 25, 34, 43, 52, 61).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of all six patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge, stemming from a series of communications from May to October 2021 in which Plaintiff allegedly notified Apple of the patents-in-suit and its infringement contentions (Compl. ¶¶10, 20, 29, 38, 47, 56, 65).

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

  • A central issue will be one of technological evolution and claim scope: Can claim terms originating from the early era of stylus-and-PDA interaction be interpreted to cover the sophisticated, finger-driven, and algorithmically complex gesture-typing and voice-activation systems in Apple's modern device ecosystem? The dispute will likely focus on whether terms like "stroke" and "approximates" are broad enough to bridge the technological gap between the patent's filing date and the accused products.
  • A key question of fact will concern pre-suit knowledge and willfulness: The complaint makes specific allegations of pre-suit notice, including the provision of claim charts. The evidence surrounding these 2021 communications will be critical in determining whether Apple's alleged infringement was willful, which could substantially increase potential damages if infringement is found.
  • An evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: For both the text-input and voice-command patents, the case will depend on the specific algorithms and hardware architectures Apple employs. A core dispute will be whether Apple's methods for matching a gesture path or detecting a voice command in a low-power state perform the same functions in the same way as required by the patent claims, or if they represent a distinct, non-infringing technological approach.