Togail Tech Ltd v. Apple Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Togail Technologies Ltd. (Ireland)
  • Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat; Ward, Smith & Law, Firm
• Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00326, W.D. Tex., 03/28/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having committed acts of infringement in the Western District of Texas and maintaining a regular and established place of business in Austin, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 5G-capable iPhones and iPads infringe four patents related to wireless communication standards for system information handling, antenna panel management, and multi-point transmission.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns fundamental operations within the 5G New Radio (NR) standard, which governs how modern mobile devices efficiently manage data reception, power consumption, and network connectivity.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any significant procedural events such as prior litigation or post-grant proceedings.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-11-15	’238 Patent Priority Date
2018-04-02	’502 Patent Priority Date
2018-07-17	’972 Patent Priority Date
2018-11-02	’165 Patent Priority Date
2020-08-11	’238 Patent Issue Date
2020-09-29	’502 Patent Issue Date
2021-04-06	’972 Patent Issue Date
2021-09-07	’165 Patent Issue Date
2022-03-28	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,743,238 - "System Information Updates in Band Width Part (BWP) Switch Operation," issued August 11, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In modern cellular networks, a user equipment (UE) may operate on various "bandwidth parts" (BWPs). The patent’s background explains that when system information (SI) changes, a UE in a connected state may not have a clear procedure for switching from its current BWP to the BWP where the updated SI is being broadcast, potentially preventing it from receiving critical network updates (’238 Patent, col. 1:35-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where the UE, upon receiving an SI change indication on its currently active BWP, switches to a designated "initial active BWP" to acquire the updated information. This updated information, known as Remaining Minimum System Information (RMSI), is received during the subsequent "modification period," ensuring the UE can reliably update its configuration (’238 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:15-44).
• Technical Importance: This method provides a defined, reliable behavior for UEs in a connected state to acquire system information updates, which is critical for maintaining stable and efficient network operation in dynamic 5G environments (’238 Patent, col. 1:42-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’Compl. ¶18).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • receiving a system information (SI) change indication broadcasted by a paging via a currently active bandwidth part (BWP) during a modification period;
  • in response to receiving the SI change indication, switching from the currently active BWP to an initial active BWP for an SI update;
  • receiving remaining minimum SI (RMSI) via the initial active BWP during a next modification period that immediately follows the modification period, wherein the RMSI includes information associated with changed system information blocks (SIBs);
  • determining which of the changed SIBs is required to be updated for the UE according to the received RMSI; and
  • receiving content of the required changed SIBs based on the determination.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,791,502 - "On-Demand System Information Request Procedure and Error Handling," issued September 29, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: A UE may require certain system information that the network is not currently broadcasting. While the UE can perform an "on-demand" SI request, the background notes that next-generation wireless networks lacked an efficient mechanism for handling errors if such a request fails (’502 Patent, col. 1:25-38).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method where a UE in a connected state transmits a request for a specific System Information Block (SIB). If the SIB is not received, the UE activates a "prohibit timer" which prevents it from sending another request until the timer expires. This procedure includes storing information about the failed request, which can be used for error handling and diagnostics (’502 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-51).
• Technical Importance: This provides a structured error-handling protocol for on-demand SI requests, preventing network overload from repeated failed requests while creating a mechanism to diagnose and resolve the underlying issue (’502 Patent, col. 7:5-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • transmitting a first SI request message to a base station (BS) after determining that the UE is in a connected state, the first SI request message including at least one requested system information block (SIB);
  • activating a prohibit timer; and
  • transmitting a second SI request message to the BS only when the at least one requested SIB is not received and the prohibit timer expires.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,972,972 - "Methods and Apparatuses for Operating Multiple Antenna Panels," issued April 6, 2021

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses power consumption in devices with multiple antenna panels. The invention provides a method for a device to maintain and apply a plurality of "leading time values," which represent the time needed to activate antenna panels for transmission or reception. A device applies a specific leading time value based on an indicator from a base station, allowing for efficient scheduling that accounts for the power state of the device’s antennas (’972 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:20-37).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).

Accused Features

The accused functionality relates to the operation of multiple antenna panels in the Accused Products in compliance with 5G NR standards, which require management of antenna status for MIMO and power-saving operations (Compl. ¶¶ 35-36).

U.S. Patent No. 11,115,165 - "Method and Apparatus for Multiple Transmit/Receive Point (TRP) Operations," issued September 7, 2021

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses communication in a multi-TRP environment where a device connects to multiple transmission points. To help the device distinguish between TRPs that may share a cell ID, the invention describes receiving Transmission Configuration Indicator (TCI) state data that is associated with multiple Demodulation Reference Signal (DMRS) port groups. This allows the device to obtain distinct Quasi Co-Location (QCL) assumptions for receiving data streams from different TRPs simultaneously, improving reliability and performance (’165 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:34-47).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).

Accused Features

The accused functionality relates to the Accused Products' implementation of multi-TRP operations, a feature of 5G NR standards designed to enhance data throughput and connection reliability (Compl. ¶¶ 45-46).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Products are wireless communication devices, including but not to the Apple iPhone 12, iPhone 12 mini, iPhone 12 Pro, iPhone 12 Pro Max, iPhone SE (3rd generation), iPhone 13, iPhone 13 mini, iPhone 13 Pro, iPhone 13 Pro Max, iPad mini (6th generation), iPad Air (5th generation), iPad Pro 11-in. (3rd generation), and iPad Pro 12.9-in (5th generation) (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are manufactured and sold to operate in compliance with a set of 3GPP standards for 5G New Radio (NR) communication, including TS 38.331, TS 38.212, TS 38.213, and TS 38.214 (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 25, 35, 45). The core of the infringement allegations rests on the technical functionality mandated by these standards, which govern radio resource control, multiplexing, and physical layer procedures.
• The complaint does not provide specific details on the market positioning of the Accused Products beyond identifying them as iPhones and iPads sold by Apple in the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach the claim chart exhibits; therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

’238 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe claim 1 of the ’238 patent by virtue of their compliance with 3GPP standards, particularly TS 38.331 (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16, 18). The narrative theory is that this standard requires the Accused Products to perform the claimed method: when a system information (SI) change is indicated, the devices are allegedly required to switch from their current bandwidth part (BWP) to an "initial active BWP" to receive updated system information (RMSI containing SIBs) in the next modification period, thereby meeting the limitations of the claim (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 18).

’502 Patent Infringement Allegations

The infringement theory for the ’502 patent is also based on the Accused Products’ compliance with 3GPP standards (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26). The complaint alleges that these standards dictate the error handling procedure of asserted claim 1. This allegedly includes transmitting an on-demand SI request message while in a connected state and, upon failure to receive the requested information, activating a mechanism that functions as a "prohibit timer" to prevent immediate re-transmission of the request, thus mapping to the elements of the claim (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 28).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: For all asserted patents, a central dispute will likely be whether compliance with the cited 3GPP standards is sufficient to meet every limitation of the asserted claims. A key question for the court will be whether the standards mandate the specific structures and steps claimed, or if a manufacturer could implement the standards in a non-infringing manner.
• Technical Questions: For the ’238 patent, a technical question is whether the Accused Products' BWP switching logic, when handling an SI update, strictly follows the sequence of "in response to receiving the SI change indication, switching...to an initial active BWP for an SI update" as required by the claim. For the ’502 patent, a question is what evidence the complaint provides that the accused devices' error handling mechanism performs the specific function of "activating a prohibit timer" that controls the timing of a second request message, as claimed, versus implementing a more general error or backoff procedure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’238 Patent, Claim 1

• The Term: "initial active BWP"
• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical, as the claim requires the device to switch specifically to this type of BWP for an SI update. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the BWP used by the Accused Products for system updates qualifies as the claimed "initial active BWP".
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes it as "the frequency location and bandwidth dedicated for broadcasting remaining minimum SI (RMSI)" (’238 Patent, col. 1:35-39), which might be argued to be a general functional definition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language links the switching to the "initial active BWP" as being "in response to receiving the SI change indication" and "for an SI update." This suggests a specific, context-dependent role rather than any BWP that happens to carry RMSI (’238 Patent, col. 12:45-50).

’502 Patent, Claim 1

• The Term: "activating a prohibit timer"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central element of the claimed error handling procedure. Practitioners may focus on this term because the viability of the infringement claim depends on proving that the Accused Products' failure-response logic constitutes the activation of a "timer" that "prohibits" a subsequent request, as opposed to a different type of error-handling mechanism.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term covers any software or hardware mechanism that prevents a UE from re-transmitting an SI request for a period of time after a failure.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 specifies that a second request is transmitted "only when...the prohibit timer expires," giving the timer a specific gating function (’502 Patent, col. 18:28-31). The specification also notes the timer "may be preconfigured or may be a fixed value" and may start when an upper layer receives notice of an RA problem, suggesting specific embodiments that could be used to narrow its meaning (’502 Patent, col. 7:18-24).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four patents. The basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendant, with knowledge of the patents from the complaint's filing, "continues to actively encourage and instruct its customers to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 17, 27, 37, 47).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents. The complaint alleges both pre-suit knowledge ("has known, or has been willfully blind") and post-suit knowledge ("Through the filing and service of this Complaint, Defendant has had knowledge") (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19).

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

• A central issue for all asserted patents will be one of standards essentiality: does compliance with the cited 3GPP standards, as implemented in the Accused Products, necessarily practice every element of the asserted claims, or are there non-infringing ways for a device to be compliant with the standards?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: does the operational logic of the Accused Products perform the exact, multi-step functions required by the claims—such as switching to an "initial active BWP" for an SI update in the ’238 patent or "activating a prohibit timer" in the ’502 patent—or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation that places them outside the claim scope?
• A dispositive threshold question for the count on the ’502 patent will be the validity of the asserted claim: given that claim 1 was cancelled in a post-filing reexamination proceeding that is not mentioned in the complaint, the court will have to address whether a cause of action can be maintained on that claim.