DCT

2:16-cv-03714

California Institute Of Technology v. Broadcom Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:16-cv-03714, C.D. Cal., 08/15/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants are said to regularly conduct business in the Central District of California, and certain alleged acts of infringement occurred in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' Wi-Fi enabled products, which are compliant with the IEEE 802.11n and 802.11ac standards, infringe four patents related to high-performance error-correction coding technology known as Irregular Repeat-Accumulate (IRA) codes.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves methods of encoding data for wireless transmission to improve reliability and speed, allowing performance to approach the theoretical maximum data rate (the "Shannon limit").
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of a family sharing a common priority date. The patents have been the subject of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Notably, IPRs on the '710 and '032 patents resulted in the patentability of all challenged claims being confirmed. In contrast, IPRs on the '781 patent resulted in the cancellation of several claims, including some originally asserted in this complaint (e.g., claims 1, 2, 19-21), while confirming the patentability of others (e.g., claims 13-16).

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-05-18 Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2006-10-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710 Issues
2008-09-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032 Issues
2011-03-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781 Issues
2012-09-01 Apple announces release of iPhone 5 (Accused Product)
2012-10-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,284,833 Issues
2016-07-05 Cypress acquires Broadcom's IoT business
2016-08-15 Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710, "Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes Forming Turbo-Like Codes," issued October 3, 2006. (Compl. ¶19).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating error-correcting codes that allow for reliable, high-rate data transmission near the theoretical "Shannon limit" without the "relatively complex" encoding and decoding algorithms of prior art "turbo codes." ('710 Patent, col. 1:24-37).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a coding system based on what the complaint calls Irregular Repeat-Accumulate (IRA) codes. (Compl. ¶26). This system uses an "outer coder" to repeat bits from an incoming data block in an irregular fashion (i.e., different bits are repeated a different number of times). The resulting sequence of bits is then scrambled by an "interleaver" and fed into an "inner coder," which is a simple "accumulator" with a data rate close to one. ('710 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-65; Fig. 2). This architecture is designed to create codes that are both powerful and efficient to decode.
    • Technical Importance: This approach allegedly allows for simpler encoder and decoder circuitry compared to prior art turbo codes, while achieving comparable or better performance, enabling higher transmission rates. (Compl. ¶26).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶52).
    • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
      • Obtaining and partitioning a block of data into sub-blocks.
      • A first encoding step that includes repeating data elements from different sub-blocks a different number of times.
      • Interleaving the repeated data elements.
      • A second encoding step using an encoder with a rate "close to one."
    • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims 10-17 and 19-33. (Compl. ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032, "Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes Forming Turbo-Like Codes," issued September 2, 2008. (Compl. ¶20).
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: As with the parent '710 patent, this patent seeks to provide a less complex alternative to traditional turbo codes for high-performance error correction. ('032 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
    • The Patented Solution: The '032 patent, a continuation of the application leading to the '710 patent, also describes an IRA coding scheme. ('032 Patent, col. 1:8-14). However, its claims define the invention in more mathematical terms. The asserted independent claim defines a method of generating a sequence of parity bits based on a specific recursive formula, which represents the process of accumulating irregularly repeated message bits. ('032 Patent, claim 1; col. 4:9-15).
    • Technical Importance: This patent provides a more specific mathematical description for generating the IRA codes, which are alleged to provide significant advantages in Wi-Fi transmission by allowing for faster data rates with reduced encoder and decoder complexity. (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 35).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶73).
    • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
      • Receiving a collection of message bits.
      • Generating a sequence of parity bits where each parity bit is determined according to a specific recursive formula involving a sum of "randomly chosen irregular repeats of the message bits."
      • Making the resulting sequence of parity bits available for transmission.
    • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims 2-8 and 10-22. (Compl. ¶73).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781, "Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes Forming Turbo-Like Codes," issued March 29, 2011. (Compl. ¶21).
  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the preceding patents, the '781 patent claims a method of encoding that involves performing a linear transform on information bits (e.g., via a low-density generator matrix) and then performing an "accumulation operation" (e.g., a mod-2 sum) on the result. The claims focus on the properties of the subsets of information bits used in the transform, such as requiring bits to appear in a variable number of subsets. ('781 Patent, claim 13).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 3-19 and 21-22 are asserted, including independent claim 13. (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The IRA/LDPC encoders and decoders in Wi-Fi products compliant with the 802.11n and 802.11ac standards are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 32-36, 94-96).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,284,833

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,284,833, "Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes Forming Turbo-Like Codes," issued October 9, 2012. (Compl. ¶22).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an apparatus for performing the encoding, rather than a method. The claimed apparatus includes memory for information bits and parity bits, a "permutation module" to combine them, and an "accumulator." The claims focus on the structural components that implement the IRA coding scheme, particularly the requirement that the permutation module reads from memory locations corresponding to information bits a different number of times. ('833 Patent, claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-14 are asserted, including independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶115).
  • Accused Features: The IRA/LDPC encoders and decoders in Wi-Fi products compliant with the 802.11n and 802.11ac standards are accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 32-36, 115-117).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Wi-Fi products manufactured, used, or sold by Defendants Broadcom, Apple, and Cypress that incorporate "IRA/LDPC encoders and/or decoders." (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 41, 47). The complaint specifically identifies Broadcom Wi-Fi chips (e.g., BCM4350, BCM4334) and a wide range of Apple end-products that allegedly incorporate them, including iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, and the Apple Watch. (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 41, 48).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused products are compliant with the IEEE 802.11n and/or 802.11ac Wi-Fi standards. (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 48). A key allegation is that these standards specify the use of Low-Density Parity Check (LDPC) codes for their High Throughput (HT) and Very High Throughput (VHT) modes, and that these specified LDPC codes are, in fact, IRA codes that practice the patented inventions. (Compl. ¶¶ 32-35). The complaint alleges that these modes provide faster data transmission and reduce the complexity of the required encoders and decoders. (Compl. ¶34). The commercial importance is underscored by allegations that Apple is one of Broadcom's largest customers and that sales from the accused Apple products have generated "hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue." (Compl. ¶43).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'710 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
obtaining a block of data in the signal to be encoded; The accused Wi-Fi chips receive a block of data for wireless transmission as part of their normal operation. ¶¶32, 36, 41 col. 2:40-42
partitioning said data block into a plurality of sub-blocks... The accused products' implementation of the 802.11n/ac standards' LDPC codes inherently involves processing different portions of the data block in different ways to achieve an irregular repeat structure. ¶¶35, 26 col. 2:50-58
first encoding...including repeating the data elements in different sub-blocks a different number of times; The complaint alleges that the LDPC codes specified by the 802.11n and 802.11ac standards, which the accused products implement, expressly include an "irregular repeat" operation. ¶35 col. 2:53-54
interleaving the repeated data elements in the first encoded data block; and The IRA codes allegedly implemented by the accused products reorder the repeated bits "in a randomized but known way," which constitutes interleaving. ¶26 col. 2:62-64
second encoding said first encoded data block using an encoder that has a rate close to one. The complaint alleges that the LDPC codes specified by the 802.11n and 802.11ac standards expressly include an "accumulate" operation, which is performed by an accumulator—a type of encoder with a rate of or close to one. ¶35 col. 2:59-65
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute will likely be whether the LDPC codes specified in the IEEE 802.11n/ac standards are properly characterized as performing the specific sequence of steps in claim 1: partitioning, irregular repeating, interleaving, and second encoding with a rate-one encoder. Defendants may argue that the standard's implementation does not map cleanly onto this claimed structure.
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on the scope of "repeating...a different number of times." Does any variation in how bits are processed satisfy this limitation, or does it require a specific structure or degree of irregularity as described in the patent's embodiments?

'032 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving a collection of message bits having a first sequence in a source data stream; The accused Wi-Fi products receive data bits for encoding prior to wireless transmission. ¶¶32, 36, 41 col. 4:40-45
generating a sequence of parity bits, wherein each parity bit...is in accordance with the formula... The complaint alleges that the LDPC codes used in the accused 802.11n/ac compliant products are IRA codes, and that their operation of generating parity bits through irregular repetition and accumulation embodies the recursive mathematical formula recited in the claim. ¶¶32-35 col. 4:9-15
making the sequence of parity bits available for transmission in a transmission data stream. The accused products generate an encoded signal incorporating these parity bits for transmission over a wireless channel. ¶¶32, 36, 41 col. 4:54-58
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The central issue will be evidentiary: what proof can be offered that the algorithms executed by the accused products' LDPC encoders precisely match the mathematical operations defined by the recursive formula in claim 1? Any deviation in the implementation could be grounds for a non-infringement argument.
    • Scope Questions: Does "in accordance with the formula" require a literal, step-for-step implementation, or can it be read to cover any process that is mathematically or functionally equivalent? The interpretation of this phrase will be critical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '710 Patent

  • The Term: "repeating the data elements in different sub-blocks a different number of times"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the "irregular repeat" concept at the heart of the invention. The Plaintiff's infringement case hinges on the allegation that the LDPC codes in the 802.11n/ac standard are "irregular" in this manner (Compl. ¶35). The construction of this term will determine the standard of proof for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states generally that "different bits in the block may be repeated a different number of times," which could support a broad reading where any non-uniform repetition suffices. ('710 Patent, col. 2:53-54).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides concrete examples where specific fractions of bits are repeated a set number of times according to a "degree profile," which could be used to argue for a more structured and specific meaning of "irregular." ('710 Patent, col. 2:55-58; Table 1).

For the '032 Patent

  • The Term: "generating a sequence of parity bits...in accordance with the formula"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase links the infringement allegation directly to a specific mathematical process. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will be a highly technical, element-by-element comparison of the accused product's algorithm to this formula.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the phrase does not require a literal implementation but rather functional conformity, pointing to the specification's description of the formula as representing the effect of the encoding. ('032 Patent, col. 4:9-11, describing it as "in effect the encoding algorithm").
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites a specific, multi-part mathematical formula. A party could argue that the plain language requires that the accused process must strictly adhere to this exact recursive definition to infringe, and any alternative algorithm, even if functionally similar, falls outside the scope. ('032 Patent, claim 1).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that all Defendants induce infringement by encouraging their customers (e.g., Broadcom encouraging Apple) and end-users to use the accused products. (Compl. ¶¶ 56-58). The alleged encouraging acts include advertising the products' 802.11n/ac compliance, publishing instruction materials and specifications, and offering technical support. (Compl. ¶¶ 62-64). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, stating the infringing components (the encoders/decoders) are especially made for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶¶ 59-61).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of infringement "since no later than the filing date of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶55). The allegations of inducement and contributory infringement are also based on knowledge or "willful blindness" to the infringing acts of others. (Compl. ¶56).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical mapping: does compliance with the IEEE 802.11n and 802.11ac standards' specifications for LDPC codes necessarily result in a device that practices the patented "irregular repeat and accumulate" methods? The case will depend on expert testimony establishing a clear and convincing link between the industry standard and the specific limitations of the asserted claims.
  • A second key question will concern claim construction and scope: can the relatively general method steps of the '710 patent be read to cover the specific 802.11n/ac implementation, and conversely, is that implementation specific enough to fall within the precise mathematical formula of the '032 patent? The varying language across the patent family will likely lead to complex disputes over the breadth of each claim.
  • Finally, the extensive IPR history will be a central factor. For the '710 and '032 patents, the Plaintiff may argue that the claims' survival of IPR challenges demonstrates their strength and validity. For the '781 patent, the cancellation of several asserted claims narrows the case and forces the Plaintiff to rely on the surviving, and potentially more distinct, claims.