DCT

2:17-cv-00932

Cywee Group Ltd v. HTC Corp

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00932, W.D. Wash., 07/06/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper for HTC America as it is incorporated in Washington. Venue is alleged for HTC Corporation, a foreign entity, on the basis that it can be sued in any district and because it maintains a regular and established place of business in the district through its subsidiary and agent, HTC America.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s HTC-branded smartphones infringe patents related to using multi-axis sensor data to determine a device's orientation and movement in three-dimensional space.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves combining data from accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers to accurately track a handheld device's 3D orientation (yaw, pitch, and roll), which is foundational for motion-based controls in applications like mobile gaming and navigation.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendants previously submitted to the court's jurisdiction by filing their own lawsuit in the district. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, both patents-in-suit underwent inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. For U.S. Patent 8,441,438, the IPR resulted in the cancellation of all claims asserted in the complaint. For U.S. Patent 8,552,978, the IPR also resulted in the cancellation of all claims asserted in the complaint. These cancellations raise a threshold question about the viability of the present infringement action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-07-29 Alleged priority date for claims of the ’438 Patent
2010-01-06 Priority date for claims of the ’978 Patent
2013-05-14 U.S. Patent 8,441,438 issues
2013-10-08 U.S. Patent 8,552,978 issues
2017-07-06 First Amended Complaint filed
2023-09-15 IPR Certificate issues for ’978 Patent, cancelling claim 10
2024-08-21 IPR Certificate issues for ’438 Patent, cancelling claim 14

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 - 3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Movement Thereof

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438, "3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Movement Thereof," issued May 14, 2013. (Compl. ¶20).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that prior art pointing devices using five-axis motion sensors could not accurately determine a device's orientation, particularly rotation about its longitudinal "roll" axis, because they could not reliably distinguish gravitational acceleration from other dynamic forces exerted on the device (Compl. ¶23; ’438 Patent, col. 2:48-61). This limitation resulted in incorrect mapping of the device's movement onto a 2D display screen. (’438 Patent, col. 2:4-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using a six-axis motion sensor module (combining a rotation sensor and an accelerometer) to improve accuracy. It employs a "comparison method" where a "current state" (derived from the rotation sensor) is compared with a "measured state" (derived from the accelerometer) to calculate an "updated state" of the device's orientation, represented as a quaternion. (’438 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:6-26). This process claims to produce an "absolute" representation of the device's yaw, pitch, and roll angles, rather than just tracking relative movement. (’438 Patent, col. 4:11-19).
  • Technical Importance: This method was intended to enable more reliable and precise 3D motion tracking in handheld devices, overcoming errors in dynamic environments to support more immersive control for applications like video games. (’438 Patent, col. 4:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 14 and incorporates a corresponding claim chart as Exhibit A. (Compl. ¶114). It reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶114).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 14 include:
    • A method for obtaining a resulting deviation for a 3D pointing device using a six-axis motion sensor.
    • Obtaining a "previous state" of the sensor module.
    • Obtaining a "current state" by measuring angular velocities (e.g., from a gyroscope).
    • Obtaining a "measured state" by both measuring axial accelerations and "calculating predicted axial accelerations... without using any derivatives of the measured angular velocities."
    • Obtaining an "updated state" by "comparing the current state with the measured state."
    • Calculating and converting the updated state into the resulting deviation (i.e., yaw, pitch, and roll angles).

U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978 - 3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Rotations of the 3D Pointing Device Thereof

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978, "3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Rotations of the 3D Pointing Device Thereof," issued October 8, 2013. (Compl. ¶118).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Building on the '438 patent, the '978 patent addresses the problem of external interferences, such as stray magnetic fields or user-introduced forces, that can corrupt sensor data and lead to inaccurate orientation tracking. ('978 Patent, col. 4:2-11).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a nine-axis motion sensing system that adds a magnetometer to the gyroscope and accelerometer. The magnetometer provides a stable heading reference relative to the Earth's magnetic field. (’978 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:15-20). A computing processor uses data from all three sensors, applying a comparison method to fuse the data and generate a "transformed output" that represents the device's motion in a fixed reference frame, such as a display screen, while compensating for drift and external interference. (’978 Patent, col. 6:20-49).
  • Technical Importance: The addition of a magnetometer to create a nine-axis system aims to provide a more robust absolute orientation and heading reference, making the technology less susceptible to cumulative error (drift) and better suited for navigation and other applications requiring stable, long-term tracking. (’978 Patent, col. 4:57-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent apparatus claim 10 and incorporates a corresponding claim chart as Exhibit B. (Compl. ¶167). It also reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶167).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 10 include:
    • A 3D pointing device with a housing and a printed circuit board (PCB).
    • A six-axis motion sensor module on the PCB, with a rotation sensor and an accelerometer.
    • A processing and transmitting module with a data transmitting unit and a computing processor.
    • The processor is configured to calculate a resulting deviation by "utilizing a comparison to compare the first signal set [from the rotation sensor] with the second signal set [from the accelerometer]."
    • The processor further comprises a "mapping program for translating said resultant angles... to said movement pattern in the 2D-display reference frame."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the HTC One M9, HTC One A9, HTC 10, HTC Bolt, and HTC U Ultra smartphones (collectively, the "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶¶27, 125).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are smartphones that run the Android operating system. (Compl. ¶¶38, 55, 72, 89, 106).
  • It is alleged that these devices contain the hardware necessary to practice the inventions, including a 3-axis accelerometer, a 3-axis gyroscope, and, for allegations related to the ’978 Patent, a 3-axis geomagnetic sensor. (Compl. ¶¶31, 32, 127).
  • The core of the infringement allegation is that the Android operating system on the Accused Products "uses the measurement from a 3-axis accelerometer and the measurement from a 3-axis gyroscope to calculate an attitude of the device." (Compl. ¶¶45, 62, 79, 96, 113). For the '978 patent, this allegation is extended to include use of the geomagnetic sensor. (Compl. ¶131).
  • The complaint alleges that this functionality enables motion-based control of applications, such as controlling racing games by rotating the device or providing orientation for navigation apps. (Compl. ¶¶133-134, 141-142). The complaint includes images identifying the accused smartphone models. This visual evidence shows the HTC One M9 and other accused models. (Compl. p. 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include the referenced claim chart exhibits. The following summary is constructed from the narrative allegations in the complaint body.

’438 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a method for obtaining a resulting deviation... of a three-dimensional (3D) pointing device utilizing a six-axis motion sensor module The Accused Products are handheld devices containing 3-axis gyroscopes and 3-axis accelerometers, which collectively form a six-axis motion sensor module. ¶¶31, 32, 48, 49 col. 5:12-20
obtaining a current state... by obtaining measured angular velocities... at a current time T The Accused Products' Android operating system uses measurements from the 3-axis gyroscope, which is capable of measuring rotation rates (angular velocities). ¶¶37, 44, 54, 61 col. 12:31-43
obtaining a measured state... by obtaining measured axial accelerations... and calculating predicted axial accelerations The Accused Products' Android operating system uses measurements from the 3-axis accelerometer. The complaint alleges the combined use of sensor data to calculate attitude, which implies a process to obtain a measured state. ¶¶36, 43, 45, 53 col. 13:1-10
obtaining an updated state... by comparing the current state with the measured state The Android operating system on the Accused Products "uses the measurement from a 3-axis accelerometer and the measurement from a 3-axis gyroscope to calculate an attitude of the device," which is alleged to constitute the claimed comparison. ¶45, 62, 79, 96 col. 13:25-40
calculating and converting the updated state... to said resulting deviation The Android OS is alleged to calculate the device's "attitude," which corresponds to the claimed "resulting deviation" of yaw, pitch, and roll angles. This attitude information is used by applications like games and navigation maps. ¶45, 133-134 col. 14:50-60

Identified Points of Contention

  • Procedural Question: A dispositive issue is that claim 14 was cancelled in an IPR proceeding subsequent to the filing of this complaint, which may render the infringement analysis for this claim moot.
  • Technical Question: The complaint alleges that the Android OS performs the claimed method by generally "us[ing]" data from the accelerometer and gyroscope to "calculate an attitude." (Compl. ¶45). A key question is whether this general functionality meets the highly specific claim limitations, such as "calculating predicted axial accelerations... without using any derivatives of the measured angular velocities." The complaint does not provide evidence on this specific computational step.
  • Scope Question: Does the general-purpose sensor fusion functionality available in a standard operating system like Android constitute the specific multi-step "comparison" method detailed in the patent's specification and flowcharts, or is there a technical mismatch?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "comparison" (’438 Patent, cl. 14; ’978 Patent, cl. 10)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core data processing step of the invention. Its construction will determine whether any form of sensor data fusion infringes, or if infringement requires the specific computational method disclosed in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the invention broadly as a method for "eliminating accumulated errors... by comparing signals" from different sensors, which could support an interpretation covering various sensor fusion algorithms. (’438 Patent, col. 4:20-30).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and FIG. 7 illustrate a very specific multi-step process involving comparing a "current state" (second quaternion) with a "measured state" (comprising both measured and predicted accelerations). (’438 Patent, col. 13:25-40). A court may limit the term "comparison" to this specific disclosed embodiment.

  • The Term: "calculating predicted axial accelerations... without using any derivatives of the measured angular velocities" (’438 Patent, cl. 14)

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a highly specific and potentially critical part of the claimed method. Infringement depends on proving that the accused system performs a calculation that avoids using derivatives of the gyroscope data in the claimed manner.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent itself creates a potential ambiguity. The "predicted axial accelerations" are calculated from a "second quaternion" (col. 13:5-10), which is itself the solution to a differential equation (Equation 1) based on the angular velocities (col. 12:50-60). This raises the question of whether a value derived from the solution to a differential equation is calculated "without using any derivatives." The resolution of this term's scope will likely require expert testimony on the underlying mathematics.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that upon the filing of the lawsuit, HTC became aware of the patents. It alleges that HTC's continued dissemination of the Accused Products along with product manuals, instructions, and marketing materials encourages distributors and end-users to perform the infringing acts with the specific intent to do so. (Compl. ¶¶28, 126).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly plead willfulness. However, it alleges that HTC's knowledge of the patents arises from the filing of the action, which could form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement. (Compl. ¶¶28, 126).

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

The resolution of this dispute, as framed by the complaint, appears to center on the following key questions:

  1. Procedural Viability: The primary and potentially dispositive question for the court is procedural: given that the asserted independent claims (Claim 14 of the '438 patent and Claim 10 of the '978 patent) were subsequently cancelled in inter partes review proceedings, does the Plaintiff have any remaining basis for an infringement action as currently pleaded?

  2. Claim Scope versus System Functionality: A core technical issue will be one of definitional scope: can the specific, multi-step "comparison" method recited in the claims, which includes calculating "predicted axial accelerations without using any derivatives," be construed to read on the general-purpose sensor fusion algorithms of the standard Android operating system, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?

  3. Evidentiary Burden: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: does the complaint's reliance on high-level Android developer documentation suffice to show that the Accused Products perform the specific computational steps of the patented methods, or would an analysis of the underlying source code be required to prove (or disprove) infringement of the detailed claim limitations?