Peer Global Inc v. Apple Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Peer Global Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Davis Firm, PC; Seed Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
• Case Identification: 7:26-cv-00033, W.D. Tex., 01/29/2026
• 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 corporate campuses, a design center, and at least five retail stores, and has committed acts of infringement there. The complaint also notes that venue in this district for patent cases against Apple has been upheld in prior litigation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s iPhones and iPads running iOS 26 and iPadOS 26, which include features referred to as "Liquid Glass," infringe three U.S. patents related to a graphical "selection ring" user interface.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns a user interface primitive—a "selection ring"—designed as an alternative to traditional cursors or tap-based interactions for navigating and selecting on-screen elements, particularly within content-rich or immersive digital environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that all three patents-in-suit claim priority from a single U.S. provisional patent application filed in 2016, establishing a common priority date for the asserted patent family.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,137,878 - "Selection Ring User Interface"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,137,878, titled “Selection Ring User Interface,” issued on October 5, 2021 (the "’878 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional social media interfaces as providing an “iterative and inefficient process” for finding content, where locating older material can be “monotonous, inefficient, and in some cases impossible” due to the need to scroll through large amounts of intervening content (’878 Patent, col. 1:56-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a user interface method centered on a “selection ring.” As described in the specification, a "selection ring engine" controls a ring element that a user can select and manipulate on-screen (’878 Patent, col. 22:19-21; Fig. 6). This manipulation allows the user to position the ring over various icons or elements. The selection of an icon is based on the ring's position, which then triggers a change in the user interface, such as navigating to a new screen (’878 Patent, col. 18:38-50). The process is designed to be fluid, particularly for one-handed smartphone use, and can be used to reveal and select previously “hidden icons” (’878 Patent, col. 22:21-27).
• Technical Importance: The described invention offers a position-based selection mechanism intended to improve the speed and intuitiveness of user interaction in content-dense applications compared to traditional point-and-click or tap-based methods Compl. ¶17

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶29
• Claim 1 of the ’878 Patent breaks down into these essential method steps:
  • Presenting a first graphical user interface (GUI).
  • Enabling user control of information within that GUI.
  • Presenting a selection ring in the GUI without altering the underlying information.
  • Receiving a user's selection of the ring, which enables manipulation of its position.
  • Presenting a plurality of icons in response to the selection of the ring.
  • Receiving user manipulation of the ring’s position without altering the location of the icons.
  • Receiving the selection of an icon based on the ring's position relative to that icon.
  • Presenting a second GUI based on the selected icon.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶29

U.S. Patent No. 11,650,712 - "Selection Ring User Interface"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,650,712, titled “Selection Ring User Interface,” issued on May 16, 2023 (the "’712 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation in the same patent family, the ’712 Patent addresses the same problems of inefficient and monotonous navigation in conventional user interfaces as the ’878 Patent (’712 Patent, col. 1:53-62).
• The Patented Solution: The method described in the ’712 Patent also centers on a selection ring but frames the interaction as a two-step selection process. The user first makes a "first selection" of the ring, which causes a plurality of icons to be presented. The user then manipulates the ring's position over the icons and makes a "second selection" to choose a specific icon, which in turn causes a new interface to be presented (’712 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This patent likewise describes a position-based UI control aimed at enhancing navigational efficiency and user experience in software applications Compl. ¶17

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶48
• Claim 1 of the ’712 Patent recites a method with these core steps:
  • Presenting a selection ring in a first GUI.
  • In response to receiving a first selection of the ring, presenting a plurality of icons.
  • Receiving user manipulation of the ring's position without altering the icons' locations.
  • In response to receiving a second selection associated with the ring, selecting an icon based on the ring's position.
  • Presenting a second GUI based on the selected icon.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶48

U.S. Patent No. 11,966,559 - "Selection Ring User Interface"

• Multi-Patent Capsule:
  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,966,559, titled “Selection Ring User Interface,” issued on April 23, 2024 (the "’559 Patent").
  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the same theme, the ’559 Patent claims a method initiated by the "activation of a selection ring." This activation presents icons and enables user manipulation of the ring's position relative to those icons. A selection is then made based on the ring's position relative to an icon's position, causing the interface to transition to a new state (’559 Patent, Abstract; col. 28:11-28).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶64
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Apple's "Liquid Glass" features, alleging that they perform the claimed steps of activating a selection interface, receiving user manipulation of that interface over on-screen icons, and selecting an icon to transition to a new interface Compl. ¶¶65-70

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Apple's iPhones and iPads that operate using iOS 26 and iPadOS 26 Compl. ¶26

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the "Liquid Glass" features within iOS 26 and iPadOS 26 as the infringing technology Compl. ¶23 The infringement allegations are supported by screenshots from Apple's "Music" and "Arcade" applications, which depict a graphical selector element in a navigation bar at the bottom of the screen Compl. ¶¶30-37 As illustrated in the complaint, a user interaction activates or highlights this selector, which can then be moved across stationary icons (e.g., "Home," "Arcade," "Library"). The complaint's visual evidence, such as the annotated screenshot on page 12, shows the selection element being manipulated to highlight the "Home" icon before a selection is made Compl. p. 12 Releasing or tapping again presumably selects the highlighted icon and transitions the user to the corresponding screen Compl. ¶¶36-37

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’878 Patent Infringement Allegations

’712 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the accused "Liquid Glass" selector, which appears to be a highlighting element constrained within a standard tab bar, constitutes a "selection ring" as contemplated by the patents. The patent figures illustrate a more free-form, often circular, element that is not necessarily confined to a fixed bar (’878 Patent, Figs. 3C-3F), which may give rise to claim construction disputes.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory may face questions regarding the claimed sequence of operations. Both the ’878 and ’712 Patents require "presenting... a plurality of icons" in response to an initial selection of the ring. However, the complaint's own screenshots suggest the tab bar icons are persistently visible on the screen, and that the user's interaction merely activates the selector element over them. This raises the question of whether making already-visible icons selectable by a new mechanism meets the claim requirement of "presenting" them.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "selection ring"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept. The outcome of the case may depend on whether Apple's tab bar selector is construed as a "selection ring." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the accused feature is structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed invention.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify a particular shape, and the specification describes its function as being controlled by a "selection ring engine" to be "dragged, dropped, tapped, or otherwise manipulated" (’878 Patent, col. 22:19-27). This functional language may support a construction covering any movable, position-based selector.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Many figures in the patents depict a literal circle or ring (e.g., ’878 Patent, Fig. 3C, element 152). The specification also describes the ring in the context of a "fluid timeline social network," a context different from a standard application tab bar. This may support an argument that the term is limited to a specific shape or its originally disclosed environment.

• The Term: "presenting... a plurality of icons... in response to the selection of the selection ring" (’878 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This temporal and causal language is critical to the infringement analysis, as there appears to be a potential mismatch between the claim language and the functionality depicted in the complaint's screenshots.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "presenting" does not require making something visible for the first time, but rather making it available for a specific type of interaction. Under this view, selecting the ring "presents" the icons to the selection mode, even if they were already visible.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 8 of the ’878 Patent recites to "un-hide and present... the plurality of icons," suggesting "presenting" can mean making something visible that was previously hidden. The specification also refers to the selection ring engine operating to "illuminate hidden icons" (’878 Patent, col. 22:21), which supports an interpretation that the icons were not visible prior to the user's action.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Apple encourages users and developers to use the infringing "Liquid Glass" features through marketing materials, developer documentation (specifically for "Liquid Glass sliders"), and tutorial videos such as "Meet Liquid Glass" Compl. ¶¶40, 56
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge of the patents "at least by the date that it received notice of this lawsuit" Compl. ¶¶39, 55

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "selection ring," which is described and depicted in the patents with characteristics of a free-form, manipulable object, be construed to cover the highlighting element within the accused products’ conventional tab bar navigation system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational sequence: does the accused functionality "present" icons in response to a user's action as the claims require, or do the icons remain persistently visible? The case may turn on whether making already-visible icons available to a new selection modality satisfies the "presenting" limitation.