DCT
1:17-cv-00087
Koninklijke KPN NV v. Kyocera Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Koninklijke KPN N.V. (The Netherlands)
- Defendant: Kyocera Corporation (Japan) and Kyocera Communications, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP; Susman Godfrey, L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00087, D. Del., 01/30/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants placing products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge they would be sold in Delaware, deriving substantial revenue from the district, and having sufficient minimum contacts with the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile communication devices infringe a patent related to methods for improving the accuracy of transmission error checking.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the detection of systematic errors in digital data transmission, a field critical for the integrity of telecommunications, especially where data compression is used.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent was previously litigated against a third party in the Eastern District of Texas, a case that settled before trial. In connection with that prior case, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute an inter partes review, finding no reasonable likelihood that certain claims were invalid. The complaint also states that Defendant was invited to take a license to the patent prior to the lawsuit but declined.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-06-26 | '662' Patent Priority Date |
| 2001-04-03 | '662 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-07-08 | PTAB denies institution of IPR petition in prior litigation |
| 2016-09-21 | Prior litigation dismissed by joint stipulation |
| 2017-01-30 | 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 identifies a weakness in conventional data transmission systems where "systematic errors"—errors that repeat themselves—may go consistently undetected by a fixed error-checking function. This problem is particularly acute when data is compressed, as a single undetected error can render all subsequent decompressed data unusable (’662 Patent, col. 1:47-59; col. 2:1-15).
- The Patented Solution: To solve this, the invention proposes using a variable error detection function instead of a fixed one. The behavior of the function is intentionally varied over time, for instance, based on a data packet's index number or by altering the data itself before the check is performed. A key embodiment describes varying the data by adding a (pseudo) random number to it before it is processed by the error-checking function, ensuring that even a repeating data error results in a different input to the function each time, thereby increasing the probability of detection (’662 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-47; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a more robust defense against certain types of data corruption, enhancing the reliability of data transmission systems that rely on error checking to maintain integrity (’662 Patent, col. 2:20-23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶21). The patent contains one independent claim, Claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a device for error checking comprising:
- 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 data blocks, but does so "without reordering any blocks of original data".
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but this is standard practice. It is notable that public records subsequent to the complaint's filing indicate that Claim 1 has been disclaimed by the patent owner.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Kyocera Duraforce XD and related or similar communication devices, as well as technology or infrastructure making use of or incorporating the same or similar error checking technology" (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused products are "communication devices" that incorporate "error checking technology described in Ex. A [the ’662 Patent]" (Compl. ¶21). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the accused error checking functionality operates or any allegations regarding the products' specific market position beyond their general classification.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products' use of "error checking technology" infringes the ’662 Patent but does not map specific product features to the elements of any asserted claim (Compl. ¶21). The following chart summarizes the allegations for independent claim 1 at the level of detail provided.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
'662 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A device for producing error checking based on original data provided in blocks... | The complaint alleges the Accused Products are devices that incorporate infringing "error checking technology." | ¶21 | col. 7:1-5 |
| a generating device configured to generate check data; | The complaint alleges the Accused Products' "error checking technology" performs the functions described in the patent, which would include generating check data. | ¶21 | col. 7:6-7 |
| a varying device configured to vary original data prior to supplying said original data to the generating device as varied data; | The complaint’s general allegation of infringement of the patented technology implies the Accused Products contain functionality to vary data for error checking. | ¶21 | col. 7:8-10 |
| wherein said varying device includes a permutating device configured to perform a permutation of bit position... without reordering any blocks of original data. | The complaint does not specify how the Accused Products perform this function, but alleges infringement of the technology described in the patent, which includes this limitation. | ¶21 | col. 7:11-16 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: A central factual dispute will be whether the accused "error checking technology" functions as required by the claims. Specifically, what evidence will show that the accused devices perform a "permutation of bit position," as recited in claim 1, as opposed to another form of data variation (such as the addition of a random number, an alternative embodiment described in the patent at col. 4:1-11) or a standard, non-variable error check?
- Procedural and Scope Question: The complaint’s failure to specify which claims are asserted creates ambiguity. Given that independent claim 1 was disclaimed after the complaint was filed, a threshold issue for the court is whether Plaintiff can sustain its case based solely on dependent claims 2-4 and, if so, how it will prove the accused devices meet the additional limitations of those claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "permutation of bit position"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific mechanism of data variation required by independent claim 1. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend entirely on whether the accused functionality falls within the construed scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept generally as one where "bit positions within a data block are interchanged" (’662 Patent, col. 6:60-62), language that a plaintiff may argue covers a wide range of bit-reordering operations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific example where a bit string "ABCD" becomes "CADB" after one permutation (’662 Patent, col. 6:63-64). A defendant may argue this limits the term to a specific type of bit-swapping and excludes other data variation methods, such as the addition of random numbers also disclosed in the patent (’662 Patent, Fig. 2).
The Term: "without reordering any blocks of original data"
- Context and Importance: This phrase appears to be a negative limitation clarifying the scope of the "permutation." Its construction is important to define the structural level at which the permutation must operate.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue this language simply clarifies that the permutation is intra-block—shuffling bits within a block—and does not involve reordering the sequence of the blocks themselves.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the word "blocks" in the preamble and again in this limitation. A defendant could argue this creates ambiguity and that the limitation imposes a more complex structural constraint, preventing any permutation that alters the order of sub-units within a larger data block (’662 Patent, col. 8:1-3).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant providing "instructions, product manuals, and/or technical information" that allegedly direct end-users to infringe. It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the accused products are "especially designed or adapted" for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶22-23).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant was notified of the ’662 Patent and invited to take a license, which it declined (Compl. ¶¶17, 24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A dispositive issue will be one of claim viability: given the post-filing disclaimer of independent claim 1, can the Plaintiff establish infringement of any of the remaining dependent claims (2-4)? This will require proving not only that the accused products meet the permutation limitations of the disclaimed independent claim but also the further, more specific limitations of whichever dependent claim is asserted.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational mechanism: does the accused "error checking technology" actually implement a "permutation of bit position" as construed by the court? The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused devices perform this specific operation, or if Defendant can show its technology uses a different, non-infringing method of data variation or error checking.