DCT

1:17-cv-00090

Koninklijke KPN NV v. Sierra Wireless Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00090, D. Del., 01/30/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendants place products into the stream of commerce through established distribution channels with the knowledge they will be sold in Delaware, and because Defendants knowingly induce infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ wireless communication modules and related technology infringe a patent directed to methods for improving the reliability of transmission error checking.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to ensuring data integrity during transmission, a foundational element of digital communications, particularly for systems that use data compression where undetected errors can have cascading effects.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent was previously litigated against other parties in the Eastern District of Texas. During that prior litigation, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute an inter partes review (IPR) against the patent, finding no reasonable likelihood that certain claims were invalid. That prior lawsuit was resolved before trial. The complaint also alleges that Defendants were invited to take a license to the patent but declined.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-06-26 '662' Patent Priority Date
2001-04-03 '662 Patent Issue Date
2016-07-08 PTAB largely denies petition to institute IPR review
2016-09-21 Prior litigation dismissed
2017-01-30 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: 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 describes a problem where conventional, fixed error-checking methods can fail to detect "systematic errors"—errors that repeat themselves, for instance, due to a persistent source of interference ('662 Patent, col. 1:47–57). This is especially damaging for compressed data, as an undetected error in the compressed stream can corrupt all subsequent data upon decompression ('662 Patent, col. 2:1–15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a "variable" error-checking function that changes over time. Instead of applying a static algorithm to the original data, the system first modifies, or "varies," the data itself before generating the supplementary check data ('662 Patent, col. 2:27–34). One described method for varying the data is to perform a "permutation" of the bit positions within a data block ('662 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 5:57–63). Because the data is effectively different each time the check is performed, a systematic transmission error is far less likely to repeatedly produce a coincidentally "correct" check value and thus go undetected.
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a more robust method for detecting persistent errors in data streams, which was particularly relevant for the reliability of then-emerging adaptive data compression standards such as V.42bis ('662 Patent, col. 2:9–15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶21). At the time of filing, the patent contained one independent claim, Claim 1.
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
    • A device for producing error checking on original data that is provided in blocks of bits having a particular ordered sequence.
    • A "generating device" that is configured to generate check data.
    • A "varying device" that is 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 the bit positions for at least some bits within each block, 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Sierra Wireless EM7355 module 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 identifies the accused products as communication modules that allegedly incorporate an infringing "error checking technology" ('662 Patent, Compl. ¶21).
  • The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the error-checking functionality within the accused Sierra Wireless modules operates. It also does not contain allegations regarding the specific commercial importance or market position of the EM7355 module.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to construct a claim chart or to analyze Plaintiff's infringement theory on a per-element basis. The infringement allegation is a conclusory statement that the accused products infringe by "making use of or incorporating the... error checking technology described in" the '662 Patent (Compl. ¶21). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Given the limited detail in the complaint, the infringement analysis will depend entirely on facts established during discovery. The central technical questions will likely include:
    • Evidentiary Question: What evidence demonstrates that the accused Sierra Wireless modules perform error checking using the specific two-step sequence recited in Claim 1: first varying the original data (e.g., via bit permutation), and second, generating check data from that varied data?
    • Technical Question: Assuming the accused modules do vary data before error checking, does the specific method of variation constitute a "permutation of bit position" within a data block as that term is used in the patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a permutating device configured to perform a permutation of bit position ... without reordering any blocks of original data"
  • Context and Importance: This term recites the core inventive concept of Claim 1. The definition of "permutation of bit position" and the distinction between permuting bits within a block versus reordering the blocks themselves will be central to determining the scope of the claim and, consequently, whether an infringement occurred. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the primary point of novelty over prior art error-checking systems.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the functions in broad terms, stating that the invention is based on the insight that a "variable checking function can almost always prevent the non-detection of repetitive errors" ('662 Patent, col. 2:51–53). This could support an interpretation where any method of controllably reordering bits within a block to vary the checking function falls within the claim's scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific, non-limiting example of a permutation where "bit 1 [goes] to position 2, bit 2 to position 4, bit 3 to position 1 and bit 4 to position 3" ('662 Patent, col. 5:60–63). A defendant could argue that this example, along with the use of the term "permutating device," limits the claim to concrete bit-swapping implementations rather than any abstract process that results in varied data.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendants providing "promotional and marketing materials, supporting materials, instructions, product manuals, and/or technical information" that allegedly encourage infringing uses by third parties like OEMs and end users (Compl. ¶22). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that Defendants have knowledge the products are "especially designed or adapted to operate in a manner that infringes" and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶23).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' "pre-suit knowledge of the '662 patent" and continued infringement despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶24). The alleged pre-suit knowledge is supported by allegations of prior licensing negotiations (Compl. ¶4, ¶17).

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

  • Evidentiary Proof: A primary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be one of evidentiary proof. Given the complaint's lack of specific technical allegations, the case will depend on whether discovery uncovers evidence that the accused Sierra Wireless modules in fact practice the specific method of permuting bits within a data block prior to generating check data, as required by the patent's asserted independent claim.
  • Definitional Scope: Should evidence of an infringing process be found, the case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope. The court will need to determine whether the term "permutation of bit position", as construed from the patent's specification, is broad enough to read on the particular algorithm implemented in the accused products, or if the claim is limited to the more specific bit-swapping embodiments described in the patent.
  • Procedural Viability: A critical, and potentially dispositive, issue is the procedural history of the patent subsequent to the filing of this complaint. Public records indicate that Claim 1, the sole independent claim of the '662 patent, has been disclaimed. A central question for the court will be whether the asserted dependent claims can be maintained in the absence of the independent claim from which they depend, a significant legal challenge that could impact the viability of the entire case.