DCT

1:05-cv-00147

Symbol Tech Inc v. Intermec Tech Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:05-cv-00147, D. Del., 03/10/2005
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is licensed to do business in the state, has a registered agent there, and regularly transacts business in the district, including selling and offering for sale the accused products.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s portable data collection equipment, including handheld computers and wireless networking devices, infringes four patents related to wireless packet data communication networks.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns wireless communication protocols for portable, battery-powered devices like bar code scanners, which are foundational for modern logistics, retail inventory management, and manufacturing systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that on October 22, 2002, a petition was granted to remove a named inventor from U.S. Patent No. 5,479,441, one of the patents-in-suit. No other prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patents are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1989-06-29 Priority Date for ’183, ’687, and ’441 Patents
1991-07-02 U.S. Patent No. 5,029,183 Issues
1992-10-20 U.S. Patent No. 5,157,687 Issues
1994-02-17 Priority Date for ’449 Patent
1995-12-26 U.S. Patent No. 5,479,441 Issues
2002-10-22 Co-inventor removed from ’441 Patent via petition
2002-10-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,473,449 Issues
2005-03-10 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,029,183 - Packet Data Communication Network (issued Jul. 2, 1991)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for wireless communication for portable data collection devices like bar code readers. Prior radio frequency (RF) links were often expensive, required site-specific F.C.C. licensing, and suffered from high power consumption in the portable units, which typically had to continuously "listen" for incoming signals, quickly draining batteries (ʼ183 Patent, col. 1:11–54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a packet-exchange protocol where the low-power remote terminal initiates all communication. After transmitting a data packet, the remote unit activates its receiver for only a brief, "rigid time window" to await a reply from a base station. The base station cannot initiate communication; it can only respond within this window. This protocol, combined with the use of spread spectrum RF in an unlicensed band, is designed to minimize power consumption in the battery-operated remote unit (ʼ183 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56–col. 3:4).
  • Technical Importance: This power-saving protocol aimed to enable the development of lightweight, low-cost, battery-operated handheld terminals that could operate for extended periods without requiring costly and time-consuming F.C.C. site licensing (ʼ183 Patent, col. 2:35–54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any specific claims. It alleges infringement of "one or more claims of each of the Symbol Patents" without identifying them (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 5,157,687 - Packet Data Communication Network (issued Oct. 20, 1992)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the application that led to the ’183 Patent, the ’687 Patent addresses the same technical problems: the inconvenience of wired connections for portable data terminals and the high cost, regulatory burden, and battery drain associated with prior RF solutions (ʼ687 Patent, col. 1:12–56).
  • The Patented Solution: The specification describes the same packet-exchange protocol as the parent ’183 Patent. The system links remote data-gathering units (e.g., bar code readers) to a central computer via base stations, using a protocol where the remote unit initiates an exchange and only listens for a response during a fixed, rigid time window following its transmission to conserve power (ʼ687 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62–col. 3:5).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provided a method for creating low-power, untethered data collection devices suitable for commercial and industrial environments, avoiding the costs and power constraints of prior art systems (ʼ687 Patent, col. 2:36–56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any specific claims (Compl. ¶12).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 5,479,441 - Packet Data Communication System (issued Dec. 26, 1995)

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’441 Patent, a continuation-in-part of the ’183 Patent's application, discloses the same core power-saving communication protocol. It expands on this by introducing alternative protocols designed to handle larger data transfers more efficiently. These include a "broadcast mode" and a "fixed-time broadcast mode" for scenarios like downloading price lists or software updates from a host to multiple remote terminals simultaneously (ʼ441 Patent, col. 14:15–68; col. 15:7–col. 16:11).
  • Asserted Claims: Not specified in the complaint (Compl. ¶12).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the general wireless communication functionality of the listed products (Compl. ¶12).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,473,449 - High-Data-Rate Wireless Local-Area Network (issued Oct. 29, 2002)

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’449 Patent addresses the problem of achieving high data rates in wireless networks subject to multipath interference (where signals bounce off surfaces and arrive at the receiver at different times). The proposed solution involves representing data as a sequence of "Walsh-function waveforms" which are then encoded using direct-sequence spread-spectrum modulation. This approach creates a long symbol duration, which helps mitigate multipath interference, while enabling a high data rate suitable for a wireless local-area network (ʼ449 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Not specified in the complaint (Compl. ¶12).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the general high-data-rate wireless networking capabilities of the listed Intermec products (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint accuses a wide range of Intermec products, categorized as handheld computers, pen tablets, mobile computers, vehicle mounts, stationary mounts, wireless LAN access points, and printers. Specific model families include the 2415 Handheld, 6400 Handheld, CK30 Handheld, 700 Series Mono Mobile, MobileLAN™, and EasyCoder® series (Compl. ¶12; p. 4).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint broadly describes the accused instrumentalities as "portable data collection equipment, including bar code scanning and wireless networking devices" (Compl. ¶3). No specific technical details regarding the operation of their wireless networking features are provided. The complaint alleges that Intermec designs, manufactures, and sells these products (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims for any of the patents-in-suit, precluding a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis. The infringement theory is pleaded generally, alleging that by manufacturing and selling the accused products, Intermec directly infringes, induces others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringes "one or more claims of each of the Symbol Patents" (Compl. ¶12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A principal question will concern whether the accused products, which likely implement standardized wireless protocols (e.g., IEEE 802.11), practice the specific, proprietary communication methods claimed in the asserted patents. For the '183, '687, and '441 patents, a key issue may be whether the accused devices employ a remote-initiated, "rigid time window" protocol for power saving or an alternative standardized mechanism.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’449 Patent, a central technical question will be whether the accused products utilize a modulation scheme based on "Walsh-function waveforms" as described in the patent, or a different standardized high-data-rate modulation technique. The complaint lacks the factual allegations needed to assess this correspondence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of key claim terms, as no specific claims are asserted.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement but does not plead specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and intent, such as referencing user manuals that instruct infringing use or identifying specific components sold for infringing combinations (Compl. ¶12).
  • Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's infringement was and continues to be "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint does not allege any facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patents, suggesting the willfulness claim may be based on knowledge obtained upon the filing of the lawsuit itself.

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

  1. Claim Identification and Specificity: A threshold issue for the case will be one of procedural sufficiency and clarity. The complaint's failure to identify any asserted claims will require the plaintiff to specify its infringement contentions before any meaningful substantive analysis can occur. This lack of specificity is characteristic of pleadings filed before the heightened standards of Twombly and Iqbal were consistently applied to patent cases.
  2. Technological Correspondence: The central substantive dispute will likely be a question of technical mismatch. The case will hinge on whether the specific, and in some cases decades-old, proprietary communication protocols and modulation schemes described in the patents-in-suit (e.g., the rigid power-saving time window of the '183 patent family; the Walsh-function modulation of the '449 patent) can be shown to be practiced by modern accused products that likely operate on standardized wireless protocols.