DCT

7:26-cv-00227

Encryptpat LLC v. Google LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: EncryptPat, LLC v. Google LLC, 7:26-cv-00227, W.D. Tex., 09/29/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Google maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including corporate offices, a retail Google Store, and research and development facilities in Austin, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Google Pixel smartphones and Pixel Watches, which feature proximity-based security functionalities, infringe four U.S. patents related to securing handheld wireless devices via communication with a separate, body-mounted component.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns using a short-range, encrypted wireless link between a wearable device and a handheld device to automatically manage the security state of the handheld device based on physical proximity, a feature common in the consumer wearables market.
  • Key Procedural History: This is a Second Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that Google has been on notice of infringement since the filing of the original complaint in this action, forming the basis for allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-06-26 Earliest Priority Date for ’366, ’265, ’385, and ’913 Patents
2022-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 11,375,366 Issues
2023-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 11,622,265 Issues
2023-05-09 U.S. Patent No. 11,647,385 Issues
2024-06-18 U.S. Patent No. 12,015,913 Issues
2025-03-01 Google announces long-term lease for Sail Tower in Austin (approx. date)
2025-05-01 Google opens a retail Google Store in Austin (approx. date)
2026-09-29 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,375,366 - "SECURITY SYSTEM FOR HANDHELD WIRELESS DEVICES USING TIME-VARIABLE ENCRYPTION KEYS"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,375,366, "SECURITY SYSTEM FOR HANDHELD WIRELESS DEVICES USING TIME-VARIABLE ENCRYPTION KEYS," issued June 28, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes how prior art security for portable devices was inadequate, often relying on simple passwords that users ignored or cumbersome Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) systems that were computationally intensive Compl. ¶¶17, 20 This left lost or stolen devices vulnerable to immediate unauthorized use because the device itself had no reliable way of knowing it was with its rightful owner ’366 Patent, col. 8:7-17 Compl. ¶17
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part system: a "body mounted key generating component" (e.g., a wristband) and a separate "handheld wireless component" (e.g., a smartphone) ’366 Patent, abstract The body-mounted component wirelessly broadcasts time-variable secret or private keys over a short range, and the handheld device uses these keys to enable secure functions ’366 Patent, col. 7:51-64 Compl. ¶18 If the handheld device is separated from the body-mounted component, it is designed to become "inoperable," thereby securing the device without requiring user action ’366 Patent, col. 11:25-29
  • Technical Importance: This system aimed to provide robust security that was also convenient, overcoming user inaction by automating security based on proximity to a personal token ’366 Patent, col. 8:1-5

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4 and 5 Compl. ¶45
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’366 Patent recites:
    • A key generating component mounted on an individual's body for wirelessly transmitting a key signal with secret or private key information.
    • A physically separate handheld wireless component that: (1) receives the key signal, (2) uses the key information to encrypt a message, and (3) transmits that encrypted message to a third party.
    • The key generating component includes a processor to generate a time-variable key and a transmitter to broadcast that key in an encrypted form within a close proximity zone.
    • The handheld wireless component includes a receiver for decrypting the broadcasted time-variable key.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims, which add further limitations to the system.

U.S. Patent No. 11,622,265 - "SECURITY SYSTEM FOR HANDHELD WIRELESS DEVICES USING TIME-VARIABLE ENCRYPTION KEYS"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,622,265, "SECURITY SYSTEM FOR HANDHELD WIRELESS DEVICES USING TIME-VARIABLE ENCRYPTION KEYS," issued April 4, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the security risk of a lost, stolen, or separated smartphone that might otherwise remain capable of performing secure functions, a problem particular to portable wireless technology Compl. ¶49 Prior art solutions were often inconvenient, leading to poor adoption ’265 Patent, col. 1:30-34
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system with a "wrist mountable component" (secured by a band) and a smartphone that communicate using a shared secret key ’265 Patent, claim 1 The smartphone's functionality is directly tied to proximity: it is enabled to perform encrypted wireless functions when within the vicinity of the wrist component but is "incapacitated for performing said functions" when it is moved outside that vicinity ’265 Patent, claim 1 Compl. ¶49 This creates a concrete two-device cryptographic architecture that controls the smartphone's operational state ’265 Patent, col. 17:1-9
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a technological solution to the problem of device separation by physically and cryptographically linking a phone's functionality to a component worn by the authorized user.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 Compl. ¶58
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’265 Patent recites:
    • A wrist mountable component with a band, a secret key circuit, and a wireless transceiver.
    • The secret key circuit forms an encrypted signal using a second encryption algorithm and a secret key available to both the wrist component and a smartphone.
    • The transceiver wirelessly broadcasts the encrypted signal.
    • The smartphone is enabled to perform certain functions (including wireless communication) when it is within the vicinity of the wrist component.
    • The smartphone is "incapacitated for performing said functions" when it is outside the vicinity of the wrist component.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but may do so later in the litigation.

U.S. Patent No. 11,647,385 - "SECURITY SYSTEM FOR HANDHELD WIRELESS DEVICES USING TIME-VARIABLE ENCRYPTION KEYS"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,647,385, "SECURITY SYSTEM FOR HANDHELD WIRELESS DEVICES USING TIME-VARIABLE ENCRYPTION KEYS," issued May 9, 2023.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a two-component security architecture for a wireless smartphone system to prevent a lost or stolen device from continuing to conduct secure communications Compl. ¶62 A wrist-mountable component communicates with a smartphone over a local wireless link using a shared secret key, enabling the smartphone's encrypted wireless functions only while in close proximity and disabling at least one of those functions when the wrist component is no longer nearby Compl. ¶62
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint focuses its allegations on independent claim 1 Compl. ¶71
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Google's "Smart Lock," "Extend Unlock," and "Watch Unlock" functionalities in its Pixel Watch and smartphone products, particularly the automatic locking of the phone when the watch moves out of Bluetooth range Compl. ¶71

U.S. Patent No. 12,015,913 - "SECURITY SYSTEM FOR HANDHELD WIRELESS DEVICES USING TIME-VARIABLE ENCRYPTION KEYS"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,015,913, "SECURITY SYSTEM FOR HANDHELD WIRELESS DEVICES USING TIME-VARIABLE ENCRYPTION KEYS," issued June 18, 2024.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a multi-layer wireless security architecture to prevent a separated handset from remaining capable of secure functions Compl. ¶75 The system involves a smartphone with public-key encryption circuitry and a wrist-mountable component communicating over a short-range link secured by a pre-shared secret key. The smartphone's ability to perform encrypted-message functions is conditioned on receiving an encrypted signal from the wrist component, and those functions are disabled when the authenticated proximity ceases Compl. ¶75
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint focuses its allegations on independent claim 1, and also cites claims 10-12 to support its interpretation Compl. ¶84
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the pairing of the Google Pixel Watch and smartphone, where the smartphone allegedly becomes disabled from performing functions like sending encrypted messages when the Bluetooth connection to the watch is severed Compl. ¶84

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the Accused Instrumentalities as "all Google products and services that practice claims of the Asserted Patents," specifically naming Google Pixel phones and Pixel Watches Compl. ¶¶11, 32 The accused features are marketed under names including "SMART LOCK," "WATCH UNLOCK," "LOCK PHONE WHEN LEFT BEHIND," "NEARBY UNLOCK," and "EXTEND UNLOCK" Compl. ¶32
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused functionality involves the automatic locking and unlocking of a Pixel smartphone based on its proximity to a paired Pixel Watch Compl. ¶32 When the devices are connected (e.g., within Bluetooth range), the smartphone remains unlocked for user convenience. When the connection is severed, the complaint alleges the smartphone "transition[s] to a secure state, preventing any interaction with the home screen or apps" Compl. ¶45 Compl. ¶58 In this locked state, Plaintiff alleges the smartphone is incapacitated from performing functions such as placing calls or sending messages, as the user cannot access the relevant applications Compl. ¶45 The complaint suggests these features provide significant commercial value Compl. ¶26

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

11,375,366 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a key generating component adapted to be mounted on an individual's body... The Google Pixel Watch is a component adapted to be worn on a user's body. ¶45 col. 9:36-39
a handheld wireless component, physically separated from the key generating component... The Google Pixel Smartphone is a physically separate handheld device. ¶45 col. 10:55-58
adapted to... use the secret or private key information included in the key signal to encrypt a message, and transmit that encrypted message... to a third party... The Pixel Smartphone is alleged to use the key signal from the Pixel Watch to encrypt and transmit messages to a third party, for example via the Google Message application. ¶45 col. 10:62-67
wherein said key generating component includes a processor adapted to generate a time variable key... The system is alleged to use "time-variable secret or private key information" as part of its key-management architecture. ¶36 col. 8:49-54
...a transmitter for broadcasting the time variable key, in an encrypted form, within a zone in close proximity to the individual... The Pixel Watch allegedly broadcasts an encrypted key signal locally when paired via features like Watch Unlock. ¶36; ¶45 col. 12:15-22
...said hand held wireless component includes a receiver for decrypting the time variable key from the signal broadcasted by said key generating component. The Pixel Smartphone is adapted to receive and decrypt the locally broadcast key signal from the Pixel Watch. ¶36; ¶45 col. 12:22-28

11,622,265 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A wrist mountable component... comprising: a. a band for mounting said mountable component on the user's wrist... The Google Pixel Watch is a wrist-mountable component secured to the user by a band. ¶49; ¶58 col. 16:49-51
b. a secret key circuit for forming an encrypted signal... using a secret key available to both said wrist mountable component and to the smartphone... The Pixel Watch contains circuitry that, when paired with a Pixel phone via features like Watch Unlock, produces and broadcasts an encrypted signal using a shared secret key. ¶49 col. 16:51-56
...enables the smartphone to perform certain functions... whenever the smartphone is within the vicinity of said wrist mountable component... While the Pixel Watch is nearby, the Pixel phone is enabled to perform its normal wireless functions because it remains unlocked. ¶58 col. 16:57-62
...said smartphone being incapacitated for performing said functions whenever the smartphone is outside of the vicinity of said wrist mountable component. When the Pixel Watch moves out of Bluetooth range, the smartphone locks, which allegedly "incapacitates" it from performing functions like placing calls or sending messages because a user cannot access the necessary applications. ¶58 col. 16:62-65
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central point of contention for the ’366 Patent may be whether the accused system's proximity signal is actually used "to encrypt a message" sent to a third party, as the claim requires Compl. ¶45 The infringement analysis may turn on whether the signal from the watch functions as a direct cryptographic input for an application like Google Message, or if it serves only as an authentication token to unlock the phone, which then uses its own separate keys for message encryption.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’265, ’385, and ’913 patents, a key question is whether a smartphone in a standard locked state (requiring a PIN or biometric scan to open) is legally "incapacitated" or "disabled" as required by the claims. The complaint argues that being unable to access applications renders the device incapacitated for those functions Compl. ¶58 The defense may argue that the device retains its full operational capabilities and is merely in a secure, user-inaccessible state, which may not meet the claimed meaning of "incapacitated."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "use the secret or private key information... to encrypt a message" (’366 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement theory for the ’366 Patent. Plaintiff alleges the key signal from the Pixel Watch is used to encrypt third-party messages Compl. ¶45 The viability of this infringement theory may depend on whether "use...to encrypt" requires the key signal to be the direct cryptographic input for the message encryption, or if it can be more broadly interpreted as enabling the encryption process (e.g., by unlocking the device).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the handheld component uses the key signal "for implementing secure communication" ’366 Patent, col. 8:65-67, which could be argued to encompass enabling communication as a whole, not just supplying the specific key.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites using the "key information... to encrypt a message," which suggests a direct cryptographic function. The specification further describes the handheld component as using the key "in encrypting a message to be sent wirelessly" ’366 Patent, col. 10:62-64, supporting the view that the key is a direct input to the encryption algorithm.
  • The Term: "incapacitated for performing said functions" (’265 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement allegations for the ’265, ’385, and ’913 patents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely center on whether a phone in a normal locked state meets this limitation. Plaintiff's position is that a locked screen "incapacitates" the phone from sending messages because the user cannot access the app Compl. ¶58
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A related patent in the same family, cited by the complaint, discloses that "inactivation of the handset could be limited to use of the phone to make outgoing calls" but allow incoming calls ’366 Patent, col. 11:32-36 Compl. ¶84 This suggests "incapacitated" does not mean fully non-functional, but rather the disabling of at least one specific capability.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ordinary meaning of "incapacitated" may suggest a loss of inherent ability or power. A defendant might argue that a locked phone is not incapacitated because its underlying hardware and software remain fully functional, merely awaiting user authentication. The specification also uses the term "inoperable," which could be argued to imply a more fundamental level of non-functionality ’366 Patent, col. 11:25-29

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four asserted patents. The factual basis for this allegation is that Google provides marketing materials and online support, including instructions and user manuals, that actively encourage and teach customers how to use the accused "Watch Unlock" and similar features in an infringing manner Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶42 Compl. ¶55
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents based on Google's purported knowledge of the patents and the infringing nature of its products "at least as of the date of the original Complaint" Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶42 Compl. ¶55 Compl. ¶81 The complaint alleges that Google continues to sell and encourage the use of the accused products despite this knowledge.

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

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of cryptographic function: does the proximity signal from the Google Pixel Watch serve as a direct cryptographic key to "encrypt a message" sent to a third party, as required by claim 1 of the ’366 patent, or does it function solely as an authentication token to unlock the Pixel phone, which then uses separate keys for message encryption?
  • A dispositive issue will be one of definitional scope: can the terms "incapacitated" and "disabled," as used across the asserted patents, be construed to cover a smartphone that is in a standard locked state requiring user authentication, or do the terms require a more fundamental disabling of the device's underlying operational capability?
  • A key technical question will be one of proximate cause and effect: does the accused system's transition to a locked state upon separation from the wearable constitute the specific, claimed functional incapacitation (e.g., disabling the ability to perform encrypted communications), or is it a general security state change that has an incidental, rather than direct, effect on those functions from the user's perspective?