DCT
1:17-cv-00088
Koninklijke KPN NV v. NEC Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Koninklijke KPN N.V. (The Netherlands)
- Defendant: NEC Corporation (Washington/Japan) and NEC Casio Mobile Communications, Ltd. (Japan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00088, D. Del., 01/30/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants allegedly placing infringing products into the stream of commerce, deriving substantial revenue from sales within Delaware, and inducing infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile communication devices infringe a patent related to methods for improving the detection of errors in data transmissions.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses improving the reliability of digital communications, particularly for compressed data streams, by using a variable error-checking function to better detect recurring, systematic transmission errors.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent was previously litigated against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas, a case that settled before trial. In that prior litigation, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute an inter partes review (IPR) against certain claims. Post-filing of the instant complaint, the patent's sole independent claim (Claim 1) was disclaimed, a fact confirmed in subsequent IPR and ex parte reexamination proceedings which found the remaining dependent claims patentable. The viability of these dependent claims in the absence of their parent independent claim presents a significant legal question.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-06-26 | Priority Date ('662 Patent) |
| 2001-04-03 | Issue Date ('662 Patent) |
| 2016-07-08 | PTAB denies institution of IPR in prior Samsung litigation |
| 2016-09-21 | Prior Samsung litigation dismissed |
| 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 describes that conventional, fixed error-checking methods may fail to detect "systematic errors"—errors that repeat themselves due to a persistent issue in the transmission channel or equipment. For compressed data, an undetected error can corrupt not just the erroneous data but all subsequent data, rendering it unusable (’662 Patent, col. 2:1-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes making the error-detection function variable or "time-dependent" (’662 Patent, col. 2:55-59). Instead of applying a fixed checking algorithm to the original data, the system first varies the data itself—for example, by permuting the bit positions or by adding a pseudo-random number—and then generates the supplementary check data. This ensures that (erroneous) data are effectively checked by a different function each time, dramatically reducing the probability that a systematic error will repeatedly go undetected (’662 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-48). The process is illustrated in Figure 2, which shows a variable part (1b) comprising a pseudo-random number generator (PRN) that alters the data stream (D) before it is processed by the function part (1a).
- Technical Importance: This dynamic approach to error checking increases the robustness and reliability of data transmission, which was particularly important for emerging data compression standards (like V.42 bis) that are highly sensitive to undetected errors (’662 Patent, col. 2:9-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶21). At the time of filing, the patent contained one independent claim, Claim 1. This claim was disclaimed after the complaint was filed.
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 (as it existed at filing):
- 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;
- 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.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which would include dependent claims 2, 3, and 4 (Compl. ¶21).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "NEC Terrain and related or similar communication devices, as well as technology or infrastructure making use of or incorporating the same or similar error checking technology" described in the patent (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "communication devices" but provides no specific technical details regarding the operation of their error-checking features (Compl. ¶21). The allegations are general, stating the devices incorporate "error checking technology" that is the "same or similar" to that taught in the patent. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a more specific analysis of the accused functionality. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to features of the accused products. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on the general allegations in the 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 with each block having plural bits in a particular ordered sequence... | The NEC Terrain is alleged to be a communication device that performs error checking on data. | ¶21 | col. 7:2-6 |
| a generating device configured to generate check data; | The NEC Terrain is alleged to incorporate error checking technology that generates check data. | ¶21 | col. 7:7-8 |
| a varying device configured to vary original data prior to supplying said original data to the generating device as varied data; | The NEC Terrain is alleged to incorporate error checking technology that varies original data before generating check data. | ¶21 | col. 7:9-11 |
| wherein said varying device includes a permutating device configured to perform a permutation of bit position...without reordering any blocks of original data. | The NEC Terrain is alleged to incorporate error checking technology that performs a permutation of bit positions within data blocks as part of its process for varying the original data. | ¶21 | col. 7:12-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The complaint does not specify how the accused NEC Terrain devices allegedly perform a "permutation of bit position." A central evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused devices' error-checking protocols, which are likely standardized, implement the specific bit-permutating function required by the claim.
- Scope Question: The patent discloses both "permutation" of bit positions (col. 5:58-64) and adding a random number via an EXOR operation (col. 3:66-col. 4:3) as methods to "vary" the data. A key dispute may arise over whether the claim term "permutation of bit position" can be construed broadly enough to read on other data-altering methods, such as an EXOR operation, that may be used in the accused products.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "permutating device configured to perform a permutation of bit position"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the patent's only independent claim (now disclaimed) and defines the specific mechanism for varying the data. The outcome of the infringement analysis depends entirely on whether the functionality of the accused devices falls within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be interpreted in light of the patent's overall objective to "vary" the data to prevent systematic errors. The specification describes other methods for varying data, such as adding a random number, which could suggest "permutation" is exemplary of a broader class of data-varying functions (’662 Patent, col. 3:58-61, Fig. 2).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language specifies a permutation of "bit position." An embodiment described in the specification aligns directly with this language, explaining a process where bit positions are explicitly interchanged (e.g., "bit 1 to position 2, bit 2 to position 4, bit 3 to position 1 and bit 4 to position 3") (’662 Patent, col. 5:58-64). This provides strong support for a narrower construction limited to the literal reordering of bits, as opposed to merely altering their values.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that NEC sells the accused products with the knowledge and specific intent that end-users will use them in an infringing manner. This is allegedly encouraged through "promotional and marketing materials, supporting materials, instructions, product manuals, and/or technical information" (Compl. ¶22).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on NEC's purported pre-suit knowledge of the ’662 patent. The complaint states that Defendants were "invited to take a license to the asserted patent, and have declined" to do so (Compl. ¶17, ¶24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A threshold issue is one of case viability: given that the patent's only independent claim was disclaimed after the complaint was filed, a dispositive question is whether the remaining dependent claims can survive and be asserted on their own, a procedurally and legally complex issue.
- A central dispute will be one of claim construction: can the term "permutation of bit position," which is the heart of the asserted independent claim, be construed to cover modern error-checking techniques that may vary data by methods other than literal bit reordering, such as XORing with a random value? The answer will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.
- A key challenge will be evidentiary: the complaint lacks specific factual allegations detailing how the accused products infringe. A critical question is whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to show that the error-checking technology in the NEC Terrain devices actually performs the specific function of a "permutating device" as required by the claim language.