DCT

8:20-cv-00702

TCT Mobile US Inc v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:20-cv-00702, C.D. Cal., 06/22/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district and because Defendant CCE resides in the district, with a principal place of business in Irvine, California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff TCL seeks a declaratory judgment that its mobile phones do not infringe Defendant CCE's patent related to controlling the behavior of software applications on a terminal device.
  • Technical Context: The patent addresses security and policy enforcement for third-party applications on mobile devices, a foundational technology for managing the app ecosystems that dominate modern smartphones.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states this declaratory judgment action was filed in response to a lawsuit initiated by CCE against TCL entities in the Eastern District of Texas. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,218,923, was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR), which concluded with a certificate confirming the patentability of several claims, including independent claim 24, which is a focal point of the dispute.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-12-18 ’923 Patent Priority Date
2007-05-15 '923 Patent Issue Date
2014-07-10 IPR (IPR2014-01133) filed against '923 Patent
2018-06-28 IPR Certificate Issued, confirming patentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 24, 25, and 31
2020-06-22 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,218,923 - “Control of Terminal Applications in a Network Environment”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,218,923, “Control of Terminal Applications in a Network Environment,” issued May 15, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the risk of "fraudulent applications" on open mobile device platforms. It notes that mobile environments at the time lacked "sufficient technical means for ascertaining that the applications developed for the open platform behave in an appropriate and rightful manner," which could allow developers to "misuse the new communication environment" ('923 Patent, col. 2:37-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a security mechanism within the terminal device itself. It introduces a "separate controlling entity" or "trusted agent" that resides in a secure, tamper-resistant area of the terminal. This entity intercepts, or "diverts," outbound messages from other applications before they are transmitted to the network. The controlling entity then evaluates the message to ensure the application is behaving as it should, and can then permit, modify, or block the message from being sent ('923 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:58-col. 3:2). Figure 2 illustrates this architecture, showing applications (210) sending messages that are intercepted by a "Trusted Entity" (212) within a "Tamper Resistant Area" (200) on the terminal ('923 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provided a framework for network operators and device manufacturers to enforce security and usage policies on third-party software, a critical capability for the subsequent growth of mobile application ecosystems ('923 Patent, col. 2:25-37).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint specifically discusses independent claim 24, though it seeks a judgment of non-infringement as to all claims ('923 Patent, col. 6:2-6; Compl. ¶21).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 24, a system claim, are:
    • An application program configured to send messages towards a communication network.
    • A "diverting unit" configured to divert a message from the application program to a "controlling entity" residing in the terminal.
    • The "controlling entity" is configured to control whether the application program behaves in a predetermined manner before the message is transmitted to the network.
  • The complaint states TCL reserves the right to supplement its non-infringement contentions ('Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are TCL-branded mobile phones running "version 4.2 and higher of the Android Operating system," with specific examples including the TCL Plex, TCL 10 Pro, TCL 10L, and TCL 5G (the "Accused TCL Products") (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that CCE's infringement theory targets the Android Operating System itself. According to the complaint, CCE’s position is that the claimed "diverting" and "controlling" functions are "performed by the same Java class in the Android Operating System" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on how this Java class operates, but focuses on the legal implications of a single software component allegedly performing both functions.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the infringement theory attributed to CCE by the TCL complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'923 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 24) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an application program configured to send messages towards a communication network Applications running on the Accused TCL Products that utilize the Android Operating System. ¶10 col. 12:48-50
a diverting unit configured to divert a message of the messages sent from the application program and destined for the communication network to a controlling entity residing in the terminal A Java class within the Android Operating System allegedly performs the function of "diverting" messages. ¶21 col. 12:51-56
wherein the controlling entity is configured to control, based on the message and before the message is transmitted from the communication network, whether the application program behaves in a predetermined manner... The same Java class within the Android Operating System allegedly performs the function of "controlling" the application's behavior. ¶21 col. 12:57-64
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central dispute articulated in the complaint is one of claim scope: does the language of claim 24, which recites a "diverting unit" and a "controlling entity," require two structurally separate components? The complaint argues that CCE's theory of infringement, where both functions are performed by a single Java class, fails to meet this alleged "separate components" requirement (Compl. ¶21).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technical operation of the accused Java class. A key question for the court will be whether, separate from the structural issue, the accused Android functionality actually performs the specific steps of "diverting" and "controlling" as those functions are described and defined within the '923 patent's specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "diverting unit" and "controlling entity"
  • Context and Importance: The construction of these terms appears to be the lynchpin of the non-infringement defense outlined in the complaint. Practitioners may focus on these terms because their interpretation—specifically whether they must be distinct and separate structures—could be dispositive. If construed to require structural separateness, TCL's non-infringement argument may be significantly strengthened. If construed to allow a single software module to embody both, the dispute will shift to a more fact-intensive functional analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Functions of a Single Component): The patent repeatedly describes the operation of a singular "controlling entity" that performs a sequence of actions ('923 Patent, col. 2:58-col. 3:2). A party could argue that "diverting unit" is merely a functional description of how a message arrives at the "controlling entity," not a required separate hardware or software structure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Separate Components Required): The plain language of claim 24, a system claim, introduces "a diverting unit" and "a controlling entity" as two distinct elements, which typically implies they are structurally separate. The complaint notes that "as held by the Federal Circuit, each claim of the '923 patent requires that certain 'diverting' and 'controlling' be performed by separate components" (Compl. ¶21), suggesting prior judicial or administrative interpretations of this patent family may exist. Furthermore, figures in the patent depict these as separate functional blocks ('923 Patent, Fig. 2).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint states that CCE's Texas lawsuit alleges indirect infringement (Compl. ¶20). TCL, in turn, seeks a declaratory judgment that it has not indirectly infringed any claim of the '923 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶26.A). The complaint does not plead specific facts concerning knowledge or intent for inducement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not make allegations regarding willfulness. However, it does request a finding that the case is exceptional and seeks an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. §285, a remedy often associated with findings of litigation misconduct or baseless infringement assertions (Compl. ¶26.D).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction and structural separation: must the claimed "diverting unit" and "controlling entity" be interpreted as structurally separate components, as TCL argues, or can their functions be performed by a single, integrated software module, as CCE allegedly contends? The outcome of this legal question may heavily influence the infringement analysis.
  • A second central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: should the court find that a single component can satisfy the claim, the case will likely turn on a technical and factual question: does the specific Android Java class identified by CCE actually perform the precise functions of "diverting" and "controlling" as those actions are defined and circumscribed by the '923 patent's specification?