DCT

4:18-cv-06737

Uniloc USA Inc v. LG Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:18-cv-06737, N.D. Tex., 03/09/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue in the Northern District of Texas is alleged based on Defendant LG USA having a regular and established place of business in Fort Worth and both LG USA and LG Mobilecomm offering and selling the accused products to customers within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a wide range of Defendant’s electronic devices that implement 3G and LTE standards infringe a patent related to managing service requests in a radio communication system.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for improving the reliability of communication between mobile devices and a base station, specifically how a mobile device requests network services.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior proceedings. Public records indicate that the patent-in-suit was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2019-00510) filed after this complaint. The IPR resulted in the cancellation of claim 17 of the patent, while the present complaint asserts at least claim 18.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-12-10 ’079 Patent Priority Date
2005-03-15 ’079 Patent Issue Date
2018-03-09 Complaint Filing Date
2019-01-10 IPR Proceeding (IPR2019-00510) Filed Against ’079 Patent
2021-08-16 IPR Certificate Issued, Cancelling Claim 17

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079 - RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH REQUEST RE-TRANSMISSION UNTIL ACKNOWLEDGED

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079, "RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH REQUEST RE-TRANSMISSION UNTIL ACKNOWLEDGED," issued March 15, 2005. (Compl. ¶8).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges in wireless communication systems, such as the emerging UMTS standard, where a mobile station (MS) needs to request resources from a base station (BS). Conventional random-access channels were seen as insufficient for high-traffic loads, while dedicated signaling channels could suffer from missed detections, where the BS fails to recognize a valid service request from an MS. (’079 Patent, col. 1:32-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a "secondary station" (e.g., a mobile phone) repeatedly transmits the same service request in its allocated, consecutive time slots until it receives an acknowledgement from the "primary station" (e.g., a cell tower). This persistence is intended to ensure the request is eventually received. Concurrently, the primary station can improve its detection accuracy by combining the signals from multiple time slots to determine if a request was sent. (’079 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-8; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This approach was designed to improve the robustness and reduce the delay of service requests in third-generation wireless networks by mitigating the effects of signal fading and interference. (’079 Patent, col. 4:22-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 18. (Compl. ¶16).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 18 are:
    • A radio communication system with a primary station and multiple secondary stations.
    • The primary station allocates time slots in an uplink channel for the secondary stations to transmit service requests.
    • The secondary stations have means for re-transmitting the same request in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until one is received.
    • The primary station determines if a request was transmitted by determining if the signal strength of the request exceeds a threshold value.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names a broad category of "Accused Infringing Devices," comprising a list of over 90 LG-branded devices, including cellular telephones, tablets, and a "Wireless Home Phone," that "implement 3G and LTE standards." (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused devices function as "secondary devices" in a communication system where a "primary device" allocates time slots for service requests. (Compl. ¶15). The relevant functionality is the devices' alleged implementation of communication protocols within 3G and LTE networks that allow them to request services from the network's primary station. (Compl. ¶¶14-15). The complaint does not provide specific details on the commercial importance or market positioning of the accused products beyond listing them.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint makes general allegations without providing a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory for the lead asserted claim based on the available allegations.

’079 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A radio communication system, comprising: a primary station and a plurality of respective secondary stations; The Accused Infringing Devices are "secondary devices" that operate within a communications system that includes a "primary device" (e.g., a cellular base station). ¶15 col. 1:8-14
the primary station having means for allocating respective time slots in an uplink channel to the plurality of respective secondary stations to transmit respective requests for services to the primary station... The communications systems in which the accused devices operate are ones "wherein one device is a primary device that allocates time slots to one or more secondary devices in which the secondary device(s) may request services". ¶15 col. 2:16-20
wherein the respective secondary stations have means for re-transmitting the same respective requests in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received from the primary station, The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. It alleges only that the secondary devices "may request services from the primary device" in the allocated slots. ¶15 col. 2:38-42
wherein said primary station determines whether a request for services has been transmitted... by determining whether a signal strength of the respective transmitted request... exceeds a threshold value. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how the primary station detects requests. ¶¶15-16 col. 8:31-37
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether the accused devices, when operating under standard 3G and LTE protocols, actually perform the specific behavior of re-transmitting a request in consecutive time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement, as claimed. The complaint does not provide factual allegations to support that this specific mode of operation occurs.
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the general operation of a device on a 3G or LTE network inherently meets the specific limitations of claim 18. A key question for the court will be whether the complaint's allegation that the devices "implement 3G and LTE standards" is sufficient to plausibly allege infringement of the specific re-transmission scheme recited in the claim. (Compl. ¶14).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "re-transmitting the same respective requests in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core of the claimed invention for the secondary device. Its construction is critical because the infringement case depends on whether standard 3G/LTE operations map onto this specific behavior. Practitioners may focus on this term because defendants will likely argue that network protocols involve defined waiting periods, timers, or other signals that do not constitute "without waiting."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent distinguishes its method from prior art where a station "has to wait at least long enough for the primary station to have received, processed and acknowledged a request before it is able to retransmit." A party could argue "without waiting" simply means not waiting for this full cycle to complete before re-transmitting. (’079 Patent, col. 2:5-8).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract states the secondary station "sends a request in every time slot allocated to it until it receives an acknowledgement." This, along with the flowchart in Figure 3, could support a narrower interpretation requiring blind, immediate re-transmission in each successive allocated slot, a potentially uncommon mode of operation. (’079 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement by asserting that LG "intentionally instructs its customers to infringe through training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and user guides" available on its corporate and support websites. (Compl. ¶17).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint bases its willfulness allegation on post-suit knowledge, stating that "LG will have been on notice of the '079 Patent since, at the latest, the service of this complaint upon it." (Compl. ¶19).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the actual operation of the accused LG devices under 3G and LTE standards include a mode where they re-transmit a service request in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement, as the claim requires? The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations on this point suggests this will be a central point of discovery and dispute.
  • A core issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Can the allegation that the accused devices simply "implement 3G and LTE standards" serve as a plausible factual basis for infringing the specific, multi-step method of Claim 18, or will the court deem it a conclusory allegation that fails to meet federal pleading standards?