DCT
2:26-cv-00647
Empire Technology Development LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
Table of Contents
complaint Intelligence
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Empire Technology Development LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea); Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00647, E.D. Tex., 07/31/2026
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a foreign corporation, and Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. has regular and established places of business in the district, including a "flagship" campus and retail store.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Galaxy-branded smart devices and accessories infringe a patent related to efficient power management for mobile device subsystems.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns methods for extending mobile device battery life by intelligently powering down and "waking" internal components, a critical technology in the market for portable electronics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's parent company, Allied Inventors, offered to sell a patent portfolio to Samsung in 2019, which Samsung allegedly ignored. Plaintiff uses this event to argue that Samsung was aware of or willfully blind to its alleged infringement as of Q3 2019.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-05-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,058,165 Priority Date |
| 2015-06-16 | U.S. Patent No. 9,058,165 Issue Date |
| 2019-07-11 | Plaintiff's parent company allegedly offered portfolio to Samsung |
| 2026-07-31 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,058,165, titled "DEVICE POWER MANAGEMENT USING COMPILER INSERTED DEVICE ALERTS," issued on June 16, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of inefficient power consumption in mobile devices, where subsystems are often kept in a ready or standby state even when not in use, leading to unnecessary battery drain '165 Patent, col. 1:19-29 Compl. ¶2
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where the software compilation process itself is used for power management. When a compiler processes code (a "thin binary"), it identifies an upcoming call to a device subsystem (e.g., GPS, Wi-Fi). The compiler then inserts a "device power management alert" into the executable instruction stream before the actual subsystem call '165 Patent, abstract This alert serves as an advanced warning, allowing the subsystem to "warm up" from a fully powered-down state just in time for its use, thereby maximizing the time it spends consuming no power without creating a noticeable lag for the user '165 Patent, col. 3:15-32 Compl. ¶¶28-29
- Technical Importance: This approach integrates predictive power management directly into the software execution path, enabling a more granular and proactive method for conserving battery life compared to purely reactive or OS-level sleep states Compl. ¶29
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶34
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A method for providing power management at a device comprising:
- receiving a thin binary at the device via a communication link, where the thin binary includes a call to a device subsystem;
- storing the thin binary;
- compiling the thin binary at the device to produce an instruction stream that includes a device power management alert, which is inserted before the call to the device subsystem and which comprises a probability of use indication for the subsystem; and
- executing the instruction stream, wherein the device subsystem is powered up from a shut down state in response to the power management alert.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims after discovery Compl. ¶36
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Accused Products include a wide range of Samsung devices, such as "Galaxy smartphones and tablets with Android 8 or higher, Galaxy Watch with Tizen OS 5.5 or higher or Wear OS, Galaxy Buds+ or later," and related accessories Compl. ¶9 The complaint highlights functionality like "SmartThings Find" and "Adaptive power saving" Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶40
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products implement the patented method through the standard operation of the Android operating system and Samsung's custom software. The core of the allegation is that Android's runtime (ART) compiler performs just-in-time (JIT) and ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation of application code (the "thin binary") on the device Compl. ¶¶48-49 During this process, it is alleged that Android and Samsung power management components (e.g., PowerManager, WorkManager, LocationManager, App Standby Buckets) generate and insert "power-management alerts" before a subsystem is needed, based on the compiled code and predicted user behavior Compl. ¶¶52-54 Compl. ¶58 A screenshot in the complaint shows the settings for "Adaptive power saving," a feature that allegedly learns usage habits to automatically balance battery life and performance Compl. p. 16 Another screenshot from Android developer documentation illustrates how different types of background work are categorized (e.g., Immediate, Long Running, Deferrable), which the complaint suggests is used to predict subsystem needs Compl. p. 25
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'165 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a thin binary at the device via a communication link... wherein the thin binary includes a call to a device subsystem | Accused Products allegedly receive application code, split-APKs, and DEX bytecode from remote sources like the Samsung Galaxy Store. This code is alleged to be the "thin binary" containing calls to device subsystems like GPS or audio. | ¶¶41-43 | col. 7:21-34 |
| storing the thin binary | Accused Products are alleged to contain memory (RAM and flash storage) that stores the received thin binary before and during compilation. The complaint includes a screenshot of technical specifications for a representative device to support this. | ¶¶44-45; p. 18 | col. 12:4-7 |
| compiling the thin binary at the device to produce an instruction stream including a device power management alert... inserted... before the call... wherein the device power management alert comprises a probability of use indication for the device subsystem | Android's on-device ART compiler allegedly compiles the thin binary. Power management APIs (e.g., PowerManager, WorkManager) allegedly insert alerts (e.g., wake locks, intents) before subsystem calls. The "probability of use indication" is allegedly met by Android features like LocationRequest parameters (e.g., QUALITY_HIGH_ACCURACY vs QUALITY_LOW_POWER) and App Standby Buckets, which classify apps based on predicted use. | ¶¶47-59; p. 23 | col. 5:25-32 |
| executing the instruction stream at the device, wherein the device subsystem is powered up from a shut down state in response to the power management alert... | In response to the alleged alerts, device subsystems (e.g., GPS, network) are allegedly transitioned from a low-power, "shut down," or idle state to a higher-power, ready state before the subsystem call is executed. This is allegedly accomplished via APIs such as PowerManager and LocationManager. | ¶¶60-65 | col. 8:50-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute is the definition of "compiling... to produce an instruction stream including a... alert... inserted." The patent describes a compiler with an 'insertion module' '165 Patent, Fig. 1, which may suggest a single, integrated process. The complaint alleges this is met by the coordination of multiple standard Android OS services (ART compiler, PowerManager, WorkManager). The court may have to decide if this coordination is equivalent to the claimed "insertion" into the instruction stream.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that various Android API parameters and classifications, such as LocationRequest quality flags or App Standby Buckets, satisfy the "probability of use indication" limitation. A key question will be whether these system-level parameters, which influence power decisions, can be considered a "probability of use indication" that is comprised by the alert itself, as the claim language suggests, or if they are separate data points that the OS merely consults.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "shut down state"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement hinges on the subsystem transitioning from this state. The complaint uses a broad list of lower-power states, including "standby, sleep, idle, doze, disabled, restricted, throttled, or low-power state" Compl. ¶61 A defendant may argue that the accused features only move between various low-power states, not a true "shut down state" as required by the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification uses several terms that may support a broader reading, mentioning that subsystems can be held in a "powered down state," a "standby state," or a "sleep mode," and need to "warm up" '165 Patent, col. 3:12-19 '165 Patent, col. 5:26-29 This suggests the term may encompass any state requiring a wake-up period.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the specific phrase "shut down state." A defendant could argue this term has a specific technical meaning distinct from "standby" or "idle," implying a more complete cessation of power that is not what occurs in the accused functionality.
The Term: "device power management alert comprises a probability of use indication"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff's theory relies on features like LocationRequest parameters and App Standby Buckets meeting this limitation. The core of the dispute will be whether these external system classifications are "comprised" by the alert itself.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains that "the alert message may provide a probability of use indication such that the device subsystem... may determine a power vs. performance tradeoff" ('165 Patent, col. 5:25-29). This functional description could support an argument that any mechanism achieving this tradeoff, like the accused features, falls within the claim's scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's use of "comprises" suggests the probability indication is a component of the alert. The patent describes a hierarchy where "with a relatively high alert probability, the device subsystem may be powered up to be ready... [while with a] low alert probability, may leave the device subsystem in a standby mode" '165 Patent, col. 5:30-36 This could be read to require the alert itself to carry this probability data, rather than the system referencing an external classification.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by claiming Samsung provides instructions, marketing materials, and software prompts that encourage users to enable and use infringing features like SmartThings Find Compl. ¶¶67-69 It also alleges contributory infringement, arguing that software components like SmartThings Find are especially made to practice the invention and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use Compl. ¶¶72-73
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on post-suit knowledge via the complaint itself and, more significantly, on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that in 2019, Samsung was offered a patent portfolio by the plaintiff's parent company and that this offer should have prompted Samsung to discover the '165 patent, making its subsequent infringement willful or willfully blind Compl. ¶70 Compl. ¶74
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: does the accused system, which orchestrates standard Android OS components like the ART compiler and PowerManager API, perform the same function in the same way as the patent's described method of "inserting" a "power management alert" into an instruction stream during compilation? The court will need to determine if this is a literal infringement or if the analysis must proceed under the doctrine of equivalents.
- The case may also turn on a definitional scope question: can the claim term "power management alert comprises a probability of use indication" be construed to cover a system where the power manager consults separate, pre-existing device states (like Android's App Standby Buckets) to make a decision, or does it strictly require the alert itself to contain the probability data?
- Finally, a key factual question for damages will be one of pre-suit knowledge: can Plaintiff demonstrate that a 2019 portfolio offer from its parent company, which allegedly included unspecified 'Multicore Processing Patent[s],' was sufficient to put Samsung on notice of its potential infringement of the '165 patent, which relates to power management, thereby supporting a claim for willful infringement?
Analysis metadata
Loading Complaint
Suggested improvements