Apple Inc v. Immersion Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-01310
• Patent #: 8,749,507
• Filed: April 21, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Immersion Corporation
• Challenged Claims: 1-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Systems And Methods For Adaptive Interpretation Of Input From A Touch-Sensitive Input Device
• Brief Description: The ’507 patent discloses systems and methods for interpreting user input on a touch-sensitive device, such as a touchpad or touchscreen. The invention focuses on an algorithm to distinguish intentional "press" gestures from other touches by analyzing pressure, changes in pressure, and time intervals.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Astala in view of Shahoian.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Astala (Patent 6,590,568) and Shahoian (Application # 2002/0033795).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Astala taught all limitations of the challenged claims except for outputting a haptic effect. Astala disclosed a method for detecting a drag-and-drop gesture on a touchscreen by analyzing touch characteristics. Specifically, Astala’s algorithm determined an initial press by detecting if a touch pressure (z1) exceeded a predetermined threshold (zA) for a specific time interval (tA), and then detected a sufficient reduction in pressure (z2-z1 > Δz) to initiate the drag phase. Petitioner contended this three-part test (pressure threshold, time interval, change in pressure threshold) directly mapped to the core limitations of independent claim 1 of the ’507 patent. For the remaining limitation, Shahoian was cited as teaching the addition of haptic feedback to a touch-sensitive device in response to detecting a user gesture, such as entering a "drag mode," to provide tactile confirmation to the user. Dependent claims were argued to be obvious as they recited well-known features, such as using capacitance for pseudo pressure (taught by Shahoian) or determining a tap gesture (also taught by Shahoian).
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Astala's gesture detection system with Shahoian's haptic feedback technology to solve a known problem identified by Shahoian: the lack of tactile feedback in prior art touchpads. Adding haptic feedback to Astala's drag-and-drop gesture detection would enhance the user experience by providing confirmation that the gesture was successfully recognized, thereby improving the overall functionality and usability of the device. This combination was presented as the application of a known technique (haptic feedback for gestures) to a known system (Astala's gesture detection) to achieve a predictable improvement.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Both Astala and Shahoian operated in the same field of touch-sensitive input devices. The integration involved adding a known component (a haptic actuator, which Shahoian described as commercially available) to Astala’s mobile terminal and programming it to activate upon the gesture detection already disclosed by Astala. Petitioner argued this was a straightforward implementation that would have yielded the predictable result of a haptically-enhanced user interface.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "determining a press if: the pressure is greater than a pressure threshold, the change in pressure is greater than a change in pressure threshold, and a first interval has elapsed" (claims 1, 9, 14): Petitioner dedicated significant argument to this term, contending that a prior Board construction in a related IPR was incorrect. Petitioner argued that the plain language of the claim recites three independent criteria and does not require the pressure and change-in-pressure conditions to be continuously maintained for the entire duration of the "first interval." It was asserted that the patent’s own flowchart (Figure 3) showed that a press could be determined even if, for a portion of the interval, the change in pressure was not above its threshold. Adopting this broader construction was central to Petitioner's argument that Astala’s gesture detection algorithm, which checked these conditions sequentially, met the claim limitations.
• "pseudo pressure" (claims 2, 10, 15): Citing the patent specification and proposed constructions in co-pending litigation, Petitioner argued this term should be construed broadly to include any indirect measure of pressure. This included pressure estimates based on capacitance, resistance, or the contact area of the object on the screen, all of which were allegedly disclosed in the prior art.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that this petition should not be barred under 35 U.S.C. §315(d) based on a prior-filed IPR (IPR2016-01777). The arguments presented were that the instant petition raised substantively different arguments by challenging additional claims and relying on entirely different prior art than the previous petition. Petitioner stated it was not overwhelming the Patent Owner with an unreasonable number of challenges, as this was only the second petition filed. It was also noted that filing this petition to challenge claims at issue in a stayed district court action, separate from claims asserted in an ITC investigation, conserved party and Board resources and aligned with the statutory goals of the America Invents Act.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’507 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.