Google LLC v. DDC Technology LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2023-00707
• Patent #: 9,420,075
• Filed: March 29, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): DDC Technology, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-12, 14, and 18-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Virtual Reality Viewer with Mechanical Input Mechanism
• Brief Description: The ’075 patent relates to a virtual reality (VR) viewer that uses a mobile electronic device, such as a smartphone, as its display. The challenged claims are directed to a mechanical input mechanism that allows a user to interact with the device's touchscreen while it is enclosed within the viewer's housing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kondo and Chu - Claims 1-12, 14, and 18-20 are obvious over Kondo in view of Chu.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kondo (JP 3176588) and Chu (Application # US 2013/0082963).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kondo taught a VR viewer that holds a smartphone and centers its screen in the user's field of view, satisfying the basic housing and viewing limitations of the claims. However, Kondo disclosed an electrical input mechanism. Petitioner asserted that Chu taught a mechanical input mechanism (an actuator with a conductive probe pad) specifically designed to interact with a touchscreen enclosed within a housing. The proposed combination of Kondo’s viewer with Chu’s mechanical input allegedly met all limitations of independent claims 1, 18, and 20, including an externally accessible, moveable input mechanism comprising an “electrical shield” (Chu’s probe pad) that contacts a central region of the touchscreen.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Kondo and Chu to increase the VR viewer's usability and consumer appeal. Kondo’s electrical input worked only with capacitive touchscreens, whereas Chu’s mechanical input was compatible with both capacitive and resistive screens, which were the most common types at the time of the invention. A POSITA would be motivated to substitute Chu’s more versatile mechanism into Kondo’s viewer to create a product compatible with more devices. Both references solved the same fundamental problem of providing external input to an enclosed touchscreen, making Chu an obvious solution to improve upon Kondo.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in making this combination. Petitioner asserted that both Kondo's viewer and Chu's input mechanism are simple mechanical devices, and substituting one known input type for another would be a routine design modification requiring little skill.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Electrical Shield/Electric Shield": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "a material configured to induce a touch event that is electrically detectable by a touchscreen/device when at least a portion of the shield contacts or is in proximity to a touchscreen." This construction, derived directly from the patent’s express definition, was central to arguing that Chu's conductive rubber probe pad met the limitation.
• "Lever": Petitioner proposed construing this term according to its ordinary meaning as "a projecting piece by which a mechanism is operated or adjusted." This dictionary-based construction was important for arguing that Chu’s button, shaft, and extension arm assembly satisfied the "lever" limitation recited in claims 12 and 20.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Indefiniteness of Claim 18: Petitioner contended that claim 18 is difficult to understand as written due to contradictory limitations regarding the placement of the "first surface" and "second surface" of the electric shield. It was argued that the claim simultaneously required the second surface to be disposed on the input device and to contact the touchscreen, a mechanical impossibility. Petitioner asserted that only by interpreting "disposed on" to include an indirect connection could a POSITA possibly understand the claim, and proceeded with its obviousness analysis under that interpretation.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors, asserting that they weighed heavily in favor of institution. The core arguments were that the co-pending district court litigation had been recently transferred to a new venue (NDCA from NDTX) with no trial date scheduled, meaning there was no risk of the IPR verdict post-dating a district court trial. Consequently, minimal investment had been made by the court or parties in the new venue. Petitioner also contended that the petition presented a compelling and meritorious invalidity challenge based on prior art not previously considered by the USPTO.

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12, 14, and 18-20 of the ’075 patent as unpatentable.