DCT

3:02-cv-02060

Lucent Tech v. Gateway Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:02-cv-02060, S.D. Cal., 07/23/2003
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and is subject to personal jurisdiction.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s computer systems, components, and accessories infringe a portfolio of twelve U.S. patents related to a wide range of technologies, including video display processing, audio and video data compression, and user interface controls.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit cover various foundational technologies for personal computers, addressing video color management, speech and video compression algorithms, and user interface methods that were significant during the growth of the personal computing market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint filed in a consolidated action, indicating prior procedural activity. For several of the asserted patents, the complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement prior to the lawsuit, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1980-11-10 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 4,317,956
1981-05-19 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 4,439,759
1981-04-13 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 4,383,272
1983-07-12 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 4,582,956
1984-03-27 U.S. Patent No. 4,439,759 Issues
1984-09-04 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 4,617,676
1984-03-16 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 4,701,954
1986-04-15 U.S. Patent No. 4,582,956 Issues
1986-10-14 U.S. Patent No. 4,617,676 Issues
1986-12-11 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 4,763,356
1987-01-26 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 4,910,781
1987-10-20 U.S. Patent No. 4,701,954 Issues
1988-08-09 U.S. Patent No. 4,763,356 Issues
1989-09-27 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 4,958,226
1990-01-31 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,347,295
1990-03-20 U.S. Patent No. 4,910,781 Issues
1990-09-18 U.S. Patent No. 4,958,226 Issues
1990-12-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,649,131
1991-11-15 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,227,878
1993-07-13 U.S. Patent No. 5,227,878 Issues
1994-09-13 U.S. Patent No. 5,347,295 Issues
1994-09-20 Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 4,582,956 Issues
1997-07-15 U.S. Patent No. 5,649,131 Issues
2003-07-23 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 4,439,759 - Terminal Independent Color Memory For A Digital Image Display System (Issued Mar. 27, 1984)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the problem of incompatibility among various digital image display systems, which used different methods for accessing color memories, had different memory capacities, and implemented features like blinking in inconsistent ways (ʼ759 Patent, col. 2:3-45). This created difficulties for host computers attempting to provide consistent color images across different terminals (ʼ759 Patent, col. 2:40-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a terminal-independent color memory system that allows a data processor to access color values using a common command language, regardless of whether the color data is stored in the video controller's color map, permanent memory, or random access memory (ʼ759 Patent, Abstract). The system defines multiple modes of access and allows for the creation of complex visual effects like "multiple process chained blinking" in a terminal-independent manner (ʼ759 Patent, col. 2:56-64).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to standardize color command processing, allowing content and applications to be developed for a variety of display terminals without requiring custom programming for each one (ʼ759 Patent, col. 2:46-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" without specifying which (Compl. ¶24). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A digital image display system.
    • A memory for storing color data values.
    • Processing means responsive to a predetermined command and data sequence for decoding the command and selecting one of a plurality of modes of access to color data values.
    • The modes include a first mode for directly specifying an in-use foreground color, a second mode for specifying the color as an index into the color memory, and a third mode for specifying both foreground and background colors as indexes.
    • Display means for displaying colors associated with the accessed data values.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 4,910,781 - Code Excited Linear Predictive Vocoder Using Virtual Searching (Issued Mar. 20, 1990)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a problem in Code Excited Linear Predictive (CELP) speech coders, where the system adapts slowly to transitions from unvoiced to voiced speech, degrading speech quality, particularly for higher-pitched voices like those of women and children (ʼ781 Patent, col. 2:47-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a "virtual searching" technique for the codebook of excitation vectors. When searching the codebook, if the system reaches the end of the stored samples before filling a complete candidate vector, it repeats a portion of the vector it has already accessed to complete the set (ʼ781 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-12). This allows the system to more quickly identify and reproduce the periodic, pitched nature of voiced speech.
  • Technical Importance: This method improves the perceived quality of synthesized speech in low bit-rate vocoders by making the transition into voiced segments sound more natural and less distorted (ʼ781 Patent, col. 1:19-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least one claim" without specifying which (Compl. ¶31). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A method of encoding speech for communication to a decoder.
    • Comprising frames of speech each having a plurality of samples.
    • Storing a plurality of candidate sets of excitation information in a table, with a group of these sets having fewer samples than a speech frame.
    • Searching the candidate sets to find the best match for a present frame.
    • The searching step includes "repeating upon searching" a portion of each of the candidate sets in the smaller group, so that each set in that group has the same number of samples as the present frame.
    • Communicating the location of the best-matched candidate set to the decoder.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 4,958,226 - Conditional Motion Compensated Interpolation of Digital Motion Video (Issued Sep. 18, 1990)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses digital video compression. It describes a method where, instead of transmitting every frame of a video, some frames are skipped and then reconstructed ("interpolated") at the decoder by averaging adjacent frames; to improve quality, "correction codes" are generated by the encoder and sent to the decoder to fix errors in the interpolated frames ('226 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶38).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell's "computer systems, components, and accessories" generally (Compl. ¶4).

U.S. Patent No. 5,227,878 - Adaptive Coding and Decoding of Frames and Fields of Video (Issued Jul. 13, 1993)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to improving the compression of high-resolution digital video. The invention describes a system that adaptively switches between coding an entire video frame at once ("frame coding") and coding the individual interlaced fields separately ("field coding"), based on an analysis of which method would be more efficient for a given segment of video ('878 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell's "computer systems, components, and accessories" generally (Compl. ¶4).

U.S. Patent No. 5,347,295 - Control of a Computer Through a Position-Sensed Stylus (Issued Sep. 13, 1994)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a user interface for a stylus-based computer that uses a "notebook metaphor." A key aspect is the use of proximity sensing: the system can detect when the stylus tip is near the screen (without touching) to "anticipate and terminate stylus input events," such as previewing a selection before the user commits ('295 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶52).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell's "computer systems, components, and accessories" generally (Compl. ¶4).

U.S. Patent No. 5,649,131 - Communications Protocol (Issued Jul. 15, 1997)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communications protocol between a host processor and a terminal (e.g., a smart phone or workstation). The protocol facilitates the exchange of interface information by associating displayed objects with a particular identifier, allowing the terminal to handle the specific rendering of the object, thereby making the host's job independent of the terminal's specific display capabilities ('131 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶57).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell's "computer systems, components, and accessories" generally (Compl. ¶4).

U.S. Patent No. 4,317,956 - Remote Chalkboard Automatic Cursor (Issued Mar. 2, 1982)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a "telautograph" or remote chalkboard system. To help a remote viewer see where a local user is pointing or writing, the system automatically generates a graphical cursor (e.g., a hand or an eraser) on the remote screen that appears at the site of activity and disappears after a finite period, leaving the image "unencumbered" ('956 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell's "computer systems, components, and accessories" generally (Compl. ¶4).

U.S. Patent No. 4,383,272 - Video Signal Interpolation Using Motion Estimation (Issued May 10, 1983)

  • Technology Synopsis: This invention describes a method for video compression where information in non-transmitted frames is estimated ("interpolated") using data from preceding and succeeding frames. The system improves on simple interpolation by first estimating the motion of objects between frames and using that motion information to select more relevant data for the interpolation, which produces better results for moving images ('272 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶71).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell's "computer systems, components, and accessories" generally (Compl. ¶4).

U.S. Patent No. 4,582,956 - Method And Apparatus For Displaying At A Selected Station Special Service Information During A Silent Interval Between Ringing (Issued Apr. 15, 1986)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to telephony services like caller ID, describes a method for sending data (such as the calling number) to a station set during the silent interval between rings. The system transmits the information using a frequency shift keyed (FSK) signal, which is detected and decoded by the receiving device to display the special service information ('956 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell's "computer systems, components, and accessories" generally (Compl. ¶4).

U.S. Patent No. 4,617,676 - Predictive Communication System Filtering Arrangement (Issued Oct. 14, 1986)

  • Technology Synopsis: This invention relates to improving signal quality in digital communication systems, such as speech codecs. It describes a predictive decoder with a filter that modifies the decoded signal based on the communication system's bit rate; the filter enhances spectral regions with signal content and suppresses others, improving the output signal quality ('676 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶85).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell's "computer systems, components, and accessories" generally (Compl. ¶4).

U.S. Patent No. 4,701,954 - Multipulse LPC Speech Processing Arrangement (Issued Oct. 20, 1987)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses low bit-rate speech coding and aims to reduce the bit rate of the excitation signal while being independent of voice pitch. It achieves this by removing redundancy in the multipulse excitation signal across frames, forming a signal representative of similarities between the current and preceding speech patterns, and using this to create a more compact excitation signal ('954 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell's "computer systems, components, and accessories" generally (Compl. ¶4).

U.S. Patent No. 4,763,356 - Touch Screen Form Entry System (Issued Aug. 9, 1988)

  • Technology Synopsis: The invention describes a user interface for filling out forms on a touch screen computer. The system highlights the field to be filled in and automatically displays a predefined tool (e.g., keyboard, calculator, menu) as an overlay to facilitate data entry for that specific field ('356 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶99).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell's "computer systems, components, and accessories" generally (Compl. ¶4).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "computer systems, components, and accessories" that Dell "makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale" (Compl. ¶4). No specific Dell products, software, or services are named in the complaint.
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any accused product's specific functionality. The allegations are general and cover the entirety of Dell's business in computer systems without identifying particular features or modes of operation that are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶4, ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations that map any feature of an accused Dell product to the elements of the asserted patent claims. The infringement allegations are stated in a conclusory manner for each of the twelve patents-in-suit. For example, the complaint alleges that "Dell makes, uses, sells, and offers to sell products that infringe at least one claim of the Fleming ’759 Patent" (Compl. ¶24). Because no claim chart is provided or specific infringement theory articulated, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold legal issue, antecedent to any technical dispute, is whether the complaint's generalized allegations provide sufficient notice of the basis for the infringement claims. The absence of any identification of accused products or infringing functionalities raises the question of whether the pleadings meet the required specificity.
    • ’759 Patent (Terminal Independent Color Memory): A potential point of contention would be whether the standard operation of a graphics processing unit (GPU) and operating system in a modern PC constitutes the claimed "processing means responsive to a predetermined command" for "selecting one of a plurality of modes of access." The analysis would question whether standard API calls for color display map onto the specific multi-modal access scheme claimed in the patent.
    • ’781 Patent (Virtual Searching Vocoder): A key technical question would be whether any speech or audio codecs used in Dell products perform the claimed step of "repeating... a portion of each of said group of said candidate sets." Infringement analysis would focus on the specific algorithm used for handling excitation vectors at the end of a codebook and whether it matches the "virtual search" method required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’759 Patent:

    • The Term: "selecting one of a plurality of modes of access to color data values" (Claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention, as it defines the core function of the terminal-independent system. The dispute may turn on whether the accused Dell systems offer distinct "modes" of access corresponding to those claimed (direct color specification vs. indexed foreground vs. indexed foreground/background) or if they use a single, unified method that does not align with this claimed structure.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the modes in functional terms, suggesting that any system that can achieve these different outcomes (e.g., specifying a color directly versus indexing a palette) could be covered, regardless of the underlying hardware architecture (ʼ759 Patent, col. 5:67-6:4).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and flowcharts (e.g., FIG. 4) describe a specific decision-making process based on the number of "operands" that follow a command opcode to select the mode (ʼ759 Patent, col. 6:33-40). A defendant may argue this context limits the claim to systems that use such a specific command structure.

  • For the ’781 Patent:

    • The Term: "repeating upon searching" (Claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: This phrase captures the essence of the "virtual searching" invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend on whether any repetition of codebook samples in an accused device occurs "upon searching" (i.e., as an integral part of the search algorithm for finding the best match) or for other unrelated purposes, such as buffer management.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the problem being solved as the slow adaptation of the codebook. This could support an interpretation where any mechanism that repeats samples to accelerate adaptation to periodic signals during the search process falls within the claim's scope (ʼ781 Patent, col. 2:47-54).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that the repetition occurs when a search window "approaches the end of the samples in the codebook" and there is no longer a "full set of information to be utilized" (ʼ781 Patent, col. 5:27-35). This might support a narrower construction limited to algorithms that specifically address this end-of-array condition by looping back samples.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each of the twelve patents, the complaint alleges that Dell "contributes to and/or induces the infringement" (e.g., Compl. ¶25, ¶32, ¶39). The complaint does not allege specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements of these claims, such as referencing user manuals, advertisements, or technical documentation that instruct or encourage infringing use.
  • Willful Infringement: For several patents, the complaint alleges that "Lucent notified Dell of its infringement" and Dell "continued its infringement after receiving this actual notice," forming the basis for a claim of willful infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶26, ¶33, ¶40). This alleges pre-suit knowledge as the foundation for willfulness.

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

  • A primary issue will be one of infringement specificity: The complaint asserts a broad portfolio of twelve patents against an undefined set of "computer systems" without alleging any specific facts of infringement. A central question will be whether Lucent can map the highly specific functions claimed in these diverse patents—from speech coding algorithms to user interface protocols—onto the actual operation of general-purpose hardware and software sold by Dell.
  • A key challenge will be one of technological relevance and claim scope: Many of the patents-in-suit claim priority to the 1980s and early 1990s. The case will likely turn on questions of claim construction, specifically whether the terminology used to describe the patented technologies (e.g., "terminal independent color memory," "remote chalkboard") can be construed to read on the more complex, integrated, and standardized computer architectures of the early 2000s.
  • A significant evidentiary question will concern willfulness and damages: Given the allegations of pre-suit notice for multiple patents, a key focus will be on the nature and content of that notice and Dell's conduct thereafter. The breadth of the accused product category suggests that any potential damages calculation would involve complex issues of apportionment and determining the incremental value, if any, of each patented technology.