Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Cywee Group Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00535 (seeking joinder with IPR2018-01258)
• Patent #: 8,441,438
• Filed: January 8, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): Cywee Group Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 3-5

2. Patent Overview

• Title: 3D Pointing Devices
• Brief Description: The ’438 patent discloses a three-dimensional (3D) pointing device that uses rotation sensors (gyroscopes) and accelerometers to determine its orientation. The patent purports to improve orientation accuracy by using a mathematical method, employing quaternions, to compare predicted sensor outputs with measured sensor outputs to compensate for errors.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Zhang and Bachmann - Claims 1, 3-5 are obvious over Zhang in view of Bachmann.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhang (Application # 2004/0095317) and Bachmann (Patent 7,089,148).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zhang taught the foundational elements of the claimed invention, including a handheld 3D pointing device with a housing, a printed circuit board (PCB), and orientation sensors (accelerometers and magnetometers) connected to a processor for calculating orientation. However, Zhang’s primary embodiment was a four-axis system and lacked the claimed six-axis motion sensor and specific comparison method. Petitioner asserted that Bachmann supplied these missing elements. Bachmann taught a nine-axis sensor system that included a three-axis angular rate sensor (gyroscope) and a three-axis accelerometer, thus disclosing the claimed "six-axis motion sensor module." Crucially, Bachmann disclosed a quaternion-based attitude estimation filter that corrects orientation drift from angular rate sensors by comparing predicted measurements derived from the angular rate sensors (the "first signal set") with actual measurements from accelerometers and magnetometers (related to the "second signal set"). Petitioner contended this process of creating and applying a correction factor based on the difference between predicted and actual values met the "comparison" and "update program" limitations of claim 1. Dependent claims 3-5 were allegedly met by routine design choices disclosed or suggested by the combination, such as PCB layout (claim 3), the use of a three-dimensional reference frame with yaw, pitch, and roll angles (claim 4), and attaching the processing components to the PCB (claim 5).
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references for several reasons. First, Zhang expressly suggested that its system was not limited to accelerometers and magnetometers and that "a gyro sensor, can also be used" to improve the system, providing an explicit motivation to look to a reference like Bachmann. Second, Bachmann taught that its advanced sensor system and filter were applicable to tracking the motion of "simple rigid bodies" including "hand-held devices," directly aligning with Zhang's device. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Bachmann’s commercially available Magnetic, Angular Rate, Gravity (MARG) sensors and its superior quaternion-based filter into Zhang’s device to improve measurement accuracy, add capabilities like roll detection, and reduce computational complexity and singularity errors, as taught by Bachmann.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the components were well-known and commercially available at the time. Both references taught implementing the calculations on standard microprocessors. Integrating Bachmann's sensors onto Zhang's PCB and implementing the filter calculations in software would have involved predictable design steps and standard engineering practices without requiring undue experimentation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "comparison": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean “performing calculations based on sensor signals to obtain the orientation of the device with respect to the spatial pointing frame in a way that reduces the effect of sensor noise.” This construction was asserted to be broader than a simple side-by-side check and was crucial for mapping Bachmann's error-correction filter, which calculates and applies a correction factor rather than merely comparing two final values.
• "spatial pointer reference frame": Petitioner proposed this term means “a reference frame associated with the 3D pointing device, which always has its origin at the same point in the device and in which the axes are always fixed with respect to the device.” This construction was based on the patent’s specification and was used to align the sensor reference frames described in Zhang and Bachmann with the claimed frame.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner filed this petition concurrently with a Motion for Joinder with an already-instituted IPR, Google LLC v. Cywee Group Ltd., IPR2018-01258. Petitioner argued that because its petition was accompanied by a request for joinder and filed within one month of the institution date of the Google IPR, the one-year time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) did not apply, making discretionary denial inappropriate on that basis.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 3-5 of the ’438 patent as unpatentable.