DCT

8:25-cv-00053

Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. EZURIO LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:25-cv-00053, C.D. Cal., 01/13/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically an office in Irvine, California, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless communication modules, gateways, antennas, and related hardware and software infringe seven U.S. patents related to enhancing the performance and efficiency of wireless data transmission technologies such as Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO), and methods for mitigating channel interference.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to foundational techniques for improving signal processing and data management in wireless communication systems like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, which are critical technologies for the Internet of Things (IoT), mobile computing, and other connected devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was notified of its alleged infringement by a letter in February of 2024, a fact which forms the basis for Plaintiff's willful infringement allegations. The complaint also asserts infringement of several expired patents "through the end of its term."

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-02-21 U.S. Patent No. 6,549,583 Priority Date
2001-08-21 U.S. Patent No. 6,633,616 Priority Date
2001-09-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,058,040 Priority Date
2003-04-15 U.S. Patent No. 6,549,583 Issued
2003-04-28 U.S. Patent No. 7,260,153 Priority Date
2003-10-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,633,616 Issued
2005-07-20 U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388 Priority Date
2006-04-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845 Priority Date
2006-06-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,058,040 Issued
2007-08-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,260,153 Issued
2010-01-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,005,053 Priority Date
2010-02-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845 Issued
2010-06-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388 Issued
2011-08-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,005,053 Issued
2024-02-01 Defendant allegedly notified of infringement via letter
2025-01-13 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,549,583 - Optimum Phase Error Metric for OFDM Pilot Tone Tracking in Wireless LAN

  • Issued: April 15, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes how local oscillators in highly integrated wireless receivers suffer from poor phase noise performance, which degrades communication range and throughput, particularly when using complex signal constellations like 64-QAM needed for high data rates (U.S. Patent No. 6,549,583, col. 1:20-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to correct for this hardware deficiency using digital signal processing. Instead of relying on expensive radio components, the solution uses the baseband processor to estimate an aggregate phase error by analyzing all known pilot tones within a received OFDM data symbol. A "maximum likelihood estimation" approach is used to combine the measurements from all pilot tones to produce a more accurate and robust phase error correction, compensating for the noisy radio hardware (U.S. Patent No. 6,549,583, Abstract; col. 2:5-17).
  • Technical Importance: This technique allowed for the development of less expensive, more highly integrated radio chips for high-performance wireless standards by shifting the burden of phase noise correction from the analog radio-frequency domain to the digital baseband domain (U.S. Patent No. 6,549,583, col. 3:4-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A method of pilot phase error estimation in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexed (OFDM) receiver.
    • Determining pilot reference points from an OFDM preamble waveform.
    • Estimating an aggregate phase error of a subsequent data symbol relative to the reference points using complex signal measurements from the pilots.
    • Wherein the estimating step uses a maximum likelihood-based estimation based on the complex signal measurements from all pilots.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,633,616 - OFDM Pilot Tone Tracking for Wireless LAN

  • Issued: October 14, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies processing delays in conventional OFDM receivers as a key limitation. Specifically, the pilot tracking loop, which corrects for phase errors, must wait for the main Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to process an entire data symbol, which limits the loop's bandwidth and its ability to track and correct rapid phase noise changes (U.S. Patent No. 6,633,616, col. 8:1-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a receiver architecture where the pilot phase error estimation is performed in a separate processing path that runs in parallel to the main FFT processing path. This allows the phase error estimate to be calculated and applied much faster, specifically before the main FFT processing for that data symbol is complete. This architectural change reduces latency in the phase correction feedback loop (U.S. Patent No. 6,633,616, Abstract; col. 19:42-67).
  • Technical Importance: By reducing processing delay in the correction loop, this architecture enables a wider tracking bandwidth, allowing the receiver to correct for more significant phase noise and frequency errors, thereby improving the robustness of wireless communication (U.S. Patent No. 6,633,616, col. 24:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶33).
  • Essential elements of claim 12 include:
    • A method of pilot phase error estimation in an OFDM receiver.
    • Determining pilot reference points from a preamble.
    • Processing the preamble with an FFT in a parallel path.
    • Determining a phase error estimate for a subsequent data symbol.
    • Processing the subsequent data symbol with the FFT in the parallel path.
    • Wherein the phase error estimation step is completed prior to the completion of the FFT processing of the subsequent symbol in the parallel path.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,058,040 - Channel Interference Reduction

  • Issued: June 6, 2006
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses interference between co-located wireless technologies operating in overlapping frequency bands, such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. The proposed solution is a method that computes Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) time-slots to be shared between the two media and dynamically adjusts the allocation of these slots to maintain a desired level of service for each (U.S. Patent No. 7,058,040, Abstract; Compl. ¶41).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality involves performing a method for data transmission over first and second media that overlap in frequency by computing and allocating TDMA time-slot channels and dynamically adjusting the allocation (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 7,260,153 - Multi Input Multi Output Wireless Communication Method and Apparatus Providing Extended Range and Extended Rate Across Imperfectly Estimated Channels

  • Issued: August 21, 2007
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of cross-talk interference in Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) wireless systems. The patented solution involves a method for evaluating the communication channel by defining a channel matrix metric of cross-talk signal-to-noise ratio, performing a singular value decomposition (SVD) of that metric to calculate channel singular values, and using these values to determine a crosstalk measure for the data sub-streams (U.S. Patent No. 7,260,153, Abstract; Compl. ¶54).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality involves performing a method of evaluating a MIMO channel by using SVD of a channel matrix metric estimate to calculate a crosstalk measure (Compl. ¶54).

U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845 - Channel Interference Reduction

  • Issued: February 2, 2010
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a system for managing communication over two different media. The system comprises a first transceiver for a first medium and a second for a second medium, and includes logic to retry transmission of a packet at a lower rate if a prior transmission is not acknowledged. The system also includes an allocation unit to dynamically allocate data channels to one of the two media based on a desired level of service (U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845, Abstract; Compl. ¶69).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶69).
  • Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to provide a system with first and second transceivers configured to retry transmissions at a lower rate upon failure and dynamically allocate data channels between the two media (Compl. ¶69).

U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388 - Packet Generation Systems and Methods

  • Issued: June 22, 2010
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for increasing the data rate of a packet in a digital communication system. The solution involves increasing the standard size of a packet by adding subcarriers to the second training symbol within the packet's preamble, thereby creating an "extended packet" that is then transmitted (U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388, Abstract; Compl. ¶84).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶84).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality involves a method of generating a packet, increasing its size by adding subcarriers to a training symbol to produce an extended packet, and transmitting that packet (Compl. ¶84).

U.S. Patent No. 8,005,053 - Channel Interference Reduction

  • Issued: August 23, 2011
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a communication device capable of operating with a plurality of different wireless protocols using multiple transceivers. The inventive method involves the device selecting one of the wireless protocols for transmission, encoding data from an unselected protocol into the data stream of the selected protocol, and then transmitting the combined data using the transceiver corresponding to the selected protocol (U.S. Patent No. 8,005,053, Abstract; Compl. ¶98).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶98).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality involves a communication device selecting one of a plurality of wireless protocols, encoding data from an unselected protocol into the selected one, and transmitting the encoded data (Compl. ¶98).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are a range of wireless communication components, including but not limited to the Sona™ NX611, Sona™ IF573, Sterling™-LWB5+, Sterling™ LWB+, and 60-SIPT modules; the Sentrius™ MG100 and IG60 gateways; the Nitrogen8M and Summit SOM 8M System-on-Modules; and the FlexMIMO and Revie Flex series antennas (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products are computing devices and components that perform wireless communications using protocols such as Bluetooth (versions 5.0 through 5.4), IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi), and LTE (Compl. ¶15). Their accused functionalities include transmitting data over various media, generating packets for network transmissions, computing time slot channels, and performing error estimation in OFDM receivers (Compl. ¶16). These components are marketed for use in a variety of modern connected devices, including Internet of Things (IoT) gateways (Compl. ¶9-11).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,549,583 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a method of pilot phase error estimation in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexed (OFDM) receiver The Accused Products allegedly perform a method of pilot phase error estimation in an OFDM receiver. ¶25 col. 2:8-11
determining pilot reference points corresponding to a plurality of pilots of an OFDM preamble waveform The method allegedly includes determining pilot reference points corresponding to a plurality of pilots of an OFDM preamble waveform. ¶25 col. 2:11-13
estimating an aggregate phase error of a subsequent OFDM data symbol relative to the pilot reference points using complex signal measurements corresponding to each of the plurality of pilots of the subsequent OFDM data symbol and the pilot reference points The method allegedly includes estimating an aggregate phase error of a subsequent OFDM data symbol relative to the pilot reference points using complex signal measurements from the pilots of that symbol. ¶25 col. 2:13-17
wherein the estimating step comprises performing a maximum likelihood-based estimation using the complex signal measurements corresponding to each of the plurality of pilots of the subsequent OFDM data symbol and the pilot reference points The estimating step allegedly comprises performing a maximum likelihood-based estimation using the complex signal measurements from the pilots of the subsequent data symbol. ¶25 col. 2:18-22
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central dispute may concern the scope of the term "maximum likelihood-based estimation." The question for the court will be whether this term is limited to the specific mathematical implementations disclosed in the ’583 Patent's specification (e.g., Eq. 13-16) or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any algorithm that jointly processes signal measurements from multiple pilot tones to find the most probable aggregate phase error.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific evidence of the algorithm used by the Accused Products. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused devices' phase error estimation method is, in fact, a "maximum likelihood-based" one that considers all pilot tones, as required by the claim, rather than an alternative estimation technique.
      U.S. Patent No. 6,633,616 Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a method of pilot phase error estimation in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexed (OFDM) receiver The Accused Products allegedly perform a method of pilot phase error estimation in an OFDM receiver. ¶33 col. 31:65
determining pilot reference points corresponding to a plurality of pilots of an OFDM preamble waveform The method allegedly includes determining pilot reference points corresponding to pilots of an OFDM preamble waveform. ¶33 col. 32:1-3
processing, in a parallel path to the determining step, the OFDM preamble waveform with a fast Fourier transform The method allegedly includes processing the OFDM preamble waveform with a fast Fourier transform in a parallel path to the determining step. ¶33 col. 32:4-6
determining a phase error estimate of a subsequent OFDM symbol relative to the pilot reference points The method allegedly includes determining a phase error estimate of a subsequent OFDM symbol relative to the pilot reference points. ¶33 col. 32:7-9
processing, in the parallel path to the determining step, the subsequent OFDM symbol with the fast Fourier transform The method allegedly includes processing the subsequent OFDM symbol with the fast Fourier transform in the same parallel path. ¶33 col. 32:10-12
wherein the determining the phase error estimate step is completed prior to the completion of the processing of the subsequent OFDM symbol with the fast Fourier transform in the parallel path The determining of the phase error estimate step is allegedly completed prior to the completion of processing the subsequent OFDM symbol with the fast Fourier transform in the parallel path. ¶33 col. 32:13-17
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Architectural Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on the existence of a "parallel path" for pilot phase error estimation. A central question will be whether the Accused Products contain a distinct processing architecture for this estimation that operates concurrently with and faster than the main FFT processing path, as depicted in the ’616 Patent (e.g., Fig. 8, paths A and B), or if their architecture is integrated or serial.
    • Timing Questions: The claim requires a specific temporal relationship: the phase error estimation must be "completed prior to the completion of the processing" of the symbol by the main FFT. A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused devices meet this precise timing constraint in their operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’583 Patent:

    • The Term: "maximum likelihood-based estimation"
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core mathematical approach of the invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend on whether this term is construed broadly to encompass a class of optimal estimation algorithms or narrowly to mean the specific equations disclosed in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from prior art methods that might, for example, only use the strongest pilot tone.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not recite a specific formula. The summary of the invention describes the processor as being for "processing complex signal measurements...in comparison to the reference points" and the estimator as being for "estimating an aggregate phase error," suggesting a functional definition ('583 Patent, col. 2:18-28).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific derivation and resulting mathematical formulas for the estimation (e.g., Eqs. 13, 14, 15, and 16 at col. 10). A defendant could argue that these specific embodiments define the scope of the claim term.

  • For the ’616 Patent:

    • The Term: "in a parallel path"
    • Context and Importance: This phrase is central to the claimed architectural improvement, which reduces processing latency. The dispute will likely focus on whether this requires a physically separate hardware path or can be read on a software-based multitasking or pipelined process that achieves the same timing objective.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim describes the steps as occurring "in a parallel path," which could be interpreted functionally as any processing scheme where the estimation and main FFT occur concurrently, rather than sequentially. The purpose is to complete the estimation "prior to the completion" of the FFT, a temporal goal that could be achieved in various ways ('616 Patent, col. 32:4-17).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 8 of the patent explicitly illustrates two distinct paths, labeled "path A" (for the FFT) and "path B" (for the pilot phase error metric) (U.S. Patent No. 6,633,616, col. 19:42-54). A defendant may argue that the claim requires this type of structural, physical separation of processing flows.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for the ’040, ’153, ’845, and ’388 patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant provides instructions, advertising, and promotion that encourage customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶42, ¶55). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the products contain "special features" that are "specially designed to be used in an infringing way" and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶43, ¶56).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the same four patents. The allegations are based on pre-suit knowledge from a notice letter sent in February 2024, and on an alleged "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," which Plaintiff characterizes as willful blindness (e.g., Compl. ¶44-47, ¶57-60).

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

  • A central issue will be one of algorithmic and architectural equivalence: The complaint alleges infringement based on high-level functional descriptions. A key evidentiary question will be whether the specific algorithms and hardware/software architectures inside the accused products perform the precise steps of the asserted claims (e.g., a "maximum likelihood-based estimation," processing "in a parallel path"), or whether they use different technical implementations to achieve a similar functional result.
  • A second core issue will concern system-level infringement: Several patents claim methods for managing communications across multiple wireless protocols. The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that Defendant’s component-level products are necessarily used by customers in systems that perform the complete, claimed methods of dynamically allocating time-slots or encoding data across different protocols.
  • A final key question will be one of corporate conduct and intent: Given the allegations of both post-notice infringement and a pre-existing policy of willful blindness, the willfulness inquiry will likely explore whether Defendant's alleged conduct was merely aggressive design in a crowded field or rose to the level of objective recklessness required for enhanced damages.