It's kind of surreal that two large tech companies who design and produce technology of staggering complexity are in a dispute over something so simple.
A method for reducing power consumption by detecting a power-on of a second supply voltage while a first supply voltage is already on and adjusting current draw from the first supply as a result
In order for a finding of patent infringement, one or more claims of the patent must be infringed.
Claim 1 recites:
A multiple supply voltage device comprising:
a core network operative at a first supply voltage; and
a control network coupled to said core network wherein said control network is configured to transmit a control signal, said control network comprising: an up/down (up/down) detector configured to detect a power state of said core network;
processing circuitry coupled to said up/down detector and configured to generate said control signal based on said power state;
one or more feedback circuits coupled to said up/down detector, said one or more feedback circuits configured to provide feedback signals to adjust a current capacity of said up/down detector;
at least one first transistor coupled to a second supply voltage, the at least one more first transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered down and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered on;
at least one second transistor coupled in series with the at least one first transistor and coupled to said first supply voltage, the at least one second transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered on and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered down;
at least one third transistor coupled in series between the at least one first transistor and the at least one second transistor.
And these circuits are what they are patenting: (a) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/91/c4/35/775214e... (b) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a1/66/be/985aac1... (c) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a8/93/45/09b4add...
* Ignore the title, it will only confuse you.
* Ignore the abstract, it will only confuse you.
* Ignore the figures, it will only confuse you.
* Ignore the description, it doesn't matter.
* Jump straight to the claims (the only thing left in the patent). This is literally the only thing that matters in the entire document.
* Ignore most of the claims--anything that says "the thing of claim N". You can't violate those without violating other parts of the patent, by definition. The Google patent view helpfully puts these in lighter gray.
* You can also generally go straight only to the first claim, because the other claims end up being subtly-reworded variations of the first claim.
* This claim is, in short, "A thing comprising A, B, and C." You have to have all of A, B, and C to violate the patent. If you have just A and B and no C, you don't violate it. If you have A, B, and something that is similar to C but you used a relay where C says to use a transistor, you don't violate it.