DCT

2:18-cv-01725

Arendi SARL v. H

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-01725, D. Del., 11/29/2012
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because HTC committed acts of infringement in the district, placed the accused products into the stream of commerce for sale and use in the district, and derives substantial revenue from such sales.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile phones, smartphones, and tablet devices infringe three patents related to technology that automatically recognizes information within a document, such as a name or address, and provides functionality to search for and insert related information from an external database.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to context-aware computing, where software identifies structured data within unstructured text to streamline user workflows by integrating different applications and reducing manual data entry.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that two of the patents-in-suit, the ’843 and ’854 Patents, were previously asserted in settled litigation against Microsoft Corporation and Dell Inc. in the same district. The complaint states that two Markman (claim construction) hearings were held in that prior litigation, which may have produced claim constructions that could be influential in the present case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-09-03 Priority Date for ’843, ’854, and ’993 Patents
2009-02-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,496,854 Issues
2009-02-24 Arendi files suit against Microsoft/Dell on ’854 Patent
2011-02-25 First Markman Hearing held in prior litigation
2011-03-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 Issues
2011-03-29 Arendi files suit against Microsoft on ’843 Patent
2011-11-21 Second Markman Hearing held in prior litigation
2011-11-29 Prior litigation cases dismissed following settlement
2012-11-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,306,993 Issues
2012-11-29 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 - Method, System and Computer Readable Medium for Addressing Handling from a Computer Program

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843, entitled “Method, System and Computer Readable Medium for Addressing Handling from a Computer Program,” issued March 29, 2011 (the “’843 Patent”). (Compl. ¶12).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency users face when they need to retrieve information, such as a contact’s address, from a database program while working within a separate application like a word processor. This process typically requires the user to manually switch between programs and transfer the data. (’843 Patent, col. 1:24-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes integrating a “function item,” such as a clickable button, into the primary application. When a user types information like a name into a document and activates this function, the system automatically analyzes the typed text, searches an external database for related information (e.g., a full address), and can insert that information directly into the document, streamlining the workflow. (’843 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:41-67).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aims to reduce user effort and context-switching by creating an automated bridge between a primary work application and an external information source. (’843 Patent, col. 1:45-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 23. (Compl. ¶20).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Displaying a document in a first computer program.
    • While displayed, analyzing first information from the document to determine its type.
    • Retrieving the first information.
    • Providing an input device for a user to initiate an operation.
    • The operation includes (i) searching an external information source for second information related to the first, and (ii) performing an action with that second information.
    • Upon receiving a user command, a second computer program searches the external source.
    • If the search is successful, the action is performed using the found second information.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional dependent claims. (Compl. ¶20).

U.S. Patent No. 7,496,854 - Method, System and Computer Readable Medium for Addressing Handling from a Computer Program

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,496,854, entitled “Method, System and Computer Readable Medium for Addressing Handling from a Computer Program,” issued February 24, 2009 (the “’854 Patent”). (Compl. ¶13).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’843 Patent: the cumbersome process for a user to retrieve data from an external source (e.g., a contact manager) for use within a primary application (e.g., a word processor). (’854 Patent, col. 1:24-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where information within a document is identified automatically, without the user needing to manually designate it. In response to a single user selection (e.g., a button click), an operation is performed using related information from a second, external application. This automates the lookup and action process based on content already present in a document. (’854 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:35-54).
  • Technical Importance: The invention simplifies the user experience by making the content of a document "active," allowing it to serve as a direct trigger for operations involving external data sources. (’854 Patent, col. 1:45-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 57, 73, and 79. (Compl. ¶30).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 57 include:
    • A method for information handling within a document operated on by a first application program, where the document contains first information usable by a second application program.
    • Identifying the first information "without user intervention or designation."
    • Responding to a user selection by performing an operation related to second information, where that second information is associated with the first information and comes from the second application program.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional dependent claims. (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 8,306,993 - Method, System and Computer Readable Medium for Addressing Handling from an Operating System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,306,993, entitled “Method, System and Computer Readable Medium for Addressing Handling from an Operating System,” issued November 6, 2012 (the “’993 Patent”). (Compl. ¶14).

Technology Synopsis

This patent extends the core concept of automated information retrieval to the operating system level. It describes a method that provides a record retrieval program within the OS itself, allowing it to search for information across both local (e.g., on-device contacts) and remote (e.g., network directory) sources. (’993 Patent, Abstract). The invention aims to provide a unified information lookup function that is accessible system-wide, rather than being confined to a single application. (’993 Patent, col. 1:19-34).

Asserted Claims

Independent claims 1, 9, and 17. (Compl. ¶40).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that HTC’s devices, by virtue of their operating systems, incorporate this type of system-level information handling technology. (Compl. ¶¶7, 40).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products include the HTC Wildfire S A510e, HTC One X, HTC Flyer p512, and other HTC mobile phones, smartphones, computers, and tablet devices. (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these devices contain "information handling technology" that infringes the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶7). It does not, however, describe the specific functionality of any particular software feature (e.g., an auto-complete function in a messaging app, a contact lookup feature in an email client, or an OS-level text selection feature). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical implementation in the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include claim charts or detailed narrative infringement contentions. The infringement allegations are conclusory, stating that HTC's acts of making, using, and selling the Accused Products infringe the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶¶20, 30, 40). The general infringement theory suggests that software on the accused HTC devices performs the patented methods by automatically recognizing user-entered information (like a name) and, in response to a user action, searching for and using related data from another source (like a contacts application).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’854 Patent will be the scope of the limitation "identifying without user intervention or designation." It raises the question of whether this language covers modern smartphone functionalities where software may automatically highlight recognized text (e.g., a phone number or address) but requires a user to tap that text to confirm the selection before presenting actionable options.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify which software components within the accused HTC devices perform the claimed steps. This raises the evidentiary question of whether a feature in the underlying operating system (e.g., Android), in HTC's custom user interface, or within a specific application is responsible for the alleged "analyzing" and "searching" functions required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "identifying without user intervention or designation" (’854 Patent, Claim 57)

  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is central to the scope of Claim 57. The definition will determine whether the claim is limited to systems that act on information with absolutely no user input beyond a single command, or if it can read on systems where the software first recognizes text and the user then interacts with that recognized text. Practitioners may focus on this term because many modern systems that recognize data in text still require a user tap to confirm the selection, and whether that tap constitutes "intervention or designation" will be a key dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim focuses the "without user intervention" requirement on the act of "identifying." An argument could be made that the software performs this initial identification (i.e., recognizing a string of text as a name) automatically, and any subsequent user action is part of the separate "responding to a user selection" step.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments where a user "types information... and then clicks... the button," which initiates the process. (’854 Patent, col. 3:41-47). This might support an argument that a user action is inherently part of the overall recognition and retrieval process, suggesting a narrower scope for what can be done "without user intervention."

The Term: "analyzing... first information from the document to determine if the first information is at least one of a plurality of types of information that can be searched for" (’843 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The technical meaning of "analyzing" is critical to infringement. The dispute will likely center on how sophisticated this "analyzing" step must be. A defendant might argue it requires complex semantic or structural analysis (e.g., distinguishing a person's name from a company name), while a plaintiff may argue it covers any process that identifies text as being suitable for a database search.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the analysis as involving, for example, looking for common designators such as "Mr., Mrs., Sir" or "Inc., Ltd.," suggesting a flexible, rule-based approach rather than a rigid, complex parsing engine. (’843 Patent, col. 4:33-40).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The overall purpose of the invention is to intelligently link different data types. The patent's flow charts, which distinguish between finding "Name only" versus "Name and address," imply an analysis that determines the category of the information, which could support a narrower construction requiring more than simple string recognition. (’843 Patent, Fig. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that HTC induces infringement by providing customers with its devices along with instructions, product manuals, and marketing materials that allegedly encourage users to perform the infringing methods. (Compl. ¶¶24, 34, 44). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused technology is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. (Compl. ¶¶27, 37, 47).
  • Willful Infringement: While the term "willful" is not used, the prayer for relief requests "enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284." (Prayer for Relief ¶B). The complaint alleges HTC has had knowledge and notice of the patents and their infringement "at least since the filing of this complaint," which may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement. (Compl. ¶¶23, 33, 43).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term “identifying without user intervention or designation,” as used in the ’854 Patent, be construed to cover modern smartphone interactions where software automatically recognizes text but requires a subsequent user tap to confirm the selection and trigger an action? The answer will significantly impact the applicability of the patent to the accused products.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: the complaint does not specify which software module in the accused HTC devices performs the patented methods. The case will likely depend on whether discovery reveals a specific, identifiable function within HTC’s software architecture that maps directly to the claim limitations of analyzing text, searching an external database, and performing a responsive action.