DCT
5:23-cv-00095
Speir Tech Ltd v. Apple Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Speir Technologies Ltd. (Ireland)
- Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00077, W.D. Tex., 01/20/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Apple is registered to do business in Texas, has transacted business in the District, and maintains regular and established places of business in the District, including multiple facilities in Austin.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products with 5G cellular functionality and Ultra-Wideband (UWB) location-finding functionality infringe patents related to interference compensation and wireless device location, respectively.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit involves two key wireless technologies: 5G, the standard for modern cellular communications, and UWB, a radio technology used for precise, short-range location tracking and device communication.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-01-29 | U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777 Priority Date |
| 2008-01-22 | U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777 Issued |
| 2008-06-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,345,780 Priority Date |
| 2013-01-01 | U.S. Patent No. 8,345,780 Issued |
| 2022-01-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,345,780 - “Wireless communication system compensating for interference and related methods”
- Issued: January 1, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As wireless communications became more common, interference from other devices (e.g., cordless phones interfering with Wi-Fi) became a significant problem that could render devices inoperable or reduce their effectiveness (’780 Patent, col. 1:11-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a wireless communication device that actively manages interference. It detects interference, determines its type (e.g., narrowband vs. wideband) by analyzing signal characteristics against historical data, and then adjusts its own communication parameters—such as modulation type, channel bandwidth, or power—to compensate for that specific interference type (’780 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-52). This allows for a more tailored and efficient response to changing radio frequency conditions.
- Technical Importance: This approach represents a move from static or simple frequency-hopping interference avoidance to a more intelligent, adaptive system that diagnoses the nature of the interference and applies a specific, appropriate remedy.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶13).
- Essential elements of Claim 9 include:
- An orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) wireless transceiver.
- A controller coupled to the transceiver configured to store short term and long term historical characteristics of interference.
- The controller is also configured to:
- detect received interference.
- determine a type of the received interference (from among wideband, self, and narrowband) by comparing a current signal characteristic with the stored historical characteristics.
- set at least one settable link characteristic to compensate for the received interference based on the determined type.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777 - “Wireless communications system including a wireless device locator and related methods”
- Issued: January 22, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Accurately determining the range to a wireless device is difficult because the target device’s internal processing delay, or latency, can vary from one transmission to the next. This variance can introduce significant errors into range calculations that rely on simple round-trip time measurements (’777 Patent, col. 7:20-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "wireless device locator" that actively sends multiple "location finding signals" to a target device. For each signal, it calculates a propagation delay by measuring the round-trip time and subtracting a "known device latency" associated with that type of target device. By basing its final range estimate on a plurality of these calculated propagation delays, the system averages out the variations in latency, resulting in a more accurate and reliable distance measurement (’777 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-65). The process is illustrated in the patent's flowchart, which shows the steps of transmitting signals, receiving replies, determining propagation delays, and estimating the range (’777 Patent, Fig. 11).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a robust technique for active range-finding that accounts for a key source of real-world error (device latency variation), enabling more precise location services.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶24).
- Essential elements of Claim 12 include:
- A wireless device locator for locating a target wireless communications device.
- At least one antenna and a transceiver connected thereto.
- A controller for:
- cooperating with the transceiver for transmitting a plurality of location finding signals to the target and receiving a respective reply signal for each.
- determining a propagation delay for each signal pair based upon a known device latency of the target device.
- estimating a range to the target device based upon a plurality of determined propagation delays.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- ’780 Patent: iPhone 12 and 13 series, iPad Pro, iPad Mini, and any other Apple products with 5G functionality (Compl. ¶10).
- ’777 Patent: iPhone 11, 12, and 13 series, AirTags, and any other Apple products with Ultra-Wideband (UWB) functionality (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- 5G Functionality (’780 Accused Products): The accused products incorporate 5G cellular technology, which uses Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM). The complaint alleges these devices implement the 3GPP 5G standard, which includes protocols for measuring and reporting Channel State Information (CSI) to manage link quality and interference (Compl. ¶¶14-18). The complaint provides a screenshot from Apple's website listing "5G (sub-6 GHz and mmWave)" as a key technical specification for the iPhone 13 (Compl. ¶13, p. 6).
- UWB Functionality (’777 Accused Products): The accused products incorporate UWB technology, anchored by Apple's "U1" chip, to enable a feature called "Precision Finding." This feature allows a user with a compatible iPhone to locate a lost item, like an AirTag, by displaying its precise distance and direction (Compl. ¶¶25, 27). The complaint includes a marketing image from Apple's website showing the "Precision Finding" user interface, which displays a distance ("20 ft") and direction to a target device (Compl. ¶27, p. 27). This UWB functionality is a significant feature marketed for its high-precision location tracking capabilities.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’780 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality - | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) wireless transceiver | The accused 5G products comprise an OFDM wireless transceiver, as 5G uses OFDM in both uplink and downlink communications. - | ¶14 | col. 2:42-43 |
| a controller coupled to said wireless transceiver and configured to store short term and long term historical characteristics of interference | The accused products' controllers are configured to use the "CSI-ReportConfig" structure from the 3GPP standard, which configures periodic or semi-persistent reporting, allegedly constituting storage of short and long term historical characteristics. | ¶15 | col. 4:1-3 |
| said controller configured to... detect received interference | The controllers are configured to receive CSI reports, which are based on interference measurements made by the user equipment (UE) using resources like CSI-IM (Interference Measurement) resources. - | ¶16 | col. 2:45-46 |
| determine a type of the received interference... based upon comparing at least one characteristic of a current received signal with the short term and long term historical characteristics of interference | The controller determines the type of interference by specifying CSI-RS (reference signal) and CSI-IM (interference measurement) resource sets, which can cover the entire bandwidth or a part, distinguishing between wideband and narrowband conditions. The complaint alleges this is based on comparing current measurements with historical reporting configurations. | ¶17 | col. 2:46-52 |
| set the at least one settable link characteristic to compensate for the received interference based upon the interference type | The accused products are configured to report wideband and subband CQI (Channel Quality Indicator) and PMI (Pre-coding Matrix Indicator), which are used to set link characteristics (e.g., modulation, coding) to compensate for the measured interference. - | ¶18 | col. 2:50-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: Does the configuration of CSI reporting settings (e.g., periodic, aperiodic) as defined in the 3GPP standard constitute "storing short term and long term historical characteristics of interference" as required by the claim? A court may need to determine if configuring a reporting schedule is equivalent to storing past measurement data.
- Scope Question: Does configuring a device to measure interference across a "full bandwidth" or a "fraction of the bandwidth" (Compl. ¶17) meet the claim limitation of "determin[ing] a type of the received interference from among... wideband... and narrowband"? The analysis may focus on whether this configuration process is a "determination" based on "comparing" current signals with historical data, or merely a pre-set measurement mode. The complaint provides a visual from a technical publication showing that a CSI-RS can be configured for the full bandwidth or a fraction thereof, which supports its allegation of distinguishing between wideband and narrowband conditions (Compl. ¶17, p. 15).
’777 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) | Alleged Infringing Functionality - | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a controller for... transmitting a plurality of location finding signals... and receiving a respective reply signal therefrom | The controller in an accused iPhone cooperates with its UWB transceiver to transmit signals to a target AirTag and receive replies as part of the "Precision Finding" feature, which involves a two-way ranging exchange. A diagram from the IEEE standard illustrates this two-way signal exchange (SS-TWR) (Compl. ¶29, p. 29). - | ¶27 | col. 2:51-55 |
| determining a propagation delay associated with the transmission of each location finding signal and the respective reply signal therefor based upon a known device latency of the target wireless communications device | The accused products determine propagation delay using two-way ranging protocols (SS-TWR or DS-TWR) defined in the IEEE 802.15.4z standard. These protocols account for the target's reply time ("Treply"), which the complaint equates to the "known device latency." - | ¶28 | col. 2:58-61 |
| estimating a range to the target wireless communications device based upon a plurality of determined propagation delays | The accused products' "Precision Finding" feature estimates and displays a range to the target device (e.g., "20 ft"). This final range estimate is alleged to be based on multiple ranging exchanges (a plurality of delays) to achieve accuracy. - | ¶29 | col. 2:61-64 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: Does the term "known device latency," as used in the patent, read on the "Treply" (reply time) variable used in the IEEE 802.15.4z standard's time-of-flight equations? A court will likely examine whether the patent requires a static, predetermined latency value for a device type, versus a dynamically measured or communicated reply time for a specific transaction.
- Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the final range estimate is based on a "plurality of determined propagation delays"? While the "Precision Finding" feature implies ongoing measurement, the dispute may focus on whether each displayed range update is the result of an aggregation of multiple prior delay calculations, as the claim requires, or simply the result of the single most recent measurement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’780 Patent:
- The Term: "determine a type of the received interference"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis. The plaintiff alleges that configuring measurements over wide vs. narrow bandwidths constitutes this "determination." The defendant may argue this requires a more sophisticated, analytical step where the system actively classifies the interference (e.g., as a Wi-Fi signal, a jammer, etc.) rather than just measuring its spectral width.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description states the first controller determines the interference type from among "narrowband interference 28a, wideband interference 28b, and self interference 28c" (’780 Patent, col. 4:41-45). This suggests the "type" could be as simple as its bandwidth characteristic.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in FIG. 2 shows "DETERMINE THE TYPE OF INTERFERENCE..." as a distinct step following "INTERFERENCE DETECTED?" (’780 Patent, Fig. 2, blocks 36, 40). This could imply a deliberative, analytical process beyond simple measurement configuration.
For the ’777 Patent:
- The Term: "based upon a known device latency of the target wireless communications device"
- Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges on whether Apple's UWB system uses a "known device latency" as claimed. Plaintiff equates this with the "Treply" variable in the IEEE standard. Practitioners may focus on this term because if Apple's system calculates range without relying on a pre-defined or "known" latency value in the patent's specific sense, infringement may be avoided.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains that "different device types will have known device latencies associated therewith" and that this known value provides a "close approximation of the actual device latency" (’777 Patent, col. 5:12-16; col. 7:11-14). This could support an interpretation where any pre-characterized or standardized latency value, like those used in a standard protocol, qualifies as "known."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract states the delay is determined "based upon a known device latency of the target device." The use of "the" target device (singular) could suggest the latency must be known for that specific device, not just its general type. The patent also describes a method where a "controller may determine the device type of the target wireless communications device based upon the UID" to then use the associated latency, implying a lookup process (’777 Patent, col. 3:41-44).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement:
- ’780 Patent: The complaint alleges Apple induces infringement by providing user manuals and online instructions (e.g., on changing cellular data settings) that encourage use of the accused 5G functionality. It also alleges Apple advertises the 5G capabilities, intending for customers to use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶19).
- ’777 Patent: The complaint alleges Apple induces infringement by providing instructions and user manuals on how to use the "Precision Finding" feature with AirTags, knowing and intending that customers will perform the infringing location-finding acts (Compl. ¶30).
- Willful Infringement: For both patents, the complaint alleges that Apple's infringement is willful, but the allegations appear to be based on knowledge acquired "as of at least the filing and service of this complaint," suggesting a focus on post-suit willfulness rather than pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶¶19, 30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents a classic dispute over whether modern, standards-compliant technology infringes older, more generally worded patents. The outcome will likely depend on claim construction and the factual evidence of how Apple's systems operate.
- A core issue will be one of functional interpretation: For the ’780 Patent, does the 3GPP 5G standard's method of configuring and reporting Channel State Information (CSI) perform the specific, multi-step process recited in Claim 9—namely, storing historical data, using it to "determine a type" of interference, and setting a link characteristic based on that type? Or is it a more generic link quality management system that falls outside the claim's scope?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of definitional mapping: For the ’777 Patent, does Apple's implementation of the IEEE 802.15.4z UWB standard for "Precision Finding" rely on a "known device latency" as that term is construed from the patent? The case may turn on whether the "Treply" variable in the standard's formulas is legally equivalent to the claimed "known device latency," which the patent ties to specific device types.