DCT

3:10-cv-00662

Apple Inc v. Motorola Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:10-cv-00662, W.D. Wis., 12/02/2010
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint asserts that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) and 1400(b) without providing a specific factual basis.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Android-based mobile phones infringe fifteen patents related to a wide range of technologies, including graphical user interfaces, object-oriented operating systems, and computer architecture.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue cover foundational aspects of modern smartphone design and functionality, a domain of significant commercial and strategic importance in the mobile computing market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was aware of thirteen of the fifteen patents-in-suit prior to the filing of this action, based on Defendant having included those patents in its own Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed on October 8, 2010, in the District of Delaware. This allegation of pre-suit knowledge may be used to support the claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1991-07-17 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,481,721
1992-12-23 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,424,354
1993-06-28 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,969,705
1993-07-19 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,519,867
1993-11-02 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,455,599
1994-05-13 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,566,337
1994-08-02 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263
1994-09-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002
1995-05-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. RE 39,486
1995-05-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,929,852
1995-05-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,915,131
1995-08-29 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,275,983
1996-02-01 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,838,315
1996-02-01 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647
1995-10-03 U.S. Patent No. 5,455,599 Issues
1996-01-02 U.S. Patent No. 5,481,721 Issues
1996-05-21 U.S. Patent No. 5,519,867 Issues
1996-10-15 U.S. Patent No. 5,566,337 Issues
1998-11-17 U.S. Patent No. 5,838,315 Issues
1999-06-22 U.S. Patent No. 5,915,131 Issues
1999-07-27 U.S. Patent No. 5,929,852 Issues
1999-08-31 U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 Issues
1999-10-19 U.S. Patent No. 5,969,705 Issues
2001-08-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,275,983 Issues
2002-01-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263 Issues
2002-07-23 U.S. Patent No. 6,424,354 Issues
2002-12-10 U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002 Issues
2006-09-06 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949
2007-02-06 U.S. Patent No. RE 39,486 Reissues
2009-01-20 U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 Issues
2010-10-08 Motorola files Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
2010-12-02 Complaint Filing Date

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

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949 - “Touch Screen Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Determining Commands by Applying Heuristics”

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of interpreting user inputs on a touch-sensitive display, where a single gesture can have multiple potential interpretations, such as scrolling a list versus rearranging its order (’949 Patent, col. 1:49-55).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a set of heuristics to determine a user's intended command from their finger contacts with a touch screen. These heuristics analyze various characteristics of the touch input—such as the number of fingers, movement patterns, and timing—to distinguish between different commands like vertical scrolling, screen translation, or transitioning between items in a set (’949 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:56-62).
    • Technical Importance: This heuristic-based approach to interpreting ambiguous touch gestures was a key enabler for creating intuitive and fluid user interfaces on small, portable multifunction devices that lack physical keyboards or buttons (’949 Patent, col. 1:25-30).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’949 patent without specifying which claims are at issue (Compl. ¶25). This precludes a detailed breakdown of asserted claim elements.

U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002 - “Method and Apparatus for Displaying and Accessing Control and Status Information in a Computer System”

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency and screen clutter that results when users must access system-level status and control functions (e.g., volume, network settings) through separate application windows, which can obscure the user's primary workspace (’002 Patent, col. 1:15-46).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an interactive, persistent control strip displayed on the screen that provides access to system control and status information. This control strip is comprised of individual modules and remains accessible independently of any other application windows that may be open, allowing constant access to system controls without leaving the current application context (’002 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-16).
    • Technical Importance: This technology streamlines the user's workflow by consolidating disparate system controls into a single, always-accessible user interface element, reducing the need to navigate away from the primary application to adjust system settings (’002 Patent, col. 1:47-51).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’002 patent without specifying which claims are at issue (Compl. ¶32). This precludes a detailed breakdown of asserted claim elements.

U.S. Patent No. 5,838,315 - “Support for Custom User-Interaction Elements in a Graphical, Event-Driven Computer System”

  • Patent Identification: 5,838,315, issued November 17, 1998 (Compl. ¶11).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system that provides explicit support for application-defined custom graphical user interface elements (e.g., "gadgets") within a standard window frame. This system allows an application to add a custom gadget, identified by a numeric code, which the system software then renders and for which it handles user interaction events, like clicks ('315 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶39).
  • Accused Features: The accused Android mobile phone handsets and associated software (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Patent No. RE 39,486 - “Extensible, Replaceable Network Component System”

  • Patent Identification: RE 39,486, reissued February 6, 2007 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a modular, network-oriented component system where services are delivered by distinct components. The architecture allows components to be replaced or extended, and new components to be added, without affecting the operation of the overall system, facilitating seamless integration of network-based services like Gopher or Web browsing (RE '486 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶46).
  • Accused Features: The accused Android mobile phone handsets and associated software (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 6,424,354 - “Object-Oriented Event Notification System with Listener Registration of Both Interests and Methods”

  • Patent Identification: 6,424,354, issued July 23, 2002 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology is an object-oriented system for propagating notifications of change events between software objects. A "receiver" object can register its "interest" in specific events from a "source" object, and the system delivers notifications to the receiver only for those registered events, avoiding the need for central event queuing ('354 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶53).
  • Accused Features: The accused Android mobile phone handsets and associated software (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263 - “Real-Time Signal Processing System for Serially Transmitted Data”

  • Patent Identification: 6,343,263, issued January 29, 2002 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a data transmission system with a real-time engine for processing isochronous (constant bit rate) data streams. The system uses an abstracted interface that isolates the transmission medium, data manager, and real-time processing engine from each other, allowing flexible handling of various data types like voice or video over different network types ('263 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The accused Android mobile phone handsets and associated software (Compl. ¶60).

U.S. Patent No. 6,275,983 - “Object-Oriented Operating System”

  • Patent Identification: 6,275,983, issued August 14, 2001 (Compl. ¶15).
  • Technology Synopsis: The invention is an object-oriented operating system that includes a class library providing an object-oriented interface to a procedural operating system kernel. This allows an object-oriented application to access system services (like multitasking and memory management) in an object-oriented manner via methods that wrap the underlying procedural function calls ('983 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶67).
  • Accused Features: The accused Android mobile phone handsets and associated software (Compl. ¶67).

U.S. Patent No. 5,969,705 - “Message Protocol for Controlling a User Interface from an Inactive Application Program”

  • Patent Identification: 5,969,705, issued October 19, 1999 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for a background (inactive) application to control a user interface that is currently managed by a foreground (active) application. The background process generates events that are serviced by an event handler installed for the foreground process, which then updates the user interface display accordingly ('705 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶74).
  • Accused Features: The accused Android mobile phone handsets and associated software (Compl. ¶74).

U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 - “System and Method for Performing an Action on a Structure in Computer-Generated Data”

  • Patent Identification: 5,946,647, issued August 31, 1999 (Compl. ¶17).
  • Technology Synopsis: The invention describes a system that automatically detects recognizable structures (e.g., phone numbers, addresses) in computer-generated data using a pattern analysis unit. The system then links candidate actions (e.g., "dial number," "add to address book") to the detected structures and presents them to the user for selection and execution ('647 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶81).
  • Accused Features: The accused Android mobile phone handsets and associated software (Compl. ¶81).

U.S. Patent No. 5,929,852 - “Encapsulated Network Entity Reference of a Network Component System”

  • Patent Identification: 5,929,852, issued July 27, 1999 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a network-oriented component system that accesses a network resource by creating an "encapsulated network entity." This entity, which can be a visual object on a user interface, contains a reference (e.g., a URL) to the resource, allowing a user to access the resource by manipulating the visual object ('852 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶88).
  • Accused Features: The accused Android mobile phone handsets and associated software (Compl. ¶88).

U.S. Patent No. 5,915,131 - “Method and Apparatus for Handling I/O Requests Utilizing Separate Programming Interfaces to Access Separate I/O Services”

  • Patent Identification: 5,915,131, issued June 22, 1999 (Compl. ¶19).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a computer system architecture where different families of I/O services (e.g., file management, block storage, SCSI) are accessed through separate, distinct application programming interfaces (APIs). This allows applications to use multiple APIs tailored to different I/O service families ('131 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶95).
  • Accused Features: The accused Android mobile phone handsets and associated software (Compl. ¶95).

U.S. Patent No. 5,566,337 - “Method and Apparatus for Distributing Events in an Operating System”

  • Patent Identification: 5,566,337, issued October 15, 1996 (Compl. ¶20).
  • Technology Synopsis: The invention is a system for distributing events between "producer" and "consumer" entities in a computer. An event manager receives an event from a producer, compares it to a stored set of events that consumers have subscribed to, and distributes the event to the appropriate consumers via a distributor ('337 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶102).
  • Accused Features: The accused Android mobile phone handsets and associated software (Compl. ¶102).

U.S. Patent No. 5,519,867 - “Object-Oriented Multitasking System”

  • Patent Identification: 5,519,867, issued May 21, 1996 (Compl. ¶21).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an apparatus for enabling an object-oriented application to access a procedural operating system in an object-oriented manner. A class library provides methods that access the underlying system services using procedural function calls, effectively wrapping the procedural interface in an object-oriented one ('867 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶109).
  • Accused Features: The accused Android mobile phone handsets and associated software (Compl. ¶109).

U.S. Patent No. 5,481,721 - “Method for Providing Automatic and Dynamic Translation of Object Oriented Programming Language-Based Message Passing into Operation System Message Passing Using Proxy Objects”

  • Patent Identification: 5,481,721, issued January 2, 1996 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology provides a method for sending messages between objects located in different processes. A local "proxy" object receives a message, encodes it into a byte stream (an operating system message), and transmits it to the remote process. The remote process decodes the message and executes it, with the result being returned via the same encode/decode path ('721 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶116).
  • Accused Features: The accused Android mobile phone handsets and associated software (Compl. ¶116).

U.S. Patent No. 5,455,599 - “Object-Oriented Graphic System”

  • Patent Identification: 5,455,599, issued October 3, 1995 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Technology Synopsis: The invention describes an object-oriented graphics system for managing graphics processing. The system uses a "grafport" object to connect various graphic devices (e.g., accelerators, frame buffers) to objects responsible for rendering, allowing for an extensible and polymorphic graphics processing pipeline ('599 Patent, Abstract; FIG. 17).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more unspecified claims (Compl. ¶123).
  • Accused Features: The accused Android mobile phone handsets and associated software (Compl. ¶123).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused products as "mobile devices, such as smartphones, and associated software, including operating systems, user interfaces, and other application software" (Compl. ¶8). Specific product names listed are the Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BackFlip, Devour A555, Devour i1, and Charm handsets (Compl. ¶8).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these are "Android mobile phone handsets" that are "manufactured, marketed and/or sold by Motorola in the United States" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide specific details about the technical functionality of the accused products or their software beyond these general categorizations. No allegations regarding the products' specific commercial importance or market share are included.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not assert specific claims for any of the fifteen patents-in-suit, instead alleging infringement of "one or more claims" for each patent (e.g., Compl. ¶25, ¶32). Furthermore, the complaint does not provide a technical mapping of any accused product feature to any patent limitation. This lack of detail precludes the creation of claim charts or a detailed analysis of infringement on a claim-by-claim basis.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Given the general nature of the allegations, the central point of contention for each patent will be whether the accused Android operating system and its associated applications, as implemented in the accused Motorola devices, practice the methods and systems claimed in the patents-in-suit.
    • For the '949 Patent, a key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused devices use the specific types of "heuristics" claimed for interpreting touch inputs, as opposed to other methods for gesture recognition.
    • For the '002 Patent, a dispute may arise over whether UI features in the Android OS, such as a notification bar or status icons, meet the specific structural and functional limitations of the claimed "control strip."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not assert specific claims from the patents-in-suit, precluding the identification of key claim terms that will be central to claim construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges that Motorola indirectly infringes by "knowingly inducing the infringement...by end users of its mobile devices" and contributes to infringement because it "knows that its mobile devices are made for use in infringement and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (e.g., Compl. ¶26, ¶33). The complaint does not plead specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials, to support these allegations.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Motorola's infringement of all fifteen patents is "willful and deliberate" (e.g., Compl. ¶29, ¶36). For U.S. Patent Nos. 7,479,949 and 6,493,002, this allegation is based on knowledge gained "at least because Motorola was provided with a copy of this Complaint upon its filing" (Compl. ¶26, ¶33). For the other thirteen patents, the allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from Motorola's own Declaratory Judgment action filed on October 8, 2010, which identified those patents (e.g., Compl. ¶47, ¶54, ¶61).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of procedural sufficiency: does the complaint's assertion of fifteen patents without identifying any specific claims or infringing functionalities meet the pleading standards required to proceed? Early motion practice may focus on compelling the plaintiff to provide a more definite statement of its infringement contentions.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of pre-suit knowledge: for the thirteen patents included in Motorola's prior declaratory judgment action, what was the extent of Motorola's knowledge of the patents and its own potentially infringing activity before this lawsuit was filed? The answer will be central to the determination of willfulness.
  • The case will present a significant case management challenge: given the assertion of fifteen patents spanning a broad swath of smartphone technology, a central question is how the parties and the court will structure discovery and trial to manage the complexity, and whether the case will be narrowed to a more focused set of representative patents and claims.