DCT

4:18-cv-06740

Uniloc USA Inc v. LG Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:18-cv-00561, N.D. Tex., 07/02/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business within the Northern District of Texas and offers the accused products for sale to customers in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile devices capable of operating on HSPA/HSPA+ networks infringe a patent related to methods for managing wireless data traffic by using a minimum bit rate criterion to select data transmission formats.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns resource allocation within 3G/UMTS wireless communication standards, which is a foundational element for balancing network capacity with quality of service requirements for different applications on mobile devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint. Subsequent to its filing, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding initiated by a third party resulted in a certificate issued on August 16, 2021, which cancelled all claims asserted in this complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-05-21 '487 Patent Priority Date
2007-01-23 '487 Patent Issue Date
2018-07-02 First Amended Complaint Filing Date
2021-08-16 IPR Certificate issues, cancelling asserted claims 1-6 and 11-13

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

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

  • Issued: January 23, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In wireless communication systems like 3G/UMTS, a device's Medium Access Control (MAC) layer must constantly select the appropriate format for transmitting data packets. The patent identifies a need for an "optimized selection process" for these "transport format combinations" (TFCs) to better accommodate diverse data types with varying quality requirements (Compl. ¶11; ’487 Patent, col. 1:32-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention integrates a "minimum bit rate" requirement directly into the MAC layer's TFC selection algorithm. By making the selection algorithm aware of the minimum data throughput needed for a specific "logic channel" (e.g., one carrying a voice call), the system can more intelligently allocate network resources to ensure that quality-of-service demands are met (’487 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:46-49). Figure 2 illustrates the protocol stack, showing the MAC layer mediating between the physical transport channels (12) and the logical channels of the RLC layer (13) (’487 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for more precise and efficient quality-of-service enforcement at a low level of the protocol stack, which can be more accurate than handling it at a higher, application-specific level (’487 Patent, col. 2:56-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 12, as well as dependent claims 3-6 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites:
    • 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 reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶16).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • A broad range of LG electronic devices, including the LG G7 ThinQ, LG V30, and LG Stylo 3, which are capable of operating in compliance with HSPA/HSPA+ standards (collectively, the "Accused Infringing Devices") (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused functionality is the devices' implementation of protocols standardized in UMTS 3GPP Release 6 and above, specifically HSPA/HSPA+ (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges that when operating on a compatible network, these devices utilize a MAC layer that receives data packets on logical channels and multiplexes them into transport blocks for transmission (Compl. ¶17). This process allegedly involves selecting from a set of available Transport Format Combinations (TFCs) using an algorithm that accounts for Quality of Service (QoS) requirements, including a minimum guaranteed bit rate (GBR) (Compl. ¶19). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'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 implement a network that associates logical channels with transport channels via a MAC layer. ¶17 col. 1:4-8
which transport channels are provided for transmitting transport blocks formed from packet units of the logic channels, The devices' transport channels transmit transport blocks, which are formed from packet data units (PDUs) received over the logical channels. ¶17 col. 1:8-10
wherein a plurality of valid transport format combinations is allocated to the transport channels... The devices are assigned transport format combinations (TFCs) for use in transmitting on transport channels. ¶18 col. 1:38-43
wherein a selection algorithm is provided for selecting the transport format combinations, The devices implement a selection algorithm for choosing the appropriate TFC from a set of valid TFCs. ¶19 col. 1:44-45
and wherein the selection algorithm uses a minimum bit rate criteria applicable to the respective logic channel. The selection algorithm considers the priorities of the data flow, and the radio resource layer controls QoS requirements, which can include a minimum guaranteed bit rate (GBR). ¶19 col. 1:46-49
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 1 is directed to a "network." The complaint alleges that LG's "devices implement networks" (Compl. ¶15). A potential point of contention is whether infringement of a network claim can be established solely by the operation of a terminal, or if it requires proof of the entire system (e.g., terminal and base station), parts of which LG does not control. The concurrent assertion of terminal-specific claim 12 suggests an awareness of this potential issue.
    • Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the HSPA/HSPA+ standard's use of a "Guaranteed Bit Rate" (GBR) parameter for QoS is functionally the same as the patent's "selection algorithm" that "uses a minimum bit rate criteria" (’487 Patent, col. 1:46-49; Compl. ¶19). The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether the accused devices perform the specific, multi-step iterative process disclosed in the patent's embodiments or a technically distinct process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "selection algorithm"
    • Context and Importance: The case's outcome may depend on the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent discloses a detailed, multi-iteration process, while the complaint alleges infringement based on compliance with a broad industry standard.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, reciting "a selection algorithm" without further structural limitations, which could support an interpretation covering any process that selects TFCs (’487 Patent, col. 1:44-45).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific, multi-step procedure for the algorithm, involving iterative sequences of allocating packet units to satisfy minimum and maximum bit rate constraints, which could support a narrower construction limited to that disclosed process (’487 Patent, col. 8:15–col. 10:65).
  • The Term: "minimum bit rate criteria"
    • Context and Importance: This term captures the core of the asserted invention. Its construction will define what type of bit rate consideration is required to infringe.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract and claims use the general term "criteria," which could be argued to encompass any rule or standard, such as the "Guaranteed Bit Rate" (GBR) parameter alleged to be used in the accused devices (’487 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶19).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed equations for calculating the number of transport blocks ("Nmin(l,L)") needed to satisfy the minimum bit rate, suggesting the "criteria" is not just a general parameter but a specific, calculated value used within the selection algorithm (’487 Patent, col. 7:36-39, col. 8:2-14).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on LG’s promotional and instructional materials, including user guides, websites, and videos, which allegedly instruct customers on how to use the accused HSPA/HSPA+ functionality (Compl. ¶¶23-24). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the software for this functionality is a material part of the invention with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶25).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on LG's knowledge of the ’487 patent since, at the latest, the service of the original complaint in the case (Compl. ¶26).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of technical equivalence: does the accused HSPA/HSPA+ standard's use of a general "Guaranteed Bit Rate" parameter for quality of service constitute an implementation of the specific, multi-step "selection algorithm" that uses a "minimum bit rate criteria" as disclosed and claimed in the ’487 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their respective operations?
  • A second core issue will be one of entity scope: can infringement of network claim 1 be sustained based on the sale and operation of LG's accused terminals, or will Plaintiff be required to prove infringement by an entire network system, including components outside of LG’s control?
  • Finally, an overarching question is one of viability: given that all asserted claims were cancelled in an IPR proceeding subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the central issue for the litigation is its continued legal basis, as the action is pleaded entirely on patent claims that are no longer in force.