DCT

3:23-cv-01560

Daingean Tech Ltd v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:23-cv-01560, S.D. Cal., 08/24/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of California because Apple is incorporated in California and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including multiple retail stores, corporate offices, and a substantial research and development presence.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 5G-capable devices, including iPhones and iPads, infringe five patents related to foundational 5G wireless communication technologies.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to methods for managing data transmission, ensuring reliability, and improving efficiency in 5G wireless networks, which are the current standard for high-speed mobile communications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that U.S. Patent No. 10,484,976 was cited by the USPTO during the prosecution of three separate Apple-owned patents, and that Apple specifically addressed the patent's teachings in an Office Action response dated January 9, 2021, a fact which may be relevant to allegations of pre-suit knowledge.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-07-28 U.S. Patent No. 10,841,958 Priority Date
2017-01-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,484,976 Priority Date
2017-02-20 U.S. Patent No. 10,932,207 Priority Date
2017-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 11,196,509 Priority Date
2017-08-10 U.S. Patent No. 11,134,400 Priority Date
2019-11-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,484,976 Issued
2020-01-01 Accused Product Category Launch (5G-capable Apple devices introduced "in 2020")
2020-11-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,841,958 Issued
2021-01-09 Alleged date of Apple's pre-suit knowledge of the '976 Patent's teachings
2021-02-23 U.S. Patent No. 10,932,207 Issued
2021-09-28 U.S. Patent No. 11,134,400 Issued
2021-12-07 U.S. Patent No. 11,196,509 Issued
2023-08-24 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,484,976 - "Signaling, Procedures, User Equipment and Base Stations for Uplink Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communications"

Patent Identification

U.S. Patent No. 10484976, "Signaling, Procedures, User Equipment and Base Stations for Uplink Ultra Reliable Low Latency Communications," issued November 19, 2019 (Compl. ¶29).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for improved communication speed, flexibility, and efficiency to support "ultra-reliable low latency communications (URLLC)," a critical component of 5G networks (’976 Patent, col. 1:25-47; Compl. ¶30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a two-stage process for managing uplink data transmissions. First, a base station sends a high-level Radio Resource Control (RRC) message to configure the periodicity of a potential transmission. Later, when data needs to be sent, the base station sends a separate, faster signal on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) to activate the transmission for that period. The user equipment then sends confirmation. (’976 Patent, Abstract, col. 2:27-46). This separation of slow configuration from fast activation is designed to reduce latency (Compl. ¶30).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a framework for managing the stringent latency and reliability demands of URLLC applications, which are essential for next-generation technologies like industrial automation and autonomous systems (’976 Patent, col. 1:48-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
  • Claim 1 requires, among other elements, a user equipment (UE) with:
    • Receiving circuitry to receive separate RRC messages for configuring a "periodicity" and a "numerology."
    • Receiving circuitry to detect a downlink control information (DCI) format on a physical channel, where the DCI is scrambled by a specific "first RNTI" and indicates either an "activation" or "deactivation" of an uplink transmission.
    • Transmitting circuitry to send a confirmation (MAC CE) in response to both activation and deactivation DCIs.
    • Transmitting circuitry to perform the uplink data transmission based on the DCI.
    • A specific requirement that the confirmation MAC CEs for both activation and deactivation are identified by a MAC Protocol Data Unit (PDU) subheader with a logical channel identifier (LCID), and that the "same index of the LCID is used" for both.
  • Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶3).

U.S. Patent No. 10,841,958 - "Access Node, a Method for an Access Node, a Wireless Terminal, and a Method for a Wireless Terminal"

Patent Identification

U.S. Patent No. 10841958, "Access Node, a Method for an Access Node, a Wireless Terminal, and a Method for a Wireless Terminal," issued November 17, 2020 (Compl. ¶60).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency of base stations periodically broadcasting all available System Information Blocks (SIBs), including non-essential ones, which wastes radio resources (’958 Patent, col. 1:52-58; Compl. ¶61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes that a base station broadcast only essential "first type" SIBs required for initial network access. This essential SIB contains information about available non-essential "second type" SIBs, including a "value tag" to indicate if their content has been updated. This allows a wireless terminal to check the value tag and request the non-essential SIBs on-demand only when needed, conserving network bandwidth (’958 Patent, Abstract, col. 1:59-2:6; Compl. ¶61).
  • Technical Importance: This system improves the efficiency of network information signaling, which is critical for managing bandwidth in wireless networks with a large number of connected devices (Compl. ¶61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 5 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Claim 5 requires, among other elements, a wireless terminal with:
    • Receiver circuitry configured to receive a message triggering reception of a "first type SIB."
    • The receiver circuitry then receives the first type SIB, which comprises a "value tag" and information indicating whether "second type SIBs" are available via broadcast or on-demand.
    • Processor circuitry configured to determine if a second type SIB has changed by comparing a value tag stored on the terminal with the value tag received in the first type SIB.
    • Receiver circuitry configured to receive the second type SIB if it has changed.
    • A specific scenario wherein if a second type SIB that was previously available on-demand changes, the information in the first type SIB now indicates that it is provided by broadcast.
  • Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶9).

U.S. Patent No. 10,932,207 - "Terminal Apparatus, Base Station Apparatus, Communication Method, and Integrated Circuit"

Patent Identification

U.S. Patent No. 10932207, "Terminal Apparatus, Base Station Apparatus, Communication Method, and Integrated Circuit," issued February 23, 2021 (Compl. ¶84).

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the random access procedure used for a device to access a cellular network. It describes a more efficient "2-step" contention-based random access procedure and a conventional "4-step" procedure, specifying that the transmission power for the physical random access channel (PRACH) is calculated differently depending on which procedure is used (Compl. ¶¶85, 89).

Asserted Claims

Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶88).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that Apple's devices are capable of performing both 2-step and 4-step random access procedures in compliance with 5G standards and use distinct power calculation parameters for each, as claimed (Compl. ¶¶94, 103, 109).

U.S. Patent No. 11,134,400 - "User Equipment, Base Station, Related Methods"

Patent Identification

U.S. Patent No. 11134400, "User Equipment, Base Station, Related Methods," issued September 28, 2021 (Compl. ¶121).

Technology Synopsis

The invention addresses network robustness in "Dual Connectivity" or "Multi-Radio Dual Connectivity" (MR-DC) operations, where a device is connected to two cell groups simultaneously (a Master Cell Group, MCG, and a Secondary Cell Group, SCG). It describes a method for a User Equipment (UE) to handle a failure in the SCG by reconfiguring a "duplicated Signaling Radio Bearer (SRB)" to use the MCG for uplink transmission, allowing for rapid recovery (Compl. ¶¶123, 126).

Asserted Claims

Independent Claim 4 (Compl. ¶125).

Accused Features

The accused devices are alleged to support MR-DC and, upon detecting an SCG failure, to report the failure and reconfigure the SRB to use the MCG path for uplink, in accordance with 3GPP standards and the patent's claims (Compl. ¶¶128, 133, 138).

U.S. Patent No. 11,196,509 - "Terminal, Apparatus, Base Station Apparatus, and Communication Method"

Patent Identification

U.S. Patent No. 11196509, "Terminal, Apparatus, Base Station Apparatus, and Communication Method," issued December 7, 2021 (Compl. ¶146).

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a method to make the Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) error-correction process more efficient. It teaches subdividing a large Transport Block of data into smaller Code Blocks (CBs), which are then grouped into Code Block Groups (CBGs). This allows acknowledgement/negative-acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) feedback to be performed on a per-CBG basis, so that only the specific group containing an error needs to be retransmitted, not the entire transport block (Compl. ¶¶148, 149).

Asserted Claims

Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶151).

Accused Features

Apple's devices are accused of implementing the 5G standards for Code Block Segmentation and CBG-based HARQ-ACK functionality. The complaint alleges this implementation meets the specific structural requirements of Claim 1 concerning the size and grouping of different types of CBs within CBGs (Compl. ¶¶157-161). The complaint includes an annotated figure from the patent to illustrate the claimed CBG configuration (Compl. ¶149).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Apple's 5G-capable devices, including iPhones and iPads ("Accused Devices") (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Devices are alleged to be designed, manufactured, and sold by Apple for use on 5G wireless networks (Compl. ¶¶3, 11). The complaint asserts that these devices operate in compliance with various 3GPP 5G technical standards (Compl. ¶27). Functionally, they operate as "User Equipment" (UE) within the 5G network architecture, as depicted in a diagram provided in the complaint (Compl. ¶37, Fig. 1). The complaint alleges Apple advertises the 5G capabilities of these devices, such as high download speeds, as a key feature (Compl. ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'976 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A user equipment (UE) that communicates with a base station apparatus... The Accused Devices operate as UEs within a 5G or New Radio (NR) network architecture. ¶37 col. 2:27-29
receiving circuitry configured to receive a radio resource control (RRC) message comprising first information used for configuring a periodicity, The Accused Devices receive RRC messages to configure the "periodicity" parameter for a "Type 2" configured grant, per 3GPP standards TS 38.321 and TS 38.331. A provided screenshot shows the "periodicity" parameter within the ConfiguredGrantConfig information element. ¶¶38-39 col. 2:29-32
the receiving circuitry configured to receive a RRC message comprising second information used for configuring a numerology, The Accused Devices receive RRC messages containing a BWP information element that includes the "subcarrierSpacing" parameter, which corresponds to the claimed "numerology," per 3GPP TS 38.331. ¶40 col. 38:43-45
the receiving circuitry configured to detect in a common search space, a physical downlink control channel for a downlink control information (DCI) format with...CRC scrambled by a first radio network identifier (RNTI)...the first RNTI being used for indicating an activation and a deactivation... The Accused Devices monitor a common search space for DCI formats scrambled by a Configured Scheduling RNTI ("cs-RNTI"), which is alleged to be the "first RNTI" used for activation and deactivation of uplink grants, per 3GPP TS 38.213 and TS 38.321. ¶¶41-43 col. 2:33-40
transmitting circuitry configured to transmit confirmation information Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) in a case that third information used for indicating the activation...is comprised in the DCI format... When the Accused Devices receive a DCI indicating a Type 2 grant activation via the cs-RNTI, they trigger a "configured uplink grant confirmation 'MAC CE'," per 3GPP TS 38.321. ¶44 col. 2:40-44
the transmitting circuitry configured to perform...the uplink data transmission on the PUSCH based on the periodicity and the numerology... The Accused Devices perform the uplink data transmission on the PUSCH according to the higher layer configuration (which includes periodicity and numerology) and the UL grant received on the DCI, per 3GPP TS 38.214. ¶¶45-46 col. 2:44-46
the transmitting circuitry is configured to transmit confirmation information MAC CE in a case that fourth information used for indicating the deactivation...is comprised in the DCI format... When the Accused Devices receive a DCI indicating a Type 2 grant deactivation via the cs-RNTI, they trigger a "configured uplink grant confirmation 'MAC CE'," per 3GPP TS 38.321. ¶47 col. 2:47-56
the confirmation information MAC CE for the DCI format comprising the third information is identified by a MAC...subheader with a logical channel identifier (LCID)...and the same index of the LCID is used... The "Configured Grant Confirmation MAC CE" is identified by a MAC subheader with a specific LCID value (55), as specified in 3GPP TS 38.321, Table 6.2.1-2. The complaint alleges this same LCID index is used for both activation and deactivation confirmations. ¶48 col. 2:50-56

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "cs-RNTI" as implemented in the 3GPP standard is equivalent to the claimed "first RNTI," which must be distinct from both a "Cell-RNTI" and a "semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTI" while being used for both activation and deactivation.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on the claim that the Accused Devices use the "same index of the LCID" for both activation and deactivation MAC CE confirmations. The analysis will likely focus on whether using the same LCID value (e.g., 55 for "Configured Grant Confirmation") for both events satisfies this "same index" limitation, or if the term implies a more complex structural relationship that may not be present in the standard's implementation.

'958 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A wireless terminal...comprising: receiver circuitry configured to: receive a message that triggers reception of a first type system information block (SIB); The Accused Devices receive a "Short Message" that, per 3GPP TS 38.331, can trigger the re-acquisition of SIB1. ¶¶69-70 col. 16:6-12
receive, based on the reception of the message, the first type SIB comprising information and a value tag, the information indicating whether one or more associated second type SIBs are provided by broadcast or on-demand... The Accused Devices receive SIB1, which contains an SI-SchedulingInfo field. This field includes a valueTag and an si-BroadcastStatus parameter that indicates whether other SIBs are provided by broadcast or on-demand. ¶¶71-72 col. 18:30-45
the first type SIB being used to perform an initial access to the radio access network; SIB1 is alleged to be part of the "Minimum SI," which is basic information required for a device to perform an initial access to the network, per 3GPP TS 38.300. ¶74 col. 2:37-39
processor circuitry configured to determine that a second type SIB has changed, based on a value tag, associated with the second type SIB, stored in the wireless terminal, and the value tag included in the first type SIB... The Accused Devices compare the valueTag received in SIB1 with a valueTag stored locally for a given SIB to determine if the SIB's content has changed and is no longer valid, per 3GPP TS 38.331. ¶¶73, 76 col. 20:25-36
wherein in a case that the second type SIB was provided on-demand before the change, the information associated with the second type SIB included in the first type SIB indicated that the second type SIB is provided by broadcast. The complaint alleges that when a network changes a SIB from on-demand to broadcast, the si-BroadcastStatus field in SIB1 is modified to reflect this change, notifying the UE. ¶75 col. 26:1-12

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the 3GPP-defined "SIB1" constitutes the claimed "first type SIB" and whether other SIBs (SIB2, etc.) map to the "second type SIBs." The claim requires the first type SIB to be "used to perform an initial access," a functional requirement that will be scrutinized against the role of SIB1 in the 5G standard.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be proving the specific scenario in the final wherein clause: that the accused devices are configured to handle a SIB changing from on-demand to broadcast, and that the si-BroadcastStatus field in SIB1 is the mechanism that "indicated" this change as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'976 Patent

  • The Term: "the same index of the LCID is used"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation appears at the end of Claim 1 and adds a high degree of specificity. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement theory relies on the accused devices using the same confirmation mechanism (identified by a Logical Channel Identifier, or LCID) for both activating and deactivating a transmission grant. The definition of "index" will be critical to determining if the 3GPP standard's use of a single LCID value for "Configured Grant Confirmation" messages meets this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a "MAC protocol data unit subheader with the same index of logical channel identifier (LCID) is used for identifying the confirmation information MAC CE" for both activation and deactivation (’976 Patent, col. 2:50-56). An argument for a broader reading could be that "index of the LCID" simply refers to the LCID value itself, not a more complex structural pointer.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the word "index" rather than "value" or "identifier" suggests the possibility of a more specific technical meaning, potentially related to a position in a table or list. A narrower construction would require Plaintiff to show that the accused standard not only uses the same LCID value but that this value functions as an "index" in the manner contemplated by the patent.

'958 Patent

  • The Term: "value tag"
  • Context and Importance: The "value tag" is the core mechanism of the invention for efficiently signaling updates to system information. The dispute will likely center on whether the valueTag parameter within the SI-SchedulingInfo element of the 3GPP standard is structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the term functionally: "The value tag... is configured to provide an indication of the version or vintage of system information" (’958 Patent, col. 7:14-17). This supports a broad interpretation where any data field that tracks the version of a SIB could be considered a "value tag."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent illustrates specific embodiments where value tags are associated with individual SIBs (Fig. 9) or groups of SIBs (Fig. 15). An argument for a narrower reading could be that the term should be construed in light of these specific disclosed arrangements, potentially limiting its scope if the accused 3GPP implementation organizes its versioning information differently.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all five patents. Inducement allegations are based on Apple allegedly advertising 5G features, providing user instructions, and knowing that customers' use of the devices on 5G networks would directly infringe (e.g., Compl. ¶¶51, 79). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the accused 5G hardware and software are material components of the inventions and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶¶57, 81).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Apple had pre-suit knowledge of the '976 Patent as of January 9, 2021. This allegation is based on a response Apple's patent counsel filed at the USPTO in a separate matter, which allegedly discussed the teachings of the '976 Patent's publication (Compl. ¶¶53-56). For all asserted patents, willfulness is alleged from at least the date the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶175).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical correspondence: does Apple's implementation of the 3GPP 5G standards, which were developed by a consortium, map directly onto the specific combinations of limitations recited in the asserted claims? The case will require a detailed, element-by-element comparison between the standards and the patent language, rather than a high-level assertion of overlap.
  • A second central question will be one of definitional scope: can terms of art defined in the patents, such as "value tag" ('958 Patent) and "the same index of the LCID" ('976 Patent), be construed to read on the corresponding technical features found in the 3GPP standards, or are there subtle but dispositive differences in their structure or function?
  • A key question for damages will be one of scienter: does the evidence of Apple's patent prosecution history, where its counsel cited the '976 Patent's pre-grant publication, establish pre-suit knowledge of the issued patent sufficient to support a claim of willful infringement?