DCT

1:17-cv-00085

3G Licensing SA v. LG Electronics Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00085, D. Del., 04/03/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in Delaware because Defendants place infringing products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge that they will be sold in the District, and have derived substantial revenues from such sales.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that certain LG smartphones and related telecommunications infrastructure infringe five U.S. patents concerning technologies for data transmission error checking, time-based network access, multi-antenna signal processing, and mobile device data management.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to foundational technologies for ensuring reliability, managing network resources, and enhancing performance in modern wireless communication systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that two of the asserted patents, the ’662 and ’667 patents, were previously litigated against a third party in the Eastern District of Texas, a case which settled. During that prior litigation, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute an inter partes review (IPR) against the ’662 patent, finding "no reasonable likelihood" that certain claims were invalid. The complaint also notes that the parties engaged in unsuccessful licensing negotiations prior to this suit. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, in a separate IPR proceeding (IPR2018-00320), Claim 1 of the '662 patent—its only independent claim—was disclaimed, a development that will be central to the viability of that patent's assertion.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-06-26 U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 Priority Date
1997-02-11 U.S. Patent No. 6,856,818 Priority Date
2000-11-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,995,091 Priority Date
2001-04-03 U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 Issue Date
2003-12-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,933,564 Priority Date
2005-02-15 U.S. Patent No. 6,856,818 Issue Date
2008-02-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667 Priority Date
2011-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 7,933,564 Issue Date
2011-08-09 U.S. Patent No. 7,995,091 Issue Date
2015-04-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667 Issue Date
2016-07-08 PTAB declines to institute IPR of ’662 patent in prior case
2016-09-21 Prior litigation involving ’662 and ’667 patents 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 Transmission Error Checking (Issued Apr. 3, 2001)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of systematic errors in data transmission that can go repeatedly undetected by conventional, fixed error-checking functions. This is particularly damaging for compressed data, where a single undetected error can corrupt all subsequent data ('662 Patent, col. 1:47-59; col. 2:1-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a variable error detection function instead of a fixed one. By varying the function over time—for example, by adding a random number to the data before checking or by using a packet index to alter the function—the system ensures that erroneous data are "effectively checked by a different function each time," which makes the probability of a systematic error persistently evading detection "minimal" ('662 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-47). Figure 3 illustrates an embodiment where the data (D) is varied by a permutation function (1b) before being processed by a check data generation function (1a) ('662 Patent, Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This method provided a more robust technique for maintaining data integrity, a critical requirement for the reliability of emerging wireless services that relied on the transmission of compressed data streams ('662 Patent, col. 2:5-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, stating only that LG infringes "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶25). As noted in Section I, the sole independent claim of the patent, Claim 1, was disclaimed in an IPR proceeding that commenced after this complaint was filed. Assuming the complaint proceeds on the basis of the patent's original scope, the key elements of independent claim 1 are:

  • A device for producing error checking based on original data provided in blocks with each block having plural bits in a particular ordered sequence, comprising: a generating device configured to generate check data; and
  • a varying device configured to vary original data prior to supplying said original data to the generating device as varied data;
  • wherein said varying device includes a permutating device configured to perform a permutation of bit position relative to said particular ordered sequence for at least some of the bits in each of said blocks making up said original data without reordering any blocks of original data.

U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667 - Telecommunications Network and Method for Time-Based Network Access (Issued Apr. 21, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The proliferation of automated, machine-to-machine (M2M) devices creates a risk of network congestion, as these devices may attempt to access network resources at any time, including peak hours. Traditional network control mechanisms were not designed for fine-grained, time-based access control ('667 Patent, col. 1:20-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a telecommunications network that controls access based on time. A central register (e.g., a Home Location Register) 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 window. If not, access is denied, preferably at a very early stage like "network attach," to conserve network resources ('667 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-12, 30-34).
  • Technical Importance: This provides network operators with a powerful tool to manage network load by shifting non-urgent, high-volume traffic from M2M devices to off-peak hours, thereby optimizing network performance and resource allocation ('667 Patent, col. 2:45-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶33). The first independent claim, Claim 1, requires:

  • A telecommunications network comprising a register, processors, and memory storing instructions to perform operations including:
  • receiving an access request from a terminal and determining its unique identifier;
  • denying access if the request is received outside a stored "grant access time interval" for that terminal;
  • monitoring network load;
  • adapting the time period depending on the monitored load; and
  • denying access to machine-to-machine application terminals during peak load time intervals, where their permitted time period is outside those peak intervals.

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

  • Patent Identification: 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. ¶38).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a technique to improve data rates and reliability in wireless systems with multiple antennas (MIMO). The method involves linearly precoding a matrix of source symbols and transmitting the resulting vectors using a transposed space-time mapping, which is designed to exploit the full diversity and capacity of the MIMO channel while allowing for less complex receiver designs ('564 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-56).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶41). Independent claims are 1, 5, 11, 12, and 13.
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "LG G5 and related or similar communication devices, as well as technology or infrastructure making use of or incorporating the same or similar signal transmission technology" ('564 Patent, Compl. ¶41).

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

  • Patent Identification: 7,995,091, "Mixed Media Telecommunication Call Manager," issued August 9, 2011 (Compl. ¶46).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the user-facing challenges of setting up mixed-media (e.g., voice and video) calls. The invention provides a method and interface for a user to select the type of video image to be sent (e.g., live video, a pre-stored static image), thereby managing the negotiation and establishment of the call to address user privacy and presentation preferences ('091 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-28).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶49). Independent claims are 1 and 8.
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "LG G5 and related or similar communication devices, as well as technology or infrastructure making use of or incorporating the same or similar communication transferring technology" ('091 Patent, Compl. ¶49).

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

  • Patent Identification: 6,856,818, "Data store for mobile radio station," issued February 15, 2005 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a removable data store, such as a SIM card, that can provide different data in response to the same standard command from a mobile phone. This selection is based on the SIM card's internal knowledge of the phone's operational state (e.g., which of two phone lines is active). This allows new features, such as separate contact lists for different lines, to be implemented entirely on the SIM card without requiring modification of the mobile phone's hardware or software ('818 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-13).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶57). Independent claims are 1, 18, and 35.
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "LG G5 and related or similar communication devices, as well as technology or infrastructure making use of or incorporating the same or similar data storage technology" ('818 Patent, Compl. ¶57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the LG G5 and LG G6 smartphones as infringing products, along with "related or similar communication devices, as well as technology or infrastructure making use of or incorporating" the patented technologies (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 33, 41, 49, 57).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these devices are commercially significant products sold in the United States and the District of Delaware (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16). However, the complaint provides no specific technical details regarding the operation of the accused devices or the network infrastructure that supports them. The allegations are conclusory, stating for each patent that the accused products incorporate "the same or similar" technology as described in the patent exhibits (e.g., Compl. ¶25, 33).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement on an element-by-element basis. The infringement allegations are presented in a conclusory manner for all asserted patents, without mapping specific features of the accused products to the limitations of any asserted claim (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 25, 33, 41, 49, 57). As such, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the pleading. The narrative infringement theory is limited to the bare assertion that the accused products practice the claimed inventions.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • ’662 Patent: A central technical question is whether the accused LG devices implement a variable error-checking function as required by the claims. The infringement analysis will depend on evidence showing that the devices' error-checking mechanism is not fixed, but rather changes over time or based on data parameters (e.g., by permuting data bits) prior to generating check data. The complaint provides no facts on this point.
    • ’667 Patent: Infringement of the ’667 Patent is a system-level question that depends on the functionality of the telecommunications network, not just the accused devices. The key point of contention will be whether the network infrastructure supporting LG devices actually implements time-based access controls, denying network attachment to certain devices based on pre-defined time intervals stored in a network register.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’662 Patent

  • The Term: "varying device configured to vary original data"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the patent. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the ’662 Patent will likely depend on whether the accused devices perform any operation that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from conventional, static error-checking methods.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests several ways to "vary" the data, stating the function can be varied "every n bits" or "on the basis of one or more parameters of the data packets," such as an "index, time indication or a channel number" ('662 Patent, col. 3:15-22). An embodiment also describes adding a (pseudo) random number to the user data as a method of variation ('662 Patent, col. 4:1-3).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 further defines the "varying device" as including a "permutating device configured to perform a permutation of bit position." An embodiment describes this specifically as interchanging bit positions within a data block (e.g., "bit 1 to position 2, bit 2 to position 4...") ('662 Patent, col. 5:58-63). A defendant could argue this limits the scope to literal bit-swapping.

’667 Patent

  • The Term: "deny access for the terminal if the access request is received outside the time period"
  • Context and Importance: This is the core functional limitation of the network-side invention. The dispute will turn on whether the accused system performs this specific function. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement requires proof of a specific network behavior that may be difficult to observe or attribute to the defendant.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that the "grant access time interval" has an "equivalent thereof," which could be a "deny access time interval" ('667 Patent, col. 2:6-12). This suggests flexibility in how the access control rule is defined and implemented.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes that denying access should occur at the earliest possible phase, such as during the network attach procedure, to achieve "optimized saving of resources" ('667 Patent, col. 2:30-34). A defendant might argue that any access denial occurring at a later stage, such as after a PDP context is established, falls outside the scope of the invention as described. Claim 1 also links the denial to M2M applications and "peak load time intervals," which could be argued as narrowing limitations.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all five asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement, claiming that LG provides "promotional and marketing materials, supporting materials, instructions, product manuals, and/or technical information" that encourage and facilitate infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 26, 34). The complaint also makes boilerplate allegations of contributory infringement, asserting that the accused products are "especially designed or adapted" for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 27, 35).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all five patents. The basis for this allegation is that LG had pre-suit knowledge of the patents, was "invited to take a license," and declined to do so (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 28, 36, 44, 52, 60).

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

  • A threshold procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which asserts infringement in a purely conclusory manner without providing any factual allegations about how the accused products operate, satisfy the federal pleading standards established by Twombly and Iqbal?
  • A fundamental question for the ’662 patent will be its viability: given that the sole independent claim of the patent was disclaimed in an IPR proceeding that began after the complaint was filed, can the infringement claim for this patent proceed? If it can, the core technical question becomes whether LG's devices implement the claimed variable error-checking function or a conventional fixed one.
  • For the system-level patents like the ’667 patent, a key evidentiary challenge will be one of attribution and proof: can Plaintiffs demonstrate that the telecommunications network infrastructure, which may not be fully controlled by LG, performs the specific time-based access denial functions required by the claims when used with LG's devices?