DCT

1:17-cv-00084

3G Licensing SA v. Lenovo Holding Co Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00084, D. Del., 01/30/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendants place infringing products into the stream of commerce via established distribution channels with the knowledge that such products are sold in Delaware, from which they derive substantial revenue.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that certain Lenovo tablets, laptops, and smartphones infringe five U.S. patents related to fundamental wireless telecommunication technologies, including error checking, time-based network access, multi-antenna transmission, call management, and mobile data storage.
  • Technical Context: The patents cover a range of technologies essential to the operation of modern mobile devices, from ensuring data integrity and managing network load to enhancing call functionality and data rates.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that two of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,212,662 and 9,014,667, were previously litigated against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas. In that prior case, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) largely declined to institute inter partes review of the ’662 patent. The complaint also alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents following unsuccessful licensing negotiations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-06-26 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662
1997-02-11 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,856,818
2001-04-03 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662
2003-04-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,995,091
2003-12-04 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,933,564
2005-02-15 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,856,818
2008-02-29 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
2011-04-26 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,933,564
2011-08-09 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,995,091
2015-04-21 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
2016-07-08 PTAB denies institution of IPR on certain claims of the '662 patent
2016-09-21 Prior E.D. Tex. litigation involving the '662 and '667 patents dismissed
2017-01-30 Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 - "Method and Devices for the Transmission of Data With Transmission Error Checking," issued April 3, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of "systematic errors" in data transmission that are sometimes not detected by conventional, fixed error-checking methods. This is particularly problematic for compressed data, where a single undetected error can corrupt all subsequent data during decompression ('662 Patent, col. 1:47-51, col. 2:1-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a variable error-checking function. Instead of always applying the same check to the data, the function is varied over time. This is achieved by first modifying the original data—for example, by adding a pseudo-random number or using a data packet index as a variation value—and then applying a check. This ensures that even a repeating, systematic error is unlikely to continually bypass detection, as it is being measured against a different standard each time ('662 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-60; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a more robust method for ensuring data integrity, a critical need as data compression and high-speed wireless transmission became more common.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" ('662 Patent, Compl. ¶25). The sole independent claim is Claim 1.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1, a device for producing error checking, include:
    • A "generating device" configured to generate check data.
    • A "varying device" configured to vary original data before it is supplied to the generating device.
    • The "varying device" includes a "permutating device" that performs a permutation of bit position.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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: The patent seeks to address the inefficient use of network resources that can occur when a large number of devices, particularly in machine-to-machine (M2M) contexts, attempt to access a network without constraint (’667 Patent, col. 1:28-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a telecommunications network that controls access based on time. The network stores a "grant access time interval" for specific terminals (or groups of terminals). When a terminal requests access, the network checks if the request falls within the permitted time interval. If it does not, the network's access module denies the request, thereby allowing the network operator to manage load, for instance by preventing non-urgent M2M devices from connecting during peak hours (’667 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:44-60).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides network operators with a direct mechanism to regulate network traffic from automated devices, a growing concern with the rise of the Internet of Things (IoT).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (’667 Patent, Compl. ¶33). Independent claims include Claims 1, 15, 31, 32, 34, and 35.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1, a telecommunications network, include:
    • A "register" configured to store a terminal's unique identifier in combination with a "grant access time interval".
    • One or more processors and memory with instructions to perform operations including:
    • Receiving an "access request" from the terminal.
    • Denying access if the request is received "outside the time period".
    • Adapting the time period based on monitored "network load".
    • Denying access to M2M application terminals during "peak load time intervals".
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

Technology Synopsis

This patent relates to Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) wireless communication systems. It describes a method of "linear precoding," where a source signal is mathematically transformed before being distributed and transmitted across multiple antennas to improve the capacity and reliability of the wireless link (’564 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶41).

Accused Features

The "signal transmission technology" within the Moto Z Droid and related devices (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 7,995,091 - "Mixed Media Telecommunication Call Manager," issued August 9, 2011

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the management of telecommunication calls that involve different media types. It describes a method for handling the discontinuation of one type of call (e.g., a mixed-media call with audio and video) and initiating a second call with different media characteristics (e.g., an audio-only call) in response (’091 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶49).

Accused Features

The "communication transferring technology" within the Moto Z Droid and related devices (Compl. ¶49).

U.S. Patent No. 6,856,818 - "Data store for mobile radio station," issued February 15, 2005

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a removable data store, such as a SIM card, for a mobile device. The data store itself can determine the mobile station's mode of operation (e.g., personal vs. business line) and, based on that mode, select between alternative data lists (e.g., two different fixed dialing number lists) to present to the mobile station, without requiring modification of the station itself (’818 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶57).

Accused Features

The "data storage technology" within the Moto Z Droid and related devices (Compl. ¶57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names three categories of accused products:

  1. The Lenovo IdeaTab A2107 and related communication devices ('662 Accused Products) (Compl. ¶25).
  2. The Lenovo ThinkPad T450S and related communication devices ('667 Accused Products) (Compl. ¶33).
  3. The Moto Z Droid and related communication devices ('564, '091, and '818 Accused Products) (Compl. ¶¶41, 49, 57).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these products are consumer electronics (tablet, laptop, smartphone) that incorporate and use wireless telecommunication technologies.
  • For the ’662 Patent, the complaint alleges the IdeaTab A2107 and related devices incorporate "error checking technology" (Compl. ¶25).
  • For the ’667 Patent, the complaint alleges the ThinkPad T450S and related devices incorporate "network access technology" (Compl. ¶33).
  • For the ’564, ’091, and ’818 Patents, the complaint alleges the Moto Z Droid and related devices incorporate "signal transmission technology," "communication transferring technology," and "data storage technology," respectively (Compl. ¶¶41, 49, 57).
  • The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the specific operation of these features but asserts that Plaintiffs' patented technologies are fundamental to their implementation (Compl. ¶1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis of any asserted patent. The infringement allegations are pleaded at a high level, asserting that the accused products incorporate "the same or similar" technology as that described in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶25, 33). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • '662 Patent: A central question will be whether the standard error-checking protocols used in the accused products (e.g., CRC checks in Wi-Fi or cellular standards) meet the claim limitation of a "varying device" that varies "original data" prior to generating check data. Defendants may argue that standard protocols use fixed polynomials and do not "vary" the data in the manner claimed, while Plaintiffs may argue that the application of the check to different, time-sequential data blocks constitutes the claimed variation.
    • '667 Patent: The dispute may focus on whether the accused products are subject to the specific "grant access time interval" claimed in the patent. Defendants may contend that any denial of network access is due to generic network congestion management or signal quality issues, not a pre-defined, terminal-specific time-based rule. The evidentiary burden on Plaintiffs may be to show that the network servicing the accused products implements the claimed time-gating functionality.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’662 Patent:

    • The Term: "varying device configured to vary original data" (Claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to determining infringement. The core of the invention is the move away from static error checking. Whether the accused products' functionality can be characterized as "varying original data" for the purpose of error checking will likely be a central point of dispute.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the variation can be based on a "data packet index," which could be argued to cover any process that treats successive data packets differently ('662 Patent, col. 4:62-65).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments focus on actively modifying the data by adding a random number or using an index as a direct variation value prior to processing, as shown in Figure 2 where a pseudo-random number (PRN) is added via an EXOR adder ('662 Patent, col. 3:61-66, Fig. 2). This may support a narrower construction requiring active alteration, not just sequential processing.

  • For the ’667 Patent:

    • The Term: "grant access time interval" (Claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism of control. Infringement hinges on whether the accused products are controlled by a network that uses such defined intervals. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the claimed invention from general-purpose network load balancing.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the interval as an "equivalent thereof," which could be argued to include a "deny access time interval" or other functionally similar time-based rules (’667 Patent, col. 2:5-7, 18-21).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and summary repeatedly use the specific phrase "grant access time interval," suggesting a positive grant of permission during a specific window, not merely a denial of access based on real-time network conditions. The patent links this to operator planning and control, suggesting pre-defined, scheduled intervals (’667 Patent, col. 2:47-50).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Lenovo provides "promotional and marketing materials, supporting materials, instructions, product manuals, and/or technical information" that encourage and facilitate infringing use by end-users (e.g., Compl. ¶¶26, 34). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the assertion that the infringing technology is "especially designed or adapted to operate in a manner that infringes" and is not a "staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶27, 35).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all five patents. The basis for this allegation is Lenovo’s alleged "pre-suit knowledge of the [asserted] patent," stemming from licensing negotiations that took place prior to the lawsuit being filed (e.g., Compl. ¶¶21, 28, 36).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of claim scope and technical operation: For the '662 patent, does the functionality of standard, industry-wide error-checking protocols meet the specific claim requirement of a "varying device" that "var[ies] original data," or is there a fundamental mismatch between commodity implementations and the patent's more active, dynamic approach?

  2. A second core issue will be evidentiary and functional: For the '667 patent, what evidence can be produced to show that Lenovo's products are denied network access based on a pre-defined, terminal-specific "grant access time interval" as required by the claims, rather than through generalized, real-time network management techniques that are agnostic to specific time intervals?

  3. A cross-cutting legal question will be the impact of prior proceedings and notice: How will the PTAB's prior decision not to institute IPR on the '662 patent, and the allegations of pre-suit knowledge from licensing discussions, influence claim construction, infringement, and potential willfulness determinations across the five asserted patents?