DCT

4:18-cv-06740

Uniloc USA Inc v. LG Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:18-cv-06740, N.D. Tex., 03/09/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant LGE USA having a regular and established place of business within the Northern District of Texas, and both LGE USA and LGE Mobilecomm offering the accused products for sale to customers in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic devices that operate in compliance with HSPA/HSPA+ cellular standards infringe a patent related to methods for managing data transmission in wireless networks.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns Quality of Service (QoS) management in cellular data networks, specifically the process by which a device or network controller selects data transmission formats to ensure a minimum data rate is maintained for applications.
  • Key Procedural History: Subsequent to the complaint's filing, several inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against the '487 Patent. On August 16, 2021, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued an IPR Certificate cancelling claims 1-6 and 11-13, which includes all claims asserted in this litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-05-21 '487 Patent Priority Date
2007-01-23 '487 Patent Issue Date
2018-03-09 Complaint Filing Date
2018-11-12 IPRs Filed (IPR2019-00222, IPR2019-00252)
2019-07-02 IPRs Filed (IPR2019-01282, IPR2019-01283)
2021-08-16 IPR Certificate Issued Cancelling Asserted Claims

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,167,487 - NETWORK WITH LOGIC CHANNELS AND TRANSPORT CHANNELS

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a challenge in wireless networks where data from various applications (e.g., voice, web browsing) is packaged for transmission. Existing methods for selecting the format for these data packages, known as Transport Format Combinations (TFCs), did not efficiently account for the quality-of-service (QoS) requirements of the underlying applications, such as the need to maintain a guaranteed minimum data speed ('487 Patent, col. 1:8-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a selection process where the "minimum bit rate" required for a specific "logic channel" (e.g., a voice call) is integrated directly into the selection algorithm for the TFCs. This selection occurs at the Media Access Control (MAC) layer of the network protocol stack, ensuring that the fundamental data transmission structure respects the application's QoS needs ('487 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:45-48; col. 2:56-64). Figure 2 illustrates the position of the MAC layer between the physical transmission layer (PHY) and the Radio Link Control (RLC) layer where logic channels originate ('487 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: By embedding the minimum bit rate requirement into the MAC layer's TFC selection algorithm, the invention aimed to provide a more accurate and efficient method for managing QoS compared to handling it at higher, more abstracted software levels ('487 Patent, col. 2:56-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A network with a first plurality of logic channels with which is associated a second plurality of transport channels,
    • which transport channels are provided for transmitting transport blocks formed from packet units of the logic channels,
    • wherein a plurality of valid transport format combinations is allocated to the transport channels, which combinations indicate the transport blocks provided for transmission on each transport channel,
    • wherein a selection algorithm is provided for selecting the transport format combinations, and
    • wherein the selection algorithm uses a minimum bit rate criteria applicable to the respective logic channel.
  • The complaint asserts infringement of dependent claims 3-6 and 12 ('Compl. ¶16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • A broad range of LG electronic devices, including the LG V30, LG G6, LG Stylo 3, and LG Nexus 5, which are collectively defined as the "Accused Infringing Devices" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these devices "operate in compliance with HSPA/HSPA+ standardized in UMTS 3GPP Release 6 and above" (Compl. ¶14). The allegedly infringing functionality is the devices' implementation of networks that have "a first plurality of logic channels and a second plurality of transport channels associated by the MAC layer" and that use "a minimum bit rate criteria" for sending and receiving data packets in accordance with these standards (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

'487 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A network with a first plurality of logic channels with which is associated a second plurality of transport channels, The Accused Infringing Devices are alleged to implement networks with logic and transport channels associated by the MAC layer. ¶15 col. 6:28-30
which transport channels are provided for transmitting transport blocks formed from packet units of the logic channels, The devices are alleged to use these channels for sending and receiving packet units. ¶15 col. 1:6-7
wherein a plurality of valid transport format combinations is allocated to the transport channels, which combinations indicate the transport blocks provided for transmission on each transport channel, This functionality is alleged to be performed in accordance with HSPA/HSPA+ standards. ¶15 col. 1:38-42
wherein a selection algorithm is provided for selecting the transport format combinations, This functionality is alleged to be performed in accordance with HSPA/HSPA+ standards. ¶15 col. 1:43-44
and wherein the selection algorithm uses a minimum bit rate criteria applicable to the respective logic channel. The devices are alleged to use a "minimum bit rate criteria" as part of their operation under the HSPA/HSPA+ standards. ¶15 col. 1:45-48

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential point of dispute is whether a single "electronic device" constitutes the claimed "network." The patent's specification frequently describes the invention in the context of a system comprising a "radio network controller" and multiple "terminals" ('487 Patent, col. 5:65-6:2), raising the question of whether a claim to a "network" can read on a single accused device.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory appears to rest on the assertion that compliance with the HSPA/HSPA+ standard is equivalent to practicing the invention (Compl. ¶15). A key technical question is whether the specific "selection algorithm" and "minimum bit rate criteria" required by that standard are coextensive with the methods described and claimed in the '487 patent, particularly given the detailed multi-step algorithm disclosed in the specification ('487 Patent, col. 8:16-col. 10:56).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "network"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble of claim 1 ("A network with..."). Its construction is critical because the complaint accuses individual "electronic devices" (Compl. ¶14) of infringement, while the patent often describes the invention in the context of a multi-component system. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if a single device can embody the entire claimed "network."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's layer model in Figure 2, which illustrates the MAC, RLC, and PHY layers, could be interpreted as describing a protocol stack that exists within a single device (a terminal or a network controller), potentially supporting an argument that a single device can constitute the "network" ('487 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:62-64).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed description consistently refers to a "wireless network, for example a radio network, with a radio network controller (RNC) 1 and a plurality of terminals 2 to 9" ('487 Patent, col. 5:65-col. 6:2). This language may support an interpretation that the claimed "network" requires, at a minimum, both a controller and at least one terminal.

The Term: "selection algorithm uses a minimum bit rate criteria"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase captures the central inventive concept. The outcome of the infringement analysis depends on whether the algorithm in the accused devices "uses" the "criteria" in the manner required by the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not specify how the algorithm must use the criteria, which could support a construction covering any algorithm that considers a minimum bit rate as a factor in TFC selection.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification describes a highly detailed, multi-step selection algorithm involving iterative sequences, moving measurement windows, and specific calculations for determining the number of transport blocks ('487 Patent, col. 8:16-col. 10:56). A court could be persuaded that these detailed embodiments limit the scope of the "selection algorithm" to the specific process disclosed or a structural equivalent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and user guides" that instruct customers to use the accused devices in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶17). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused devices are a material part of the invention, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially adapted for infringing use (Compl. ¶18).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint pleads post-suit willfulness, alleging that Defendant "will have been on notice of the '487 Patent since, at the latest, the service of this complaint upon it" (Compl. ¶19).

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

  • A dispositive threshold issue is the impact of subsequent invalidation: Given that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancelled all asserted claims in inter partes review proceedings after the complaint was filed, the primary question is what legal basis, if any, remains for the continuation of this action.
  • A core merits question, had the claims survived, would be one of definitional scope: can the term "network," which the patent describes in the context of a system including a controller and multiple terminals, be construed to read on the single, stand-alone "electronic devices" accused in the complaint?
  • A key evidentiary question would be one of technical proof: does the allegation that the accused devices comply with the HSPA/HSPA+ standard, without more detailed factual support on their specific internal operations, suffice to plausibly allege infringement of the particular "selection algorithm" claimed in the '487 patent?