2BCom LLC v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: 2BCom, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Germany); BMW of North America, LLC (Delaware); BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: witkow | baskin
• Case Identification: 2:20-cv-03537, C.D. Cal., 04/16/2020
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants' business activities in the Central District of California, including sales, marketing, warranty services, and the joint operation of a vehicle distribution center in Oxnard, California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "ConnectedDrive" audio and multimedia integration system, installed in various BMW vehicles, infringes four patents related to wireless communication management, data transfer, and user authentication.
• Technical Context: The patents address methods for managing wireless connections in variable-quality environments, a critical function for in-vehicle infotainment and connectivity systems that rely on protocols like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement for all four patents-in-suit via a letter dated February 7, 2020, approximately two months prior to filing the complaint. This pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willful infringement allegations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-09-30	'643' Patent Priority Date
2000-04-28	'166' Patent Priority Date
2000-07-06	'707' Patent Priority Date
2001-09-20	'210' Patent Priority Date
2005-04-26	'643 Patent Issued
2005-08-09	'166 Patent Issued
2006-10-24	'210 Patent Issued
2007-02-27	'707 Patent Issued
2020-02-07	Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letter to BMW
2020-04-16	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,885,643: "Method And Device For Facilitating Efficient Data Transfer Via A Wireless Communication Network," issued April 26, 2005

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem where upper-level software applications (such as those for audio/video streaming) running on a device are unaware of the dynamically changing conditions of the underlying wireless link (e.g., Bluetooth or Wi-Fi) ('643 Patent, col. 1:52-65). This lack of awareness makes it difficult to efficiently transfer data, as the application might request a data rate that the wireless link cannot actually support, leading to poor performance (col. 2:10-17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a terminal device actively acquires wireless link condition information, such as available bandwidth, and stores this information in a structured format called a "Descriptor" ('643 Patent, col. 2:32-48, col. 2:67-68). An application can then access this Descriptor to understand the current link quality and, based on that information, determine whether data transfer is possible and optimize transfer parameters, such as the data rate, to ensure efficient communication (col. 2:54-67). Figure 4 illustrates how this link information (S26), including bandwidth (S31) and channel data (S32, S34), could be structured within a Service Discovery Protocol (SDP) framework.
• Technical Importance: This approach allows applications to adapt intelligently to fluctuating wireless network conditions, a foundational concept for reliable media streaming and data transfer in mobile environments like vehicles.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Independent Claim Asserted: Claim 1
• Elements of Claim 1:
  • An "interface section" for sending and receiving packets with a remote entity.
  • A "link setting section" for setting a link for control and data transfer.
  • A "wireless link information acquisition section" for acquiring and updating wireless link information, including at least "transmittable bandwidth information".
  • A "wireless link information storage section" for storing this information as "Descriptor information" referable by the remote entity.
  • An "application section" that uses the stored information to determine if data can be transferred and, if so, changes a "transmission rate" accordingly.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶24).

U.S. Patent No. 6,928,166: "Radio Communication Device And User Authentication Method For Use Therewith," issued August 9, 2005

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a conflict between security and convenience in wireless device authentication. Using a single, highly secure private password for all connections can be cumbersome, especially for temporary interactions (e.g., a "table conferencing system") where sharing such a password is a security risk ('166 Patent, col. 2:20-33). Conversely, using a simple, temporary password creates a security vulnerability if a user forgets to switch back to the private one after the temporary interaction ends (col. 2:45-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a device that can hold multiple passwords (e.g., a "temporary password" and a "private password") and select the appropriate one based on the communication context or "external factors" ('166 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:22-30). These factors could include the presence of an AC power supply (indicating an indoor, potentially more trusted environment) or the absence of a radio carrier from a trusted server (indicating a mobile, less trusted environment), allowing the device to automatically switch between security levels without user intervention (col. 5:15-32).
• Technical Importance: This method provides a framework for adaptive security, allowing a wireless device to automatically apply different levels of authentication rigor based on its operational environment, a key feature for systems that move between trusted (in-vehicle) and untrusted (public) networks.

Key Claims at a Glance

• Independent Claim Asserted: Claim 1
• Elements of Claim 1: This is a means-plus-function claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
  • "means for acquiring an external factor" which is associated with a security level.
  • "means for selecting a security level" from a plurality of levels in accordance with the external factor.
  • "means for receiving a request" for authentication and authentication information from another device.
  • "means for checking" whether the received information is valid depending on the selected security level.
  • "means for sending a response" which authenticates or rejects the device.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 7,127,210: "Wireless Communication Apparatus," issued October 24, 2006

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of a wireless device, after connecting to a primary device, remaining discoverable by and responsive to connection requests from other, unauthorized devices ('210 Patent, col. 2:5-18). This can interfere with the primary communication and force unwanted user interactions. The patented solution is a wireless apparatus that, upon discovering it has completed a connection, automatically shifts into a second mode (e.g., "non-discoverable" or "non-connectable") that inhibits or prevents it from establishing new connections with other devices (col. 2:20-33).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 20 is asserted (Compl. ¶48).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the ConnectedDrive system, after establishing a Bluetooth connection with a first device, enters a mode that inhibits connections from a second, different wireless device (Compl. ¶49; Ex. 6).

U.S. Patent No. 7,184,707: "Communication Device And A Method For Controlling The Communication Device," issued February 27, 2007

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses performance degradation in a host device caused by the frequent loading and unloading of service information (e.g., drivers) when a wireless link to a peripheral is unstable ('707 Patent, col. 1:52-66). To solve this, the invention proposes using predefined "discriminating conditions" to judge the stability of a connection or disconnection before acting. For example, rather than immediately unloading a driver upon a single disconnection event, the system waits to see if a certain number of reconnection requests are received within a maintenance time window, preventing unnecessary actions for transient link failures (col. 13:35-48; col. 14:19-35).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶60).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the ConnectedDrive system uses designated communication conditions, definable by the user, to determine whether a radio communication connection is in a connection or disconnection status before performing actions based on that status (Compl. ¶61; Ex. 8).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "ConnectedDrive" audio and multimedia integration system installed in various BMW vehicles (Compl. ¶15).
• Functionality and Market Context: The ConnectedDrive system serves as the central infotainment and connectivity hub in BMW vehicles. It provides features including Bluetooth pairing for hands-free calling and audio streaming, as well as an in-vehicle Wi-Fi hotspot function using 802.11 standards (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 37; Ex. 2, p. 1). The system manages connections with user devices like smartphones. The complaint's Exhibit 4 shows a screenshot of the system's user interface displaying options to "Manage mobile devices," indicating its role in controlling wireless connections (Compl. Ex. 4, p. 1). The complaint alleges these systems are installed in all BMW Vehicles, suggesting broad market deployment across numerous models (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'643 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a terminal device for control of data between communicating entities on a network via a wireless link, comprising: an interface section for performing sending and receiving of packets with a remote communicating entity;	The ConnectedDrive system is a terminal device that uses an 802.11 Wi-Fi interface to send and receive packets (e.g., probe requests and responses) to establish a wireless link with a remote device, such as a smartphone (Compl. Ex. 2, p. 6).	¶25	col. 11:60-65
a link setting section for setting a link for control and for data transfer with the remote communicating entity;	The ConnectedDrive system performs an IEEE 802.11 association process to set up a link for control and data transfer with a remote device (Compl. Ex. 2, p. 6).	¶25	col. 3:56-61
a wireless link information acquisition section for acquiring wireless link information indicating the condition of a wireless link... and for updating the wireless link information... by the current dynamically acquired wireless link information, the wireless link information including at least transmittable bandwidth information;	The system acquires wireless link condition information, such as Data Throughput, Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), and Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI), through measurement processes defined by the IEEE 802.11 standard (Compl. Ex. 2, pp. 8, 10-11).	¶25	col. 3:6-14
a wireless link information storage section for storing the acquired or updated wireless link information as Descriptor information referable by the remote communicating entity; and	The system compiles the acquired link information into a "measurement report," which allegedly functions as the claimed "Descriptor information" (Compl. Ex. 2, p. 12).	¶25	col. 2:67-68
an application section for, based on the wireless link information stored... determining whether or not data can be transferred and, if data transfer is possible, changing a transmission rate for transfer of data... in accordance with the wireless link information.	A processor within the system allegedly uses the stored link information (specifically SNR) to select an appropriate Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS), which directly determines and changes the data transmission rate for the wireless link (Compl. Ex. 2, pp. 13-15). A screenshot in the complaint's exhibit shows a chart mapping SNR to MCS values (Compl. Ex. 2, p. 14).	¶25	col. 2:54-67

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "measurement report" compiled by the accused system, as described in the IEEE 802.11 standard, constitutes "Descriptor information referable by the remote communicating entity" as contemplated by the patent. The defense may argue the patent’s disclosure, which focuses on the Bluetooth Service Discovery Protocol (SDP), requires a specific queryable database structure not present in a standard 802.11 measurement report.
• Technical Questions: The analysis will question what evidence demonstrates that the accused "application section" (a processor) actively and dynamically "chang[es] a transmission rate" based on the stored link information. While the complaint provides a standardized chart linking SNR to transmission rates, the case may require evidence of the accused device actually performing this specific adaptive logic in real-time operation as claimed.

'166 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
means for acquiring an external factor which is associated with a security level;	The ConnectedDrive system acquires "external factors" during the Bluetooth pairing process, where devices exchange their capabilities (e.g., I/O capabilities, support for Secure Connections, Man-In-The-Middle protection requirements), which are associated with different security levels (Compl. Ex. 4, p. 5).	¶37	col. 4:22-30
means for selecting a security level from a plurality of security levels in accordance with the external factor;	Based on the exchanged capabilities, the system selects a security level, such as "No Bonding," "Bonding," or "LE Secure Connection pairing," from a plurality of available security levels (Compl. Ex. 4, p. 6).	¶37	col. 8:1-5
means for receiving a request for an authentication and authentication information from the device;	The system receives authentication information from the user, such as the entry of a six-digit passkey shown on the vehicle's display, to authenticate the connecting device (Compl. Ex. 4, p. 7).	¶37	col. 5:58-65
means for checking whether the received information from the device is valid or not depending on the selected security level; and	A processor in the system checks the received passkey against the expected value to determine its validity, a process that can vary depending on the pairing method (security level) selected (e.g., Just Work, Passkey Entry, Numeric Comparison) (Compl. Ex. 4, p. 8).	¶37	col. 5:66-6:6
means for sending a response of the check result which authenticates or rejects the device thereto.	The system completes the pairing process, thereby establishing an encrypted connection, which constitutes a response that authenticates the remote device. If the check fails, the connection is not established, which constitutes a rejection (Compl. Ex. 4, p. 9).	¶37	col. 3:1-3

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: As Claim 1 uses "means for" language, its scope is limited to the structures disclosed in the specification for performing the claimed functions, and their equivalents. A key dispute will be whether the structures within the accused Bluetooth chipset and software (e.g., processors running standard Bluetooth pairing protocols) are structurally equivalent to the specific "password holding section," "password selecting section," and "external factor acquisition section" described in the patent ('166 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will question whether the Bluetooth "pairing feature exchange" constitutes "acquiring an external factor" in the manner disclosed by the patent. The defense may argue that the patent's examples of external factors (e.g., presence of AC power, moving out of an office) ('166 Patent, col. 5:15-32) are fundamentally different from the exchange of device capabilities inherent in the standard Bluetooth protocol.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '643 Patent

• The Term: "wireless link information storage section for storing the acquired or updated wireless link information as Descriptor information referable by the remote communicating entity" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines how the crucial link quality data is stored and made available. The infringement argument hinges on whether the accused system's method of compiling a "measurement report" meets the structural and functional requirements of storing information "as Descriptor information" that is "referable by" another device.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not limit the "Descriptor" to a specific protocol. The specification states that "It is possible to use the Descriptor in the SDP Protocol, for example, as a wireless link information storage means," which suggests SDP is an example, not a requirement ('643 Patent, col. 2:67-col. 3:1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description heavily focuses on the Bluetooth Service Discovery Protocol (SDP) and provides a specific hierarchical structure for the descriptor information ('643 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 11:21-46). A defendant may argue that this detailed embodiment limits the term "Descriptor information" to a similarly structured, queryable database, not just a transient report.

For the '166 Patent

• The Term: "means for acquiring an external factor which is associated with a security level" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: As a means-plus-function term, its scope is central to the infringement question. The dispute will be over what disclosed structures correspond to this "means" and whether the accused system's functionality (exchanging device capabilities during Bluetooth pairing) is performed by an equivalent structure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "external factor," and the specification describes the corresponding structure as an "external factor acquisition section 14" which "identifies external factors" such as "presence or absence of wireless connection" ('166 Patent, col. 4:31-39). Plaintiff may argue this structure is simply a processor and sensor interface, which is equivalent to the hardware in the accused device that receives and processes Bluetooth capability signals.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of "external factors," such as the presence of an AC power supply, connection to a wired network like USB, or the absence of a radio carrier from a server ('166 Patent, col. 4:32-39; col. 5:23-32). A defendant may argue these examples limit the corresponding structure to one that senses the physical environment of the device, not one that merely interprets protocol-level data packets from another device.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The basis for inducement is Defendant’s alleged acts of providing customers with instructions, user manuals, and online materials (e.g., via www.bmwusa.com and https://connecteddrive.bmwusa.com) that instruct users on how to operate the Accused Products in an infringing manner (e.g., by pairing their phones via Bluetooth) (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 39, 51, 63).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all four patents based on Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patents since at least February 7, 2020, the date of a pre-suit notice letter. The continued alleged infringement after this date is asserted as the basis for willfulness (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 30, 40, 42, 52, 54, 64, 66).

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

This case presents several technical and legal questions for the court, revolving around the interpretation of claim language in the context of standardized wireless protocols.

• A core issue will be one of structural equivalence for the means-plus-function claims of the ’166 patent: does the accused system's standard Bluetooth protocol implementation contain structures that are equivalent to the specific "password selecting section" and "external factor acquisition section" disclosed in the patent's specification, or are the underlying technologies fundamentally different?
• A second key question will be one of definitional scope for the ’643 patent: can the term "Descriptor information," which is primarily described in the patent in the context of the Bluetooth SDP, be construed to cover an IEEE 802.11 "measurement report," or does the patent's disclosure imply a more specific, queryable database structure that the accused system lacks?
• A third central question will be one of functional operation: beyond mapping claim terms to system components, the case will likely require evidence on how the Accused Products actually operate in real-time. For instance, for the ’707 and ’210 patents, does the ConnectedDrive system's connection management logic perform the specific conditional steps of inhibiting connections or judging link stability as claimed, or does it follow a different operational method permitted by the wireless standards?