Stormborn Tech LLC v. Moxa Americas Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Moxa Americas, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Budo Law P.C.
• Case Identification: 8:19-cv-02302, C.D. Cal., 11/27/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is incorporated in California and maintains a regular and established place of business within the Central District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cellular communication products infringe a patent related to dynamically adjusting data transmission rates in a wireless system based on measured error rates at the receiver.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns adaptive rate control in wireless communication systems, a foundational technique for optimizing data throughput and reliability in environments with changing signal quality, such as cellular networks.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissue patent, indicating that the original patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,247) was surrendered to the USPTO for re-examination and correction of a perceived error. This history may be relevant to determining the scope of the asserted claims, potentially giving rise to arguments regarding prosecution history estoppel or intervening rights.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-06-14	Earliest Patent Priority Date (U.S. Pat. No. 6,289,039)
2013-05-07	U.S. Patent No. RE44,199 Issues
2019-11-27	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,199 - "Variable throughput reduction communications system and method"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in spread-spectrum wireless systems where a device near the edge of a cellular coverage area experiences significant interference from adjacent cells, which degrades the signal and increases error rates (RE44199 Patent, col. 1:49-57). Conventional methods to combat this, such as increasing the system's processing gain, were inflexible, reduced the data rate, and could require significant changes to the receiver's hardware architecture (RE44199 Patent, col. 1:58 - col. 2:3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a closed-loop feedback system. A receiver decodes incoming data, measures the error rate of the decoded channels, and uses a "command processor" to generate a "data-rate control signal" based on that error rate. This control signal is sent back to the original transmitter, instructing it to adjust its data rate to a level that ensures reliable communication (RE44199 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:51-65). This allows the system to dynamically adapt to changing channel conditions.
• Technical Importance: This adaptive rate control method allows a communication system to maintain a target level of quality by trading speed for reliability when interference is high, and increasing speed when conditions are good, thereby optimizing overall throughput. (RE44199 Patent, col. 2:10-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 11 (a receiver) and 13 (a method) (Compl. ¶¶16, 18).
• Independent Claim 11 (receiver) requires:
  • demodulator circuitry for detecting transmitted signals
  • decoder circuitry for FEC decoding, providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate
  • command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels for generating a data-rate control signal
  • transmitting circuitry for sending the control signal back to the data symbol transmitter
  • multiplexer circuitry for combining the decoded channels into a data stream
• Independent Claim 13 (method) requires the steps of:
  • detecting the transmitted signals
  • FEC decoding and de-interleaving the signals to provide a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate
  • using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate to generate a data-rate control signal
  • transmitting the control signal back to the data symbol transmitter
  • multiplexing the decoded channels into a single stream
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 12 and 14 and states that claims 11-14 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶17, 19, 21, 22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Moxa's OnCell G3150A-LTE Series" system (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Product is identified as a receiver system for recovering wireless data transmitted over a cellular channel (Compl. ¶24). As an LTE (Long-Term Evolution) device, its core function is to provide wireless data connectivity. Standard LTE technology inherently includes mechanisms for adaptive modulation and coding (AMC), where the data rate is adjusted based on channel quality feedback from the receiver to the base station. The complaint alleges that the Accused Product contains the specific circuitry and performs the specific methods recited in the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶25-37).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B" which was not filed with the public document; therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be created (Compl. ¶24). The infringement theory is summarized below based on the narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that the Accused Product, at least during "internal testing and usage," meets every limitation of Claim 11 of the ’199 Patent (Compl. ¶¶25-29). Specifically, it alleges the product includes:

• "demodulator circuitry for detecting the transmitted signals" (Compl. ¶25).
• "decoder circuitry for FEC decoding" that provides decoded channels "each having an error rate" (Compl. ¶26).
• "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate" which generates a "data-rate control signal" (Compl. ¶27).
• "transmitting circuitry" to convey the control signal back to the transmitter (Compl. ¶28).
• "multiplexer circuitry for combining the multiplicity of decoded channels" (Compl. ¶29).

The complaint makes parallel allegations for the method steps of Claim 13 (Compl. ¶¶31-36) and for dependent claims 12 and 14 (Compl. ¶¶30, 37).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate," as used in the patent, can be construed to cover the standardized Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) feedback mechanisms used in LTE systems. Defendants in similar cases often argue that CQI is based on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or other metrics, not a direct calculation of the "error rate of the decoded channels" as the claim language requires.
• Technical Questions: The complaint's reliance on "internal testing and usage" raises the evidentiary question of what proof Plaintiff possesses that the Accused Product's components operate in the specific manner claimed (Compl. ¶¶25-37). Discovery will likely focus on whether the accused LTE chipset architecture maps onto the claimed structure, specifically whether it calculates an error rate for each of a "multiplicity of decoded channels" and uses those discrete error rates to generate a singular "data-rate control signal."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels for generating a data-rate control signal" (Claim 11)

• Context and Importance: This term is the functional core of the claimed invention, defining the feedback loop. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the Accused Product's standards-based rate adaptation mechanism falls within the scope of this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes a "general object" of controlling a data rate from a receiver "using a closed loop method" and generating a control signal from an "error rate syndrome" ('199 Patent, col. 2:16-28). A party might argue this supports a broader interpretation where any signal derived from or indicative of error conditions (such as a standard CQI value) qualifies as being "responsive to the error rate."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description states that "the command processor determines a desired-data rate" in response to the syndrome signal generated from the FEC decoders ('199 Patent, col. 2:63-65). The term "syndrome signal" has a specific meaning in the context of forward-error-correction, suggesting a direct link to the decoding process itself, not a more general channel quality measurement. This could support a narrower construction requiring a direct calculation of bit or frame errors.

"decoder circuitry ... providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate" (Claim 11)

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the architecture of the accused LTE device may not align with the patent's apparent structure of parallel, distinct channels, each with an individually determined error rate.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any system processing multiple logical data streams concurrently meets the "multiplicity of... channels" requirement, and that each of these streams inherently possesses an error rate, whether it is explicitly calculated or not.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 5 of the patent depicts distinct parallel processing paths from the despreaders (52), through adders (53), and into the decoders (56), with the command processor (59) acting upon a "syndrome" from this parallel structure. This architecture suggests a system with physically or logically separate channels whose individual error characteristics are considered, potentially supporting a narrower interpretation that would not read on a more integrated processing architecture.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "encouraging infringement" but provides no specific supporting facts, such as references to user manuals, marketing materials, or technical documentation that instruct users or other entities to operate the Accused Product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶43).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶41). This allegation is limited to post-filing conduct, as the complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels," which describes the patent’s specific feedback trigger, be construed to cover the standardized channel quality feedback mechanisms (e.g., CQI) used in the accused LTE product, which may be based on different or more indirect metrics?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: does discovery reveal evidence that the accused device contains a "multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate," and a "command processor" that operates on these specific inputs as claimed, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the architecture described in the patent and the integrated processing architecture of a modern LTE chipset?