Onscreen Dynamics LLC v. H Greg Auto Orlando Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Onscreen Dynamics LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Hgreg Auto Orlando, Inc. (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: BEUSSE SANKS, PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:26-cv-01990, M.D. Fla., 09/30/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain used vehicles sold by Defendant, which contain touchscreen infotainment systems, infringe a patent related to user interfaces that use a "virtual bezel" to maximize screen area while preventing inadvertent touches.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the design of touchscreen devices, aiming to create edge-to-edge displays by replacing the physical frame (bezel) with a software-defined, touch-sensitive border that can distinguish intentional gestures from accidental contact.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit, are mentioned in the filing.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-03-24	’917 Patent Priority Date
2016-07-19	’917 Patent Issue Date
2018	Earliest model year of an Accused Product
2026-09-30	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,395,917 - "Electronic Display with a Virtual Bezel"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,395,917, "Electronic Display with a Virtual Bezel," issued July 19, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background identifies the problem that physical bezels on electronic devices occupy valuable surface area, reducing the "maximum possible touchscreen display area" available to a user and limiting the aesthetic appeal of the device ’917 Patent, col. 1:40-49
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "bezel-free or bezel-less" device where the touchscreen extends to the physical edges of the device ’917 Patent, col. 1:50-54 To solve the problem of accidental touches from a user's grip, the display is divided into two software-defined zones: a main "active touchscreen region" for normal interaction, and a surrounding "virtual bezel area" ’917 Patent, abstract ’917 Patent, col. 2:7-12 This virtual bezel area has limited or different responsiveness to touch, managed by a "gestural software application," which can distinguish between accidental contact and intentional gestures performed in that zone ’917 Patent, col. 3:22-30 ’917 Patent, Fig. 4
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of devices with edge-to-edge displays, a significant design trend, while addressing the critical usability challenge of preventing unintended inputs from a user holding the device.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 7, and 9 ’Compl. ¶16
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A "virtual bezel area" with a touchscreen layer having a "first mode of response" to inputs, which functions to display a portion of content.
  • An "active touchscreen region" substantially within the virtual bezel area, with a touchscreen layer having a "second mode of response" and displaying another portion of content.
  • A "gestural software application" that produces the "first mode of response" in the virtual bezel area and is configured to "selectively interpret touch-based inputs as intentional user input" to affect the content in the active region.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims ’Compl. ¶18

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are used vehicles from various manufacturers sold by the Defendant, including specific models such as the 2021 Audi q5, 2018-2023 Mazda CX-5, and 2019-2023 Jeep Wrangler, among others (collectively, the "Accused Products") ’Compl. ¶16

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that these vehicles "incorporate and/or utilize technology covered by the ’917 Patent" ’Compl. ¶16 While not explicitly stated, the infringing component appears to be the vehicles' touchscreen infotainment systems.
• The complaint does not provide technical details on the operation of these infotainment systems. It focuses on the Defendant's commercial activity of offering these vehicles for sale through its website and physical dealership ’Compl. ¶7 Compl. ¶17
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly and indirectly infringe at least claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 of the ’917 Patent ’Compl. ¶16 The filing states that an element-by-element analysis of the infringement is provided in "exemplary claim charts at Exhibits B–D" ’Compl. ¶18 However, these exhibits were not attached to the publicly filed complaint.

The narrative infringement theory is that the touchscreen infotainment systems in the listed vehicles embody the patented technology ’Compl. ¶16 This suggests Plaintiff's position is that these systems feature a main interactive display area corresponding to the "active touchscreen region" and a less-responsive or differently-programmed edge area that functions as the claimed "virtual bezel area," all managed by software that selectively interprets touches in the edge region. Without the claim charts, the specific mapping of product features to claim limitations is not detailed in the complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the patent, which primarily illustrates and describes handheld mobile devices ’917 Patent, Fig. 1 ’917 Patent, col. 3:8-11, can be read to cover the fixed infotainment systems integrated into an automobile dashboard. The interpretation of "electronic device" in the context of the patent's disclosure may be a point of dispute.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence on how the accused vehicle systems operate. A key factual question will be whether the edge-touch rejection in the accused systems performs the function of a "gestural software application" that "selectively interpret[s] touch-based inputs as intentional user input" as required by claim 1, or if it constitutes a more conventional and technologically distinct form of palm rejection.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "virtual bezel area"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent, defining the physical boundary of the invention on a display. Its construction will determine whether the edge regions of the accused automotive touchscreens fall within the scope of the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the area simply as a "continuation of the display" that may have "limited interactivity" ’917 Patent, col. 2:15-19 This could support an argument that any touch-sensitive screen edge with some form of touch rejection qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the area as being personalizable by the user through calibration or by defining a boundary ’917 Patent, col. 6:43-49 ’917 Patent, col. 6:61-64 This could support a narrower construction requiring user-configurability, which may not be present in the accused systems.

• The Term: "selectively interpret touch-based inputs as intentional user input"

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core function of the claimed "gestural software application." The dispute will likely center on what level of sophistication is required for software to "selectively interpret" inputs. Practitioners may focus on this term because it separates the invention from simple, non-selective touch rejection.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language itself could be argued to cover any software logic that distinguishes a valid input from an invalid one (e.g., an accidental grip). Claim 1 requires this interpretation be "intentional," which could be argued to encompass any non-accidental touch.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of specific, non-trivial gestures that are interpreted, such as a "long tap for 'navigate home'," a "double tap to access an options menu," and various multi-finger swipes ’917 Patent, col. 7:29-34 ’917 Patent, Fig. 10 This may support a construction requiring the software to recognize and act upon a library of distinct, deliberate gestures, rather than just ignoring incidental contact.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges indirect infringement, stating that Defendant's customers directly infringe by using the Accused Products and that Defendant's sale of these products induces that infringement ’Compl. ¶19
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement despite having knowledge of the ’917 Patent "at least as early as the filing and service of the Complaint" ’Compl. ¶19 This frames the allegation as one of post-suit willfulness.

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

• A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "virtual bezel area", which is described in the patent primarily in the context of handheld devices to mitigate issues with a user's grip, be construed to cover the peripheral regions of a fixed automotive infotainment screen?

• The case may also turn on a question of technical functionality: does the accused vehicles' software for managing touches at the edge of the screen perform the claimed function of "selectively interpret[ing] touch-based inputs as intentional user input," or does it operate as a more basic palm-rejection system that is technologically distinct from the "gestural software application" described in the patent?

• An evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused software, which is likely a standard component of an automotive operating system, meets the "gestural software application" limitation, which the patent specification depicts as a discrete software module ’917 Patent, Fig. 4, item 30