DCT

5:12-cv-03057

GPNE Corp v. Pantech Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:12-cv-03057, N.D. Cal., 10/24/2012
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are deemed to reside in the judicial district, have committed acts of infringement in the district, have purposely transacted business in the district, maintain regular and established places of business, and derive substantial revenue from sales to California residents.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ cellular phones and tablets capable of operating on GPRS and LTE networks infringe three patents related to methods for managing wireless network communications.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit describe systems and methods for managing network access and data transmission between mobile nodes and a central controller, originating from the technological context of two-way paging systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint, filed pursuant to a court order.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1994-06-24 Earliest Priority Date for ’267, ’954, and ’492 Patents
2009-06-30 U.S. Patent No. 7,555,267 Issues
2009-08-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,570,954 Issues
2010-09-07 U.S. Patent No. 7,792,492 Issues
2012-10-24 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,555,267 - "Network Communication System Wherein A Node Obtains Resources For Transmitting Data By Transmitting Two Reservation Requests"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,555,267, "Network Communication System Wherein A Node Obtains Resources For Transmitting Data By Transmitting Two Reservation Requests," issued June 30, 2009.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art two-way paging systems as involving complex transmission schemes and notes that managing the hand-off of a pager between different geographic "cells" can be "technically cumbersome" when numerous frequencies are involved (’267 Patent, col. 1:56-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a two-step method for a network node to obtain resources to transmit data. The node first sends a "random access request" in a designated time slot; in response, the controller grants access to a second slot where the node sends a more specific "reserve request" signal; finally, the controller allocates resources for the node to transmit its data packet(s) (’267 Patent, Abstract). This structured, two-request process is designed to manage network access efficiently among multiple users (’267 Patent, col. 6:1-12).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a systematic protocol for allocating finite network bandwidth in a shared wireless environment, aiming to improve upon less structured or more complex earlier systems (’267 Patent, col. 1:56-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶¶88-89).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 for a "first node" include:
    • transmitting a "random access request signal" in a first slot;
    • receiving a "first grant signal" which allocates a second slot;
    • transmitting a "reserve access request signal" in the second slot;
    • receiving a "second grant signal" which allocates resources for data transmission; and
    • transmitting the "first data packets" in response to the second grant.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert numerous other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶88-89).

U.S. Patent No. 7,570,954 - "Communication System Wherein A Clocking Signal From A Controller, A Request From A Node, Acknowledgement Of The Request, And Data Transferred From The Node Are All Provided On Different Frequencies, Enabling Simultaneous Transmission Of These Signals"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,570,954, "Communication System Wherein A Clocking Signal From A Controller, A Request From A Node, Acknowledgement Of The Request, And Data Transferred From The Node Are All Provided On Different Frequencies, Enabling Simultaneous Transmission Of These Signals," issued August 4, 2009.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenges in prior two-way communication systems, such as pagers, which involved "complex acknowledgement transmission scheme[s], involving numerous frequencies or frequency sub-bands" (’954 Patent, col. 1:58-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented system utilizes four distinct local frequencies for different aspects of communication. A first frequency carries a clock-aligning signal, a second carries commands from the controller to the node, a third carries data from the node to the controller, and a fourth carries a request signal from the node to the controller (’954 Patent, col. 4:38-51). This separation of functions onto different frequencies enables simultaneous and orderly communication, as illustrated in the patent’s timing diagrams (’954 Patent, Fig. 6).
  • Technical Importance: By dedicating separate frequency channels for system-level functions (e.g., clock, requests) and data payload, the invention aimed to create a more robust and efficient two-way wireless communication system (’954 Patent, col. 2:6-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 13, among others (Compl. ¶¶93-94).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 13 for a "first node" include:
    • receiving a "clocking signal" from a controller;
    • transmitting a "first request signal" to the controller;
    • receiving an "authorization signal" from the controller;
    • transmitting the "communication message" to the controller; and
    • wherein the "clocking signal", "first request signal", "authorization signal", and "communication message" are all transmitted on "differing frequencies".
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶93-94).

U.S. Patent No. 7,792,492 - "Network Communication System With An Alignment Signal To Allow A Controller To Provide Messages To Nodes And Transmission Of The Messages Over Four Independent Frequencies"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,792,492, "Network Communication System With An Alignment Signal To Allow A Controller To Provide Messages To Nodes And Transmission Of The Messages Over Four Independent Frequencies," issued September 7, 2010.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communication system that enables a controller to establish and maintain a communication link with individual mobile nodes, particularly when a node moves between different network cells. The invention uses an alignment signal and multiple frequencies to manage the hand-off process, allowing a controller to provide connection information to a node that "wanders" into its control area to establish a communication path (’492 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 2, among others (Compl. ¶¶98-99).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Pantech's cellular phones and tablets with the ability to operate on GPRS and LTE networks (Compl. ¶¶98-99).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are a wide range of Pantech-branded cellular phones and tablets, including but not to the 4G USB Modem, Breeze, Breakout, Burst, Element, Flex, and Marauder models (Compl. ¶¶16-85).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products have the ability to operate on, and "can transmit and receive data over," General Packet Radio Service (“GPRS”) and/or Long Term Evolution (“LTE”) networks (Compl. ¶¶16-85). The functionality of operating on these specific wireless network standards is the basis for the infringement allegations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed mapping of accused product functionality to the specific limitations of the asserted claims. The infringement theory is predicated on the general allegation that the accused products' capability to operate on GPRS and LTE networks meets the claim elements.

’267 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
transmit a random access request signal in a first slot... The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe by having the ability to send and receive data via GPRS and LTE networks, which purportedly includes performing this step. ¶¶88-89 col. 6:1-4
receive a first grant signal...allocating a second slot to the first node for transmitting the reserve access request signal... The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe by having the ability to send and receive data via GPRS and LTE networks, which purportedly includes performing this step. ¶¶88-89 col. 6:5-9
transmit the reserve access request signal in the second slot... The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe by having the ability to send and receive data via GPRS and LTE networks, which purportedly includes performing this step. ¶¶88-89 col. 6:10-12
receive a second grant signal...allocating...resources for transmitting the first data packets... The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe by having the ability to send and receive data via GPRS and LTE networks, which purportedly includes performing this step. ¶¶88-89 col. 6:13-17
transmit the first data packets in response to the second grant signal... The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe by having the ability to send and receive data via GPRS and LTE networks, which purportedly includes performing this step. ¶¶88-89 col. 6:18-21

’954 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receive a clocking signal...from the first communication controller... The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe by having the ability to send and receive data via GPRS and LTE networks, which purportedly includes performing this step. ¶¶93-94 col. 4:38-40
...transmitting the first request signal from the first node to the first communication controller... The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe by having the ability to send and receive data via GPRS and LTE networks, which purportedly includes performing this step. ¶¶93-94 col. 6:7-12
receiving an authorization signal at the first node from the first communication controller... The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe by having the ability to send and receive data via GPRS and LTE networks, which purportedly includes performing this step. ¶¶93-94 col. 6:13-16
...transmitting the communication message from the first node... The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe by having the ability to send and receive data via GPRS and LTE networks, which purportedly includes performing this step. ¶¶93-94 col. 6:21-29
wherein each of the...signal...and...message are transmitted on differing frequencies... The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe by having the ability to send and receive data via GPRS and LTE networks, which purportedly includes performing this step. ¶¶93-94 col. 4:47-51

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A primary technical question for the ’267 Patent is whether the network access procedures in GPRS and LTE standards implement the specific two-step reservation process recited in claim 1 (i.e., a first random access request followed by a second reserve request). Standard network access protocols may not map directly to this sequence, raising the question of whether there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.
  • Scope Questions: For the ’954 Patent, a key dispute may arise over whether the complex signaling structures of GPRS and LTE networks meet the claim requirement of four distinct signals (clock, request, authorization, data) each being transmitted on "differing frequencies." The analysis may turn on whether modern multiplexing techniques fall within the scope of this limitation as it was understood in the context of the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term 1 (’267 Patent, Claim 1): "reserve access request signal"

    • Context and Importance: This term describes the second of two requests a node must make before transmitting data. The infringement analysis for the ’267 Patent will likely depend on whether the accused GPRS/LTE systems perform a two-step request procedure. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed as a step separate and distinct from the initial "random access request signal," Plaintiff must prove that the accused systems perform two discrete requests, not just one.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for analysis of this element.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract describes a clear sequence where a node first "transmits a random access request signal," and only after receiving a grant from the controller does it "transmit a reserve request signal" (’267 Patent, Abstract). Claim 1 itself lists the transmission of the "random access request signal" and the "reserve access request signal" as distinct, sequential steps separated by the receipt of a "first grant signal," which supports a construction requiring two separate and different request signals (’267 Patent, col. 15:1-12).

  • Term 2 (’954 Patent, Claim 13): "clocking signal"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the patent describes it as a distinct signal on its own frequency used for synchronization. Whether the synchronization methods of modern GPRS/LTE networks fall within this definition will be a central issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern wireless standards often embed complex synchronization data within broader channel structures, which may not align with the patent’s description of a discrete "clocking signal."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of the term, which may support an argument that any signal used for timing and synchronization is a "clocking signal."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the signal as a "local clock-aligning signal" generated by a "clock unit" to modulate a specific frequency, f1 (’954 Patent, col. 3:28-31). Figure 6 depicts the "CLOCK TRANSMITTER FREQUENCY f1" as a separate channel carrying a simple, periodic pulse train, which may support a narrower construction that does not read on the more complex, packet-based synchronization signals used in modern networks (’954 Patent, Fig. 6).

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain explicit counts or factual allegations supporting indirect infringement or willful infringement.

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

  1. A central issue will be one of technological applicability and definitional scope: Can claim terms and methods conceived in the context of 1990s-era two-way paging technology be construed to cover the fundamentally different and more complex network access and signaling protocols of modern GPRS and LTE wireless standards?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of procedural and functional mapping: Does the operational reality of the accused products on GPRS/LTE networks include the specific two-step reservation process of the ’267 Patent or the dedicated four-frequency signaling architecture of the ’954 Patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
  3. An early procedural question for the court will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint, which makes broad allegations of infringement based on standards-compliance without detailed factual support linking specific product operations to claim elements, meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss?