DCT

7:25-cv-00400

Cerence Operating Co v. Apple Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00400, W.D. Tex., 12/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Apple maintains multiple regular and established places of business in the district, including large campuses in Austin that employ engineering and product teams allegedly involved with the accused user experience and device input features.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "slide to type" keyboard functionality and "Hey Siri" voice command features, as implemented in iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, and HomePods, infringe six patents related to gesture-based text input and voice command detection.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to user interface methods for text and voice input on mobile and smart devices, a critical area of functionality for the modern consumer electronics market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff contacted Defendant in May 2021 to discuss a potential license to its mobile text entry and wake word patent portfolios. During these communications, which continued until Apple declined a license in September 2021, Plaintiff states it provided Defendant with claim charts identifying infringement by Apple's products for several of the patents-in-suit. These allegations form the basis of the complaint's claims for willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-12-20 U.S. Patent No. 7,251,367 Priority Date
2004-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 7,750,891 Priority Date
2004-07-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,453,439 Priority Date
2007-07-31 U.S. Patent No. 7,251,367 Issued
2008-11-18 U.S. Patent No. 7,453,439 Issued
2010-07-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,750,891 Issued
2013-03-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,361,885 Priority Date
2013-04-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,712,755 Priority Date
2014-03-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,256,580 Priority Date
2014-04-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,712,755 Issued
2016-02-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,256,580 Issued
2016-06-07 U.S. Patent No. 9,361,885 Issued
2018-02-01 Apple HomePods first released (earliest date for an accused product)
2021-05-01 Cerence allegedly first contacted Apple regarding licensing
2021-07-12 Cerence allegedly provided Apple with an asset list including the ’580 and ’439 patents
2021-09-22 Cerence allegedly sent communication to Apple regarding the ’885 patent
2021-09-30 Apple allegedly informed Cerence it would decline a license
2025-12-15 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 addresses the inefficiency of text input on mobile devices, noting that traditional handwriting recognition is slow and serial tapping on virtual keyboards requires significant visual attention, preventing users from focusing on the text output. (’367 Patent, col. 1:28-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "shorthand gesturing" system where a user draws a single continuous stroke that approximates the shape formed by connecting the letters of a word on a virtual keyboard. A recognition system then identifies the word by matching the shape of the input stroke—independent of its specific location or scale on the screen—to a stored list of word patterns. (’367 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:25-36). The system is designed to distinguish between short taps for individual letters and longer strokes for full words (See ’367 Patent, FIG. 2A).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to combine the fluidity of handwriting with the structure of a keyboard, potentially increasing text entry speed by reducing both the number of distinct user actions (one stroke per word) and the need for precise visual targeting. (’367 Patent, col. 3:12-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶19). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
  • Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • defining word patterns of a plurality of known words by a plurality of paths, wherein each path connects elements in a word on a virtual keyboard layout;
    • accepting an input as a stroke based on a virtual keyboard layout;
    • matching the inputted stroke to a word having a word pattern that approximates the inputted stroke; and
    • generating the matched word having the word pattern that approximates the inputted stroke.
  • 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 of text entry on touch-screen devices as a primary problem. It notes that both handwriting recognition and traditional "point and tap" methods on virtual keyboards are inefficient, with the latter requiring the user to constantly lift and reset the stylus for each letter. (’439 Patent, col. 1:47-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method where a user enters a complete word by tracing a single, continuous path on or near the virtual keyboard keys corresponding to the letters of the word in sequence. The user only lifts the stylus from the screen after the last letter. A pattern matching system then compares the traced path to a database of words to identify and output the intended word, presenting alternatives if necessary. (’439 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:57-67).
  • Technical Importance: This method aimed to increase typing speed by eliminating the discrete "tap" action for each letter, instead creating a fluid, cursive-like motion for each word, thereby reducing the number of distinct physical movements required from the user. (’439 Patent, col. 1:63-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶28). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
  • Essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • providing a virtual keyboard on a touch-screen display;
    • receiving a continuous stroke input path traced by a user;
    • determining an input pattern from data associated with the input path;
    • identifying one or more candidate words from a database by comparing the input pattern to data associated with words in the database; and
    • presenting at least one of the identified candidate words to the user.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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: The patent describes a system that tracks the motion of a pointing device (e.g., a stylus) over an area. The system identifies user selections by detecting specific motion parameters, such as a change in direction, a change in velocity, or a pause at locations corresponding to selectable items. (’891 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’891 patent (Compl. ¶37).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Apple iPhones and iPads with iOS13+ of infringing the ’891 patent (Compl. ¶37).

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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 describes a word pattern recognition system for a shorthand-on-keyboard interface that uses a "core lexicon" of common words and an "extended lexicon" for less common words. The system prioritizes matching words from the core lexicon to improve recognition robustness and speed, and allows words from the extended lexicon to be added to the core lexicon upon user selection. (’755 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’755 patent (Compl. ¶46).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Apple iPhones and iPads with iOS13+ of utilizing a word pattern recognition system that infringes the ’755 patent (Compl. ¶46).

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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: Sharing a title and abstract with the ’755 patent, this patent also describes a word pattern recognition system using a core lexicon and an extended lexicon. It further discloses a concatenation module for inputting parts of a long word separately and a compound word module for combining shorter words. (’580 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’580 patent (Compl. ¶55).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Apple iPhones and iPads with iOS13+ of utilizing an infringing word pattern recognition system (Compl. ¶55).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,361,885 - *"Methods And Apparatus For Detecting A Voice Command,"* issued June 7, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for a mobile device to monitor for voice commands while operating in a low-power mode. The system uses a first, low-power processor for initial acoustic processing stages and engages a second, more powerful processor only if further processing is needed to determine if a voice command was spoken. (’885 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’885 patent (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Apple iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, and HomePods that utilize methods for monitoring voice commands in low power or idle mode (e.g., "Hey Siri") of infringing the ’885 patent (Compl. ¶64).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies several categories of accused products: Apple iPhones and iPads running iOS 13 or later; Apple iPhones and iPads running iOS 5 or later; Apple Watches running watchOS 5 or later; and Apple HomePods released on or after February 2018 (Compl. ¶19, ¶64).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The allegations focus on two core functionalities. The first is Apple's "slide to type" keyboard feature (also known as QuickPath), which allows users to input text by sliding a finger or stylus in a continuous path across the letters of a word on the virtual keyboard (Compl. ¶28). The second is the "wake word" or "Hey Siri" feature, which allows devices to monitor for voice commands while in a low-power or idle state and activate upon hearing the trigger phrase (Compl. ¶64). Both features are central to the user experience on Apple's flagship mobile and smart-home products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits that allegedly detail the infringement of an independent claim for each asserted patent (Compl. ¶20, ¶29, ¶38, ¶47, ¶56, ¶65). In the absence of these exhibits, the infringement theory must be summarized from the narrative allegations.

  • '367 Patent Infringement Allegations
    • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe by utilizing systems that recognize word patterns. This is accomplished by "identifying an input as a stroke, matching the stroke to a stored list of word patterns, and generating and displaying the matched word to the user." (Compl. ¶19). This narrative mirrors the core steps of representative independent claim 1.
  • '439 Patent Infringement Allegations
    • The complaint alleges that Apple's "slide to type" functionality infringes by allowing a user to enter a word via a continuous stroke. The user allegedly contacts the keyboard at or near the first letter, traces "through or near the key of each letter in sequence," and lifts the input device at the end of the word. The system then "matches the input pattern to the correct word by comparing it against words in a database." (Compl. ¶28, ¶11). This description aligns with the sequence of operations described in representative independent claim 1.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’367 Patent, a central question may be whether Apple's on-keyboard path tracking infringes claims directed to recognizing a "shorthand gesture" based on its shape, independent of scale and location. The defense may argue that Apple's system does not perform shape recognition, but instead identifies key regions intersected by a path, representing a fundamentally different technical approach.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’439 Patent, the dispute may focus on the technical implementation of "matching the input pattern." The degree of imprecision allowed by Apple's system and the specific algorithms used to score a path against a word database will be compared to the methods disclosed in the patent. Questions may arise regarding how Apple's system handles paths that are merely "near" keys, as required by the claim, versus paths that directly intersect key regions.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from '367 Patent, Claim 1: "matching the inputted stroke to a word having a word pattern that approximates the inputted stroke"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation describing the recognition process. Its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to a specific type of geometric shape matching or can be read more broadly to cover other methods of correlating a continuous user stroke with a word.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's stated goal is to allow users to produce patterns "with much less visual attention, in a more open-loop fashion" (’367 Patent, col. 3:33-34), suggesting the matching process is intended to be flexible.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description references "a classic elastic matching algorithm" and computing the "minimum distance between two sets of points" from the user's "unknown shape" and a "prototype" shape defined by the word. (’367 Patent, col. 6:1-9). This could be used to argue the claim is limited to such specific shape-comparison algorithms.

  • Term from '439 Patent, Claim 1: "tracing through or near the key of each letter in sequence"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the physical action performed by the user and the system's required capability. The definition of "near" will be critical to the scope of infringement, particularly for paths that do not directly intersect the defined key boundaries. Practitioners may focus on this term because it directly addresses the system's tolerance for user imprecision.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background section criticizes systems that require precise contact and highlights the goal of speeding up text entry, which implies a need for imprecision. The abstract's phrasing "tracing through or near" suggests these are distinct but covered actions. (’439 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:57-67).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses calculating a "scoring metric" based on "the distances of the letter-keys of the word from the path points with which they are associated." (’439 Patent, col. 14:25-30). This could support a more constrained, mathematical definition of "near" tied to specific distance thresholds used in the matching algorithm.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apple induces infringement by "actively encourage[ing] and instruct[ing] customers" to use the accused features on their devices, with the knowledge and intent that such use will constitute infringement (Compl. ¶21, ¶30, ¶39, ¶48, ¶57, ¶66).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all six patents. The allegations are based on pre-suit knowledge allegedly established during licensing discussions between May and October 2021. During this period, Cerence claims it explicitly notified Apple of the ’367, ’439, ’891, ’755, ’580, and ’885 patents and provided claim charts for several of them, putting Apple on notice of its alleged infringement (Compl. ¶10, ¶25, ¶34, ¶43, ¶52, ¶61, ¶70).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of technical divergence: Does Apple's "slide-to-type" system, which relies on tracking a path across defined keyboard regions, operate in a manner consistent with the '367 patent's teaching of location- and scale-independent "shorthand gesture" shape recognition, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the underlying technology?
  2. A central evidentiary question will concern pre-suit knowledge: What specific information was conveyed in the 2021 licensing communications, and did this information provide Apple with knowledge of alleged infringement sufficiently clear and specific to support a finding of willful infringement for each of the six asserted patents?
  3. The case will raise questions of claim differentiation: Given that at least three of the asserted patents (’439, ’755, ’580) are directed at improving continuous-stroke text input, a key challenge for the plaintiff will be to articulate distinct and non-redundant infringement theories for each, while a key issue for the court will be construing the claims to preserve their individual scope and validity.