DCT
3:14-cv-00062
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (Wisconsin)
- Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.; Irell & Manella LLP
- Case Identification: 3:14-cv-00062, W.D. Wis., 01/31/2014
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Wisconsin because Apple is subject to personal jurisdiction there, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim (e.g., development of the patented invention) occurred in the district, and Apple allegedly maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s A7 processor, used in products like the iPhone 5S and iPad Air, infringes a patent related to a method for improving the performance of parallel processing computers by predicting data dependencies.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns high-performance microprocessor architecture, specifically circuits that enable speculative, out-of-order execution of instructions by dynamically predicting which instructions are likely to cause data-dependency errors.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Apple was aware of the patent-in-suit prior to the lawsuit, as evidenced by Apple’s citation to it as relevant prior art in its own patent applications. The complaint also asserts that Apple’s stated policy of not considering licensing proposals from outside entities necessitated the litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1996-12-26 | '752 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 1998-07-14 | '752 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-09-20 | Accused Product Launch (iPhone 5S with A7 processor) |
| 2014-01-31 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,781,752 - "Table Based Data Speculation Circuit for Parallel Processing Computer," issued July 14, 1998
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Modern high-speed processors execute multiple program instructions in parallel and often "out of order" to increase speed. This creates a risk of error when one instruction depends on the result of a previous instruction that has not yet completed (a "data dependency"). The patent states that while processors can "speculate" and execute instructions anyway, a wrong guess requires a time-consuming correction ("squashing"), and that predicting and tracking all potential dependencies can become "overwhelming." ('752 Patent, col. 3:40-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "predictor circuit" that uses the past history of mis-speculations to identify the few specific pairs of instructions that are likely to cause dependency errors. This information is stored in a dynamically managed "prediction table." For most instructions with no history of causing errors, the processor can execute them speculatively without delay. For the few instruction pairs identified in the table as problematic, the processor can delay execution to await the necessary data, thereby avoiding a costly mis-speculation. ('752 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:29-54). This selective, tiered approach aims to reduce the overhead associated with managing data dependencies. ('752 Patent, col. 4:61-65).
- Technical Importance: This method allows a processor to gain the performance benefits of speculative execution for the vast majority of instructions, while efficiently managing the small subset of instructions that historically cause data dependency errors. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "claims of the ’752 patent" (Compl. ¶19). Independent claim 1 is a representative apparatus claim.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a data speculation decision circuit comprising:
- A processor capable of out-of-order execution with a data speculation circuit for detecting mis-speculations.
- a) a predictor that receives a mis-speculation indication and, based on it, produces a "prediction" associated with the particular instruction pair.
- b) a prediction threshold detector that prevents data speculation for instructions whose associated prediction falls within a predetermined range.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the Apple A7 processor and the products containing it, including the iPhone 5S, the iPad Air, and the iPad Mini with Retina Display (collectively, the "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 19, 21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Apple designed the A7 processor and incorporated the patented technology "to achieve enhanced efficiency and performance" (Compl. ¶5).
- It further alleges that the A7 processor is sold exclusively in Apple devices and that Apple is one of the world's largest makers of smartphones and tablets. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 20).
- The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the operation of the A7 processor's data speculation or dependency-checking mechanisms.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint makes general allegations of infringement without providing a detailed mapping of accused functionalities to specific claim limitations. The following table summarizes the core theory of infringement for representative independent claim 1 based on the broad allegations in the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’752 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| In a processor capable of executing program instructions in an execution order differing from their program order... [with] a data speculation circuit for detecting... a mis-speculation... | The A7 processor is a high-performance processor alleged to execute instructions out-of-order and to contain circuitry for data speculation and detecting mis-speculations. | ¶5, ¶13 | col. 13:36-45 |
| a) a predictor receiving a mis-speculation indication from the data speculation circuit to produce a prediction associated with the particular data consuming instruction and based on the mis-speculation indication; | The A7 processor is alleged to contain a predictor circuit that uses historical mis-speculation data to generate a prediction about the likelihood of a future data dependency for a given instruction. | ¶5, ¶13 | col. 13:46-50 |
| b) a prediction threshold detector preventing data speculation for instructions having a prediction within a predetermined range. | The A7 processor is alleged to use the output of the predictor to prevent or delay speculative execution for instructions identified as having a high likelihood of causing an error. | ¶5, ¶13 | col. 13:51-54 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint provides no direct evidence of the A7 processor's internal architecture. A central issue will be whether discovery and technical analysis can show that the A7 processor contains a structure that performs the functions of the claimed "predictor" and "prediction threshold detector."
- Technical Question: Does the A7 processor's method for handling potential data dependencies rely on a mechanism that learns from historical mis-speculations to create a quantifiable prediction for specific instruction pairs, as the patent describes? Or does it employ an alternative, non-infringing method, such as a static analysis or a different form of dynamic dependency checking?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "predictor"
- Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it defines the mechanism that distinguishes the patented solution from prior art. Practitioners may focus on this term because the entire infringement case rests on whether the A7 processor contains a "predictor" as claimed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests the claim is not limited to the exact embodiment shown, stating that "more complex pattern matching techniques may be also used" and "various weighting schemes can be provided," which could support a construction covering any circuit that uses historical data to forecast dependencies. ('752 Patent, col. 14:8-14).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's only detailed embodiment describes the predictor as a "prediction table" that stores instruction-pair addresses and an associated prediction value that is incremented or decremented based on performance. ('752 Patent, col. 11:7-14; Fig. 5). This detailed description could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to such a table-based structure.
The Term: "prediction"
- Context and Importance: The definition of the output of the "predictor" is crucial for understanding the scope of both element (a) and element (b) of claim 1, which requires comparing the "prediction" to a "predetermined range."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "prediction" should be construed broadly as any signal or data that conveys the likelihood of a dependency, regardless of its specific format.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "prediction" as a specific, stored numerical value (e.g., a counter, element 109 in Fig. 5) that is compared to a limit. ('752 Patent, col. 11:12-20). This may support a narrower construction requiring a quantitative value that can be assessed against a "predetermined range."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The allegation of inducement is based on Apple allegedly encouraging its customers and contractors to make and use the infringing A7 processor. (Compl. ¶22). The allegation of contributory infringement is based on Apple selling the A7 processor as a component especially made for use in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶23).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apple's infringement has been willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard of WARF's rights. (Compl. ¶25). This allegation is primarily based on Apple's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’752 Patent, as evidenced by Apple’s own patent applications citing the ’752 Patent as relevant prior art. (Compl. ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may turn on the answers to several central questions:
Evidentiary Sufficiency: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations mapping the A7 processor's architecture to the patent's claims. A primary hurdle for the plaintiff will be one of evidentiary proof: can WARF, through discovery and reverse engineering, produce sufficient evidence to show that the A7 processor's internal circuitry performs the specific functions of the claimed "predictor" that learns from historical mis-speculations?
Definitional Scope: The case will likely involve a significant dispute over claim scope. A core issue will be whether the term "predictor" is construed broadly to encompass any circuit that forecasts dependencies based on past events, or is limited more narrowly to the table-based architecture detailed in the patent's specification. The outcome of this construction could be dispositive.
State of Mind: For damages and willfulness, a key question will be one of knowledge and intent. Does Apple's citation of the ’752 Patent in its own prosecution history constitute actual knowledge of the patent and its relevance, sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement, or can it be characterized as a routine practice by patent prosecutors without the specific knowledge of the A7 processor's design engineers?