DCT

5:23-cv-00095

Speir Tech Ltd v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00077, W.D. Tex., 03/22/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Apple is registered to do business in Texas, maintains regular and established places of business in the District, and has committed acts of direct and indirect infringement within the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s iPhones, iPads, AirTags, and MacBooks infringe four patents related to wireless interference compensation, precise wireless device location, and secure computer architecture.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue are central to modern mobile devices, addressing 5G network performance, high-precision location services using Ultra-Wideband, and the secure processing of sensitive user data.
  • Key Procedural History: This is an amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges Defendant gained knowledge of the asserted patents at least as of January 21, 2022, when the initial complaint was served, forming a basis for post-suit willful infringement allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-01-29 Priority Date for ’779 and ’777 Patents
2006-02-22 Priority Date for ’399 Patent
2006-09-19 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,110,779
2007-06-04 Priority Date for ’780 Patent
2008-01-22 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777
2010-07-27 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399
2013-01-01 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,345,780
2013-09-20 Launch of iPhone 5s (accused under '399 Patent)
2019-09-20 Launch of iPhone 11 (accused under '779, '777 Patents)
2020-10-23 Launch of iPhone 12 (accused under '780, '779, '777 Patents)
2021-04-30 Launch of AirTags (accused under '779, '777 Patents)
2021-09-24 Launch of iPhone 13 (accused under all Asserted Patents)
2022-01-21 Initial Complaint Served on Defendant
2022-03-22 Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,345,780 - "Wireless communication system compensating for interference and related methods"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. US8345780B2, "Wireless communication system compensating for interference and related methods," issued January 1, 2013. (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of interference in wireless communications, which can be categorized into types such as narrowband (e.g., from a cordless phone), wideband, and self-interference (e.g., from frequency reuse). (’780 Patent, col. 1:24-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a wireless device that actively manages interference. Its controller detects interference, stores short and long-term historical data about it, and uses this data to determine the specific type of interference present (e.g., wideband vs. narrowband). Based on this determination, the controller then sets a "settable link characteristic"—such as modulation type, transmission power, or filtering—to specifically compensate for that type of interference. (’780 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-11).
  • Technical Importance: In increasingly crowded wireless environments, this approach allows a device to dynamically adapt its communication parameters in a targeted way, rather than using a one-size-fits-all compensation method, thereby improving link reliability. (’780 Patent, col. 2:1-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 9. (Compl. ¶14).
  • Essential elements of claim 9 include:
    • A wireless communications device operable to communicate with another device via a link having at least one settable link characteristic.
    • 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 further configured to: (1) detect received interference, (2) determine a type of the interference (from among wideband, self, and narrowband) by comparing a current signal characteristic with the stored historical characteristics, and (3) set the link characteristic to compensate for the determined interference type.
  • The complaint notes that the asserted claims are satisfied "including but not limited to claim 9." (Compl. ¶14).

U.S. Patent No. 7,110,779 - "Wireless communication system including a wireless device locator and related methods"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. US7110779B2, "Wireless communication system including a wireless device locator and related methods," issued September 19, 2006. (Compl. ¶8).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve the accuracy of wireless location systems. Prior art methods are described as either passive (requiring the target to transmit first) or susceptible to inaccuracies caused by variations in the target device's processing latency (the time it takes to receive a signal and send a reply). (’779 Patent, col. 1:11-2:10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an "active" wireless device locator that transmits a plurality of location-finding signals to a target device. The locator calculates the round-trip time for each signal but subtracts the target's known device latency to isolate the propagation delay. By basing its final range estimate on a plurality of these determined propagation delays (e.g., by averaging them), the system mitigates errors from single-instance latency fluctuations. (’779 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-65).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a more robust and accurate range estimation by actively probing the target and statistically smoothing out the unpredictable variations in device processing time. (’779 Patent, col. 3:5-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 18. (Compl. ¶28).
  • Essential elements of claim 18 include:
    • A wireless device locator for locating a target device having a unique identifier (UID).
    • At least one antenna and a transceiver.
    • A controller configured to: (1) transmit a plurality of location finding signals containing the target's UID and receive corresponding reply signals, (2) determine a propagation delay for each signal pair based on the target's known device latency, and (3) estimate a range to the target based on the plurality of determined propagation delays.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. 7,321,777 - "Wireless communications system including a wireless device locator and related methods"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. US7321777B2, "Wireless communications system including a wireless device locator and related methods," issued January 22, 2008. (Compl. ¶9).
  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’779 patent, this patent describes a similar wireless location system. A locator actively sends multiple signals to a target, receives replies, and calculates range. It improves accuracy by determining propagation delay based on a known device latency of the target and estimating the final range from a plurality of these delay measurements. (’777 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 12 is asserted. (Compl. ¶39).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Apple's Ultra-Wideband (UWB) functionality, used in features like "Precision Finding" for AirTags, which involves iPhones sending signals to and receiving replies from a target device to determine its precise location. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 40).

U.S. Patent No. 7,765,399 - "Computer architecture for a handheld electronic device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. US7765399B2, "Computer architecture for a handheld electronic device," issued July 27, 2010. (Compl. ¶10).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a computer architecture for a mobile device that enhances security by separating processing into two distinct domains: a "secure user processor" (using a trusted microprocessor and OS) and a "non-secure user processor" (using an untrusted microprocessor and OS). A trusted "cryptographic engine" acts as a secure bridge between them, using separate communication links to handle data encryption and decryption, thereby isolating the secure environment. (’399 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: The complaint targets Apple's "Secure Enclave" architecture, which features a dedicated Secure Enclave Processor separate from the main Application Processor. This architecture is used in iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks to handle sensitive data for features like Face ID and Touch ID. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 53-54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names a wide range of Apple products. Key accused instrumentalities include: iPhone 12 and 13 series, recent iPad Pro and iPad Mini models (for the ’780 Patent); iPhone 11, 12, and 13 series and AirTags (for the ’779 and ’777 Patents); and iPhone 5s and all subsequent iPhones, recent iPad models, and MacBook computers with Touch ID (for the ’399 Patent). (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are commercially successful mobile phones, tablets, and computers. Their relevant technical functionality includes 5G cellular communication, Ultra-Wideband (UWB) radio for high-precision location, and a secure processing architecture. (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 28, 53).
  • The 5G functionality relies on OFDM and the reporting of Channel State Information (CSI) to manage the communication link, which includes reporting on interference. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17). The complaint provides a diagram from a 3GPP technical specification illustrating the use of OFDM in 5G communications. (Compl. p. 7).
  • The UWB functionality is enabled by Apple's "U1" chip and is marketed as providing "spatial awareness" for features like "Precision Finding," which allows a user to locate an AirTag with high accuracy by displaying its distance and direction. (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28). The complaint includes an Apple marketing screenshot that depicts an iPhone locating keys with the "Precision Finding" interface. (Compl. p. 28).
  • The secure architecture is embodied in Apple's "Secure Enclave," which is a separate processor that handles sensitive biometric data for Touch ID and Face ID, distinct from the main Application Processor that runs the user-facing operating system and apps. (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 63).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,345,780 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 Products use 5G cellular technology, which employs OFDM in both the uplink and downlink. ¶16 col. 4:4-6
a controller coupled to said wireless transceiver and configured to store short term and long term historical characteristics of interference. The controllers in the Accused Products are configured to use CSI-ReportConfig, which sets up periodic or semi-persistent reporting, thereby storing historical interference characteristics. ¶17 col. 3:4-11
said controller configured to detect received interference, The controller is configured to receive a CSI-ReportConfig structure that instructs the device on which channel and interference measurements to make, thereby detecting interference. ¶18 col. 4:40-45
determine a type of the received interference from among a plurality of interference types comprising wideband interference, self interference, and narrowband 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 can be configured to receive CSI resource sets that span the entire bandwidth-part (wideband) or a fraction of it (narrowband), allowing it to determine the interference type based on historical settings and current measurements. ¶19 col. 3:1-11
set the at least one settable link characteristic to compensate for the received interference based upon the interference type. The Accused Products report wideband and subband Channel Quality Indicators (CQI), Precoding Matrix Indicators (PMI), and Rank Indicators (RI), which are link characteristics used to compensate for interference. ¶20 col. 4:46-51

U.S. Patent No. 7,110,779 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a wireless device locator for locating a target wireless communications device having a unique identifier (UID) associated therewith... An accused iPhone with UWB acts as a locator for a target device such as an Apple AirTag, which has a unique identifier. The "Precision Finding" feature performs this function. ¶28 col. 2:41-47
at least one antenna and a transceiver connected thereto; The accused iPhone 13 contains antennas and transceivers, including the USI Apple U1 UWB Module, as shown in a provided teardown photograph. ¶29 col. 2:42-44
a controller for...transmitting a plurality of location finding signals...inserting the UID...and receiving a respective reply signal...based upon the UID... The controller in the accused iPhone 13 cooperates with the transceiver to send location-finding signals to and receive replies from an AirTag, using identifiers as part of the process. ¶30 col. 2:44-54
determining a propagation delay...based upon a known device latency of the target wireless communications device. The controller determines propagation delay based on the signal exchange. The complaint alleges this is done based on a known latency, citing IEEE standards for UWB ranging that account for device reply time. ¶31 col. 2:58-62
estimating a range to the target wireless communications device based upon a plurality of determined propagation delays. The controller estimates the range to the target device (e.g., an AirTag) based on the propagation delays determined from the plurality of signals exchanged. ¶32 col. 2:63-65
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions (’780 Patent): A central question may be whether the accused device's "controller" actually "set[s] the... link characteristic" as required by claim 9. The complaint alleges the device reports parameters (CQI, PMI) that are used for compensation, which raises the question of whether the setting action is performed by the device itself or by the network base station to which it reports.
    • Technical Questions (’780 Patent): The infringement theory equates being configured to measure interference over different bandwidths (wideband vs. subband) with "determin[ing] a type" of interference. A court may need to resolve whether this configuration meets the functional requirement of determination based on comparing current and historical data.
    • Scope Questions (’779 Patent): The interpretation of "known device latency" will be critical. The patent specification distinguishes its invention by using a "known" latency to simplify the ranging calculation. The question will be whether the accused UWB implementation relies on a pre-determined, constant latency as taught by the patent, or if it measures and communicates the latency during the exchange, which may present a mismatch with the claimed invention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 8,345,780

  • The Term: "controller configured to ... set the at least one settable link characteristic" (from claim 9)
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement turns on the locus of control. If the accused device's controller only reports information (e.g., CSI) that a network entity (the base station) then uses to command a change, it raises the question of whether the device's controller itself performs the claimed "setting" action.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to create a "wireless communication system compensating for interference," which may suggest that participating in the compensation scheme is sufficient, even if a network element executes the final command. (’780 Patent, Title, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim places the "setting" function within the device's controller. The detailed description and figures focus on the components and actions of the wireless communications device itself, which may support a construction requiring the device to act autonomously. (’780 Patent, Fig. 1, col. 3:1-11).

For U.S. Patent No. 7,110,779

  • The Term: "known device latency" (from claim 18)
  • Context and Importance: This term is crucial because the patent's asserted novelty relies on using a "known" latency to improve accuracy and efficiency over prior art that had to measure it. The dispute will likely focus on whether "known" means pre-programmed and static, or if it can encompass a latency that is dynamically measured and communicated during the ranging process.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not explicitly forbid the "known" latency from being established during the communication session itself. An argument could be made that once measured and available for calculation, the latency is "known."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes that a key advantage is simplifying the round-trip calculation by using a pre-existing, known value, thereby avoiding the need for additional signals to communicate the latency back from the target. (’779 Patent, col. 5:10-18, col. 6:39-49). This suggests "known" implies a value known before the specific reply is generated.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four patents. Induced infringement allegations are based on Apple's user manuals, advertisements, and online instructions that allegedly encourage and instruct customers to use the infringing functionalities, such as 5G communications, "Precision Finding" with AirTags, and security features reliant on the Secure Enclave. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 33, 45, 61).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Apple's continued infringing activities after it gained knowledge of the asserted patents. The complaint specifies this knowledge was obtained "at least as of January 21, 2022 when it was served with the initial complaint." (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 33, 45, 51).

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

  • A key legal question will be one of locus of action: For the ’780 patent, does the accused device's controller "set" a link characteristic by merely reporting parameters like CQI/PMI to a base station that then directs the change, or does the claim require the device's controller to perform the setting action autonomously?
  • A core issue for the ’779 and ’777 patents will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "known device latency," which the patent specification leverages as a point of distinction over prior art, be construed to cover a latency that is dynamically measured and communicated during a ranging exchange, or is it limited to a pre-determined, static value?
  • A central evidentiary question for the '399 patent will be one of architectural mapping: Does Apple's "Application Processor" and "Secure Enclave Processor" architecture, including the communication pathways and the role of its hardware cryptographic engines, align with the specific claimed structure of a "non-secure user processor," a "secure user processor," and a bridging "cryptographic engine" as defined in the patent?