DCT
2:18-cv-01625
Rondevoo Tech LLC v. HTC America Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rondevoo Technologies, LLC (California)
- Defendant: HTC America, Inc. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: RABICOFF LAW LLC
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-01625, W.D. Wash., 11/07/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is incorporated in Washington, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s HTC Desire 300 smartphone infringes a patent related to cluster key arrangements for data entry on electronic devices.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for organizing virtual or physical keys on compact devices, such as mobile phones, to improve the efficiency and ergonomics of entering text or symbols.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-04-23 | U.S. Patent No. 6,377,685 Priority Date |
| 2002-04-23 | U.S. Patent No. 6377685 Issue Date |
| 2018-11-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,377,685 - “Cluster Key Arrangement” (issued Apr. 23, 2002)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a technical challenge arising from the miniaturization of mobile devices like cell phones. This trend shrinks keypad sizes, making it difficult to maintain user-friendly, ergonomic buttons, especially as devices are increasingly used for text-based data entry (e.g., paging, e-mails) rather than just voice calls (’685 Patent, col. 1:5-10; col. 2:4-18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "cluster key arrangement" where a central "primary key" (e.g., a number) is physically or electronically surrounded by "secondary keys" (e.g., associated letters or symbols). This configuration allows a user to select from multiple characters associated with a single key position in a "mutually exclusive manner," aiming to improve data entry on compact keypads (’685 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:39-52). The patent describes both mechanical embodiments with pivoting keys and electronic embodiments implemented on a touchscreen display (’685 Patent, col. 6:39-41; col. 14:1-15).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide a more intuitive and efficient data entry method for handheld devices compared to traditional multi-tap systems or cluttered keypads, addressing the growing need for text input on devices with limited surface area (’685 Patent, col. 1:21-39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶14).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- At least one "cluster key" comprising a "single primary key" and "at least one secondary key" located "immediately adjacent" to the primary key.
- A "mutual exclusivity selecting means" for selecting either the primary or secondary key in a mutually exclusive manner.
- A selection mechanism that, when keys meet an actuation threshold, uses a "difference between said primary and said secondary key other than a difference in order of activation" to make a selection.
- Each primary and secondary key is "individually actuable."
- Each primary and secondary key, upon actuation, "move in a direction substantially parallel to the motion of the other."
- Each key has an "associated electrical contact," and the "mutual exclusivity selecting means selects" between keys "during preprocessing prior to activation."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The HTC Desire 300 smartphone (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the HTC Desire 300’s touchscreen keyboard infringes the ’685 Patent. The accused functionality involves the method for entering special characters, such as accented letters (Compl. ¶14). According to the complaint, a user can tap a key to input the primary character (e.g., "e") or press and hold the same key, which causes "a number of accented characters [to] appear for selection" adjacent to the primary letter (Compl. ¶17). Figure 3 is a screenshot from an HTC support page that shows a pop-up menu of secondary characters appearing above a primary key that has been pressed and held (Compl. ¶17, Fig. 3). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the product's specific market position.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’685 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| at least one cluster key | The touchscreen keyboard, which has a button that can be selected, is alleged to be the cluster key. Figure 2 shows the on-screen keyboard of the accused device (Compl. ¶15, Fig. 2). | ¶15 | col. 14:1-15 |
| said cluster key comprising a single primary key | Any lettered key on the virtual keyboard, which is selected by a brief touch, is alleged to be the primary key. | ¶16 | col. 14:16-17 |
| said cluster key comprising at least one secondary key, said secondary key being located immediately adjacent to said primary key of said cluster key | Accented characters that appear for selection after a primary key is held down are alleged to be the secondary keys. These characters are alleged to be "immediately adjacent to the primary key letter." | ¶17 | col. 14:16-20 |
| mutual exclusivity selecting means for selecting said primary key or said secondary key in a mutually exclusive manner | The system allegedly allows a user to select either a primary key (by tapping) or a secondary key (by holding and dragging), but not both simultaneously. | ¶18 | col. 5:50-52 |
| wherein when both said primary key and said secondary key have met a threshold for actuation..., said mutual exclusivity selecting means includes the use of a difference... other than a difference in order of activation... | The complaint alleges selection is based on the "position of the finger or stylus on the touch screen," which it contends is a difference "other than a difference in order of activation." | ¶19 | col. 9:5-14 |
| each of said primary and secondary keys is individually actuable | The user can allegedly select either primary or secondary keys independently of each other. | ¶20 | col. 4:40-44 |
| each of said primary key and said secondary key upon actuation move in a direction substantially parallel to the motion of the other... | The complaint alleges that the virtual keys "are connected to mutually parallel vertical conductors." | ¶21 | col. 15:10-13 |
| each of said primary key and said secondary key has an associated electrical contact..., and said mutual exclusivity selecting means selects between said primary key and said secondary key during preprocessing... | The system has an "electrical contact through the touchscreen," and the highlighting of a key before it is selected is alleged to constitute selection "during preprocessing." | ¶22 | col. 7:35-53 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for the court may be whether claim language describing physical movement, such as "move in a direction substantially parallel to the motion of the other," can be interpreted to read on a software key on a static touchscreen. The complaint's attempt to satisfy this limitation by referencing underlying "parallel vertical conductors" of the touchscreen grid raises a significant question of claim construction.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that selection is based on finger "position," satisfying the requirement for a "difference... other than a difference in order of activation." However, the described functionality relies on touch duration (tap vs. hold) to initiate the choice between primary and secondary keys. This raises the question of whether the accused method aligns with the specific selection mechanism required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "mutual exclusivity selecting means"
Context and Importance: This term, written in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is critical because its scope is limited to the specific structures disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the selection function, and their equivalents. The core of the infringement dispute will involve comparing the accused tap-vs-hold-and-drag software logic to the mechanical and electronic structures described in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the invention broadly as providing a user with "the ability to select one of a plurality of key elements... in a mutually exclusive manner," which a party could argue supports a functional, rather than strictly structural, interpretation (’685 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific structures, including mechanical keys that physically pivot to exclude actuation of adjacent keys, and electronic logic that prevents the system from accepting simultaneous inputs from different keys (’685 Patent, col. 7:15-34; col. 9:5-14). A party could argue the term's scope is confined to these specific implementations and their close equivalents.
The Term: "move"
Context and Importance: This term appears in the limitation requiring that the primary and secondary keys "move in a direction substantially parallel to the motion of the other." Its interpretation is pivotal, as applying a term connoting physical displacement to a virtual key on a touchscreen will be a central point of contention.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that because the patent explicitly contemplates an "electronically configured" invention, the term "move" should be given a broader, non-literal meaning in that context, perhaps referring to the propagation of an electronic signal through the touchscreen's grid (’685 Patent, col. 6:39-41).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly discusses and depicts mechanical embodiments where keys physically pivot or are depressed (’685 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 15:10-13). A party could argue that the plain meaning of "move" requires physical displacement and that the patent provides no special definition to suggest otherwise for electronic embodiments.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that HTC provides customers with "support for, training and instructions" (e.g., user guides and online support) that allegedly instruct them to use the accused keyboard functionality in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶23).
- Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement (Compl. p. 8, ¶D). The complaint body alleges, "upon information and belief," that HTC "specifically intended" for its customers to use the smartphone in an infringing manner but does not plead specific facts establishing pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute appears to center on fundamental questions of claim scope and the application of patent language to evolving technology. The key questions for the court will likely be:
A core issue will be one of technological translation: can claim limitations drafted with reference to physical, mechanical keyboards, such as the requirement that keys "move in a direction substantially parallel," be construed to cover the purely software-based operation of a virtual keyboard on a modern touchscreen, or does this represent a fundamental disconnect between the patent's disclosure and the accused technology?
A key infringement question will be one of structural and functional equivalence: does the accused product’s software logic for selecting characters—which relies on touch duration (tap vs. hold) and finger position—constitute an equivalent to the "mutual exclusivity selecting means" disclosed in the patent, which describes specific mechanical-preclusion and electronic-gating structures?