DCT

1:17-cv-00083

3G Licensing, S.A. et a

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00083, D. Del., 04/03/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendants place infringing products into the stream of commerce in the state, derive substantial revenue from such sales, and knowingly induce infringement within the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that certain HTC smartphones infringe five U.S. patents concerning foundational aspects of wireless communication, including data transmission error checking, time-based network access, multi-antenna signal processing, and mixed-media call management.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to methods for improving the reliability, efficiency, and functionality of mobile telecommunication networks and devices.
  • Key Procedural History: Two of the asserted patents, U.S. 6,212,662 and 9,014,667, were previously litigated against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas, a case that was dismissed shortly before trial. In connection with that prior litigation, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute an inter partes review of the ’662 patent, finding "no reasonable likelihood" that certain claims were invalid. The complaint alleges that HTC had pre-suit knowledge of all asserted patents following lengthy but unsuccessful licensing negotiations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-06-26 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 6,212,662
1997-02-11 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 6,856,818
2000-11-01 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 7,995,091
2001-04-03 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 6,212,662
2003-12-04 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 7,933,564
2005-02-15 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 6,856,818
2008-02-29 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 9,014,667
2011-04-26 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 7,933,564
2011-08-09 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 7,995,091
2015-04-21 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 9,014,667
2016-07-08 PTAB denies institution of IPR on the ’662 patent
2016-09-21 Prior litigation involving ’662 and ’667 patents is dismissed
2017-04-03 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 - Method and Devices for the Transmission of Data With the Transmission Error Checking

Issued April 3, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of "systematic errors" in data transmission, where errors repeat themselves in a pattern. A standard, fixed error-checking function may repeatedly fail to detect such errors by coincidence, which is particularly damaging for compressed data streams where a single undetected error can corrupt all subsequent data. (’662 Patent, col. 1:49-59; col. 2:1-9).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a variable error-checking function. By varying the function over time—for example, by combining the original data with a changing value like a pseudo-random number before generating the check data—the system ensures that even a repeating transmission error is evaluated differently each time. This makes its continued non-detection statistically minimal. (’662 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:26-47; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This approach significantly increases the reliability of data transmission, a crucial factor for advanced communication schemes like adaptive data compression that are highly sensitive to undetected errors. (’662 Patent, col. 2:9-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’662 patent (Compl. ¶24). At the time of filing, claim 1 was the sole independent claim. Post-filing proceedings, however, indicate claim 1 has been disclaimed.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A device for producing error checking based on original data provided in blocks.
    • A generating device configured to generate check data.
    • A varying device configured to vary the original data before it is supplied to the generating device.
    • The varying device includes a "permutating device" that performs a "permutation of bit position" for at least some bits within a data block without reordering the blocks themselves.

U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667 - Telecommunications Network and Method for Time-Based Network Access

Issued April 21, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Telecommunications providers need effective methods to manage network resources and control traffic, particularly with the rise of machine-to-machine (M2M) devices that can consume network resources without direct human oversight. (’667 Patent, col. 1:21-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a network that controls access based on time. A terminal is assigned a "grant access time interval," and the network is configured to deny access requests made outside of this permitted window. These intervals can be pre-set or dynamically adjusted based on current or expected network load, allowing operators to shift non-critical traffic to off-peak periods. (’667 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:44-60).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides network operators with a direct mechanism to regulate network usage, enhancing stability and efficiency by preventing network congestion from automated, non-time-sensitive data transmissions. (’667 Patent, col. 2:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’667 patent (Compl. ¶32). The patent includes independent claims directed to a network (1, 31), a method (15), a computer-readable medium (30), and a terminal (34).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 (a network claim) are:
    • A telecommunications network with a register for storing a terminal's unique identifier in combination with a "grant access time interval."
    • Processors and memory configured to execute operations.
    • An operation to receive an access request from the terminal.
    • An operation to deny access if the request is received outside the stored time interval.
    • The network is further configured to monitor network load, adapt the time period accordingly, and deny access to machine-to-machine applications during peak load times.

U.S. Patent No. 7,933,564 - Method for the Multi-Antenna Transmission of a Linearly-Precoded Signal, Corresponding Devices, Signal and Reception Method

Issued April 26, 2011

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,933,564, Method for the Multi-Antenna Transmission of a Linearly-Precoded Signal, Corresponding Devices, Signal and Reception Method, issued April 26, 2011 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses performance in multi-antenna (MIMO) wireless systems. It discloses a method of "linear precoding" where a source matrix of data symbols is mathematically transformed by a "precoding matrix." The resulting precoded symbols are then transmitted in a specific column-wise fashion across the multiple antennas to maximize both data rate and reliability. (’564 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-41).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶40). Independent claims cover methods of sending (1) and receiving (5), a method for generating a signal (11), and corresponding devices (12, 13).
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegation targets the "signal transmission technology" within the "HTC 10 and related or similar communication devices," implicating their MIMO functionality (Compl. ¶40).

U.S. Patent No. 7,995,091 - Mixed Media Telecommunication Call Manager

Issued August 9, 2011

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,995,091, Mixed Media Telecommunication Call Manager, issued August 9, 2011 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for managing telecommunication sessions that involve multiple media types, such as voice and video. The invention provides a system for responding to the "discontinuation" of a mixed-media call (e.g., a user switching from video back to voice-only) by initiating a new, second call that does not support the discontinued media type, thereby providing a structured protocol for managing the transition. (’091 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶48). Independent claims are directed to a videophone (1) and a corresponding method (8).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "communication transferring technology" in the "HTC 10 and related or similar communication devices," suggesting the infringement theory relates to how the devices handle transitions between voice and video calls (Compl. ¶¶12, 48).

U.S. Patent No. 6,856,818 - Data store for mobile radio station

Issued February 15, 2005

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,856,818, Data store for mobile radio station, issued February 15, 2005 (Compl. ¶53).
  • Technology Synopsis: The invention relates to a "smart" removable data store, such as a SIM card. It is designed to provide different data responses to a single, standard command from a mobile phone, based on the phone's operational state (e.g., which of two telephone lines is active). This allows the implementation of advanced features, such as maintaining separate Fixed Dialing Number lists for each line, entirely within the SIM card without requiring non-standard modifications to the mobile phone's software. (’818 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-60).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶56). Independent claims are directed to a modified data storage module (1, 35) and a mobile station incorporating it (18).
  • Accused Features: The allegations target the "data storage technology" in the "HTC 10 and related or similar communication devices," pointing to the interaction between the phones and their SIM cards (Compl. ¶56).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "HTC 10," "HTC U Ultra," and "related or similar communication devices" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 32, 40, 48, 56).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products are mobile communication devices that incorporate various technologies for wireless communication, including error checking, network access management, signal transmission, call transferring, and data storage (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 32, 40, 48, 56). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused products. It does allege that Defendants derive "substantial revenues" from the sale of these products and that many of HTC's competitors have licensed the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 15).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-by-claim analysis or the creation of claim charts. The infringement allegations are pleaded in general terms, asserting that the accused products incorporate "the same or similar" technology as described in the patents-in-suit (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 24, 32). The narrative infringement theory suggests that by manufacturing and selling mobile devices that comply with modern wireless communication standards, HTC necessarily practices the methods and includes the systems claimed in the asserted patents.

  • Identified Points of Contention (’662 Patent):

    • Technical Question: What evidence demonstrates that the accused products' error-checking function performs the specific "permutation of bit position" required by claim 1, as opposed to a conventional error-checking method like a standard Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)?
    • Scope Question: A significant legal issue is the effect of the post-filing disclaimer of independent claim 1. This raises the question of whether the dependent claims asserted by Plaintiffs remain viable.

  • Identified Points of Contention (’667 Patent):

    • Scope Question: Can HTC, as a manufacturer of terminal devices, be held liable for directly infringing claims directed to a "telecommunications network"? This raises a central question of divided infringement, as the network operators may perform some of the claimed steps.
    • Technical Question: Do the networks on which the accused products operate actually implement the claimed "time-based network access" for "machine-to-machine applications" as recited in claim 1?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"a permutating device configured to perform a permutation of bit position" (’662 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term appears to capture the inventive concept of the patent—varying the data before error checking. The interpretation of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused devices, which perform standardized error checking, fall within the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes varying the data by adding a random number via an EXOR adder, not just by swapping bit positions (’662 Patent, col. 4:1-4, Fig. 2). A party might argue "permutation" should be construed more broadly to encompass any such variation that alters the data input to the checking function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "permutation of bit position" suggests a literal reordering or swapping of bits. The specification provides explicit support for this narrower reading, describing an embodiment where bit positions are interchanged ("bit 1 to position 2, bit 2 to position 4, bit 3 to position 1 and bit 4 to position 3") (’662 Patent, col. 6:58-64).

"telecommunications network" (’667 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The asserted claim is directed to a "telecommunications network," while the Defendant manufactures terminal equipment (handsets). The construction of this term is fundamental to the analysis of direct and divided infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the patent uses the term to refer to the entire end-to-end system, including the terminal, which work together to achieve the time-based access control.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent claims a "telecommunications network" (claim 1) and a "terminal" (claim 34) separately. This explicit distinction within the patent’s own claims provides strong intrinsic evidence that the term "telecommunications network" was intended to refer to the network infrastructure (e.g., base stations, SGSN, HLR) and not to include the end-user terminal.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that HTC provides "instructions, product manuals, and/or technical information" that encourage and facilitate infringement by end-users and others (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 25, 33). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the accused products are especially designed to infringe and are not staple articles of commerce (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 26, 34).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that HTC had pre-suit knowledge of all five asserted patents from "lengthy negotiations" and an invitation to license, which it declined (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 20). This alleged pre-suit knowledge is the primary basis for the willfulness claims for each patent (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 27, 35, 43, 51, 59).

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

This case appears poised to revolve around several fundamental questions of patent law and evidence:

  • A primary issue will be one of divided infringement: for the system-level claims (e.g., in the ’667 and ’818 patents), can Plaintiffs prove that HTC, as a handset manufacturer, is liable for directly infringing claims directed to a "network" or a "data store" whose functionality may be at least partially controlled by a third-party network operator or the SIM card itself?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical specificity: do the accused HTC devices, by implementing standardized communication protocols, practice the specific, novel features of the patents (such as the "permutation of bit position" in the ’662 patent), or do they only perform conventional techniques that fall outside the proper scope of the claims?
  • A threshold legal issue for the ’662 patent will be the effect of post-filing invalidation: given the disclaimer of the sole independent claim after the complaint was filed, the court must first determine whether the remaining dependent claims are viable for an infringement analysis.