DCT
1:17-cv-00505
JSDQ Mesh Tech LLC v. Ultra Electronics Defense Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: JSDQ Mesh Technologies LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Ultra Electronics Defense, Inc. (Delaware) and 3e Technologies International, Inc. (Maryland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: O’KELLY & ERNST, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00505, D. Del., 05/03/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Ultra Electronics Defense, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and Defendant 3e Technologies International, Inc. has minimum contacts with Delaware, including through its acquisition by Ultra.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ wireless mesh networking products for industrial applications infringe four patents related to methods for decentralized call routing and connection in wireless networks.
- Technical Context: The patents address decentralized, self-organizing wireless mesh networks, a technology that allows individual network nodes to establish communication routes without a central controller, which is significant for creating robust and scalable ad-hoc networks.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents claim priority from applications dating back to 1995 and 1998. Two of the patents-in-suit are reissues of an earlier patent, suggesting a post-issuance review and potential narrowing or correction of the original claims. The complaint does not reference any prior litigation or inter partes review proceedings involving these patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-02-27 | Earliest Priority Date for ’828 and ’648 Patents |
| 1998-09-14 | Earliest Priority Date for ’675 and ’607 Patents |
| 2007-10-23 | ’828 Patent Issued |
| 2011-03-29 | ’648 Patent Issued |
| 2012-09-18 | ’675 Patent Issued |
| 2013-11-19 | ’607 Patent Issued |
| 2017-05-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,286,828 - Method of Call Routing and Connection, Issued October 23, 2007 (’828 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the high cost, inflexibility, and inefficient routing of conventional cellular systems that rely on a central switch to manage connections, handoffs, and routing between base stations (’828 Patent, col. 1:13-31). This centralization can turn a local call into a long-distance one by routing it far away to a central switch and back again (’828 Patent, col. 2:20-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a decentralized system where individual network nodes autonomously establish communication routes without a central controller (’828 Patent, col. 3:22-26). Nodes periodically transmit routing messages containing information like signal strength, and other nodes use this information to build tables of optimal paths to various destinations, allowing the network to self-organize and find the most efficient routes dynamically (’828 Patent, col. 9:28-48).
- Technical Importance: This decentralized, self-organizing approach aimed to reduce reliance on expensive central infrastructure and fixed land lines, enabling more flexible and cost-effective deployment of wireless networks.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claims 47, 56, and 68 (Compl. ¶19).
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 47:
- Establishing radio links between pairs of nodes using radio signals.
- The radio signals include associated routing messages with an actual radio parameter.
- Storing the received routing messages at each node.
- Selecting a preferred routing message/link using the actual radio parameter.
- Deleting at least some other stored routing messages.
- Modifying the selected routing message.
- Retransmitting the modified routing message.
- Assembling preferred radio links into a communication route between an originating and destination node.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 48, 49, 52, 57, 59, 69, and 70 (Compl. ¶26).
U.S. Patent No. 7,916,648 - Method of Call Routing and Connection, Issued March 29, 2011 (’648 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Like its parent ’828 Patent, the ’648 Patent addresses the inefficiencies of centralized cellular radio systems and the need for a decentralized method to establish communication routes (’648 Patent, col. 1:13-31).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is a method for decentralized routing where nodes measure radio signal parameters, transmit routing messages identifying multi-link route segments, and select preferred routes based on these measured parameters (’648 Patent, col. 8:12-20). This allows nodes to build communication paths piece-by-piece, independently of a central computer, by evaluating and propagating information about route segments (’648 Patent, col. 8:5-9:6).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a mechanism for nodes in an ad-hoc network to collaboratively build and maintain optimal communication routes based on real-time radio conditions.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claims 29 and 36 (Compl. ¶30).
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 29:
- Establishing radio links between pairs of nodes.
- Measuring values of a radio parameter of received radio signals.
- Transmitting radio signals with routing messages from at least two nodes, where the messages identify a multi-link route segment and include a value of a radio parameter.
- Selecting a preferred multi-link route segment based on the measured and included radio parameter values.
- Transmitting a new routing message identifying the selecting node and its preferred route segment.
- Assembling a radio communication route that includes at least one preferred multi-link route segment.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 37, 38, and 40 (Compl. ¶35).
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE43,675 - Wireless Radio Routing System, Issued September 18, 2012 (’675 Patent)
- Technology Synopsis: The ’675 Patent describes a decentralized wireless routing system where communication routes are assembled by nodes using routing messages. A key aspect is the use of directional radio signals for at least some links, which allows nodes to measure radio parameters from these directional signals and base routing decisions on those measurements.
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent method claim 15 (Compl. ¶39).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Wireless Routing Systems perform the method of establishing links, measuring parameters of directional signals, transmitting routing messages, and assembling a communication route (Compl. ¶41).
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,607 - Wireless Mesh Routing Method, Issued November 19, 2013 (’607 Patent)
- Technology Synopsis: The ’607 Patent discloses a method for creating at least two communication routes in a decentralized mesh network. The method involves establishing links, using directional radio signals for at least one link in each route, measuring signal parameters, and transmitting routing messages to assemble the routes independently of a central computer.
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent method claim 3 and reserves the right to assert independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶¶48, 51).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Wireless Routing Systems perform the method of establishing links, using directional signals, measuring parameters, and assembling at least two routes that each include a directional link (Compl. ¶50).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "Accused Wireless Routing Systems" as Defendants' wireless mesh networking products, services, and solutions (Compl. ¶14). Specific product lines named are AirGuard, EnergyGuard, and VirtualFence, which include products such as WiMesh Endpoints, WiMesh Access Points, iMesh Gateways, and various appliances and servers (Compl. ¶15). A list of specific model numbers is also provided (Compl. ¶16).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products are advertised as "machine-to-machine (M2M) cyber security solutions for industrial networks" (Compl. ¶7). Functionally, they are described as "wireless mesh networking products" that include hardware, software, and firmware components for establishing wireless communications (Compl. ¶14). No further technical detail on the operation of the accused products is provided.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’828 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 47) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a radio communication route among a plurality of individual nodes capable of distribution arbitrarily relative to each other, said nodes being controllable independent of a central computer separate from said nodes | The Accused Wireless Routing Systems allegedly provide such a route. | ¶20 | col. 4:40-44 |
| establishing radio links between pairs of said nodes using radio signals...wherein at least some of said radio signals include associated routing messages including an actual radio parameter of said radio signals | The accused systems allegedly establish radio links where signals contain routing messages with a radio parameter. | ¶21(a) | col. 9:30-36 |
| storing said routing messages received by each said node | The accused systems allegedly store received routing messages. | ¶21(b) | col. 9:1-10 |
| selecting a said routing message associated with a preferred said radio link using said actual radio parameter of said received radio signals | The accused systems allegedly select a preferred link using the radio parameter. | ¶21(c) | col. 12:10-14 |
| deleting at least some of said other stored routing messages | The accused systems allegedly delete other stored messages. | ¶21(d) | col. 12:20-22 |
| modifying said selected routing message | The accused systems allegedly modify the selected message. | ¶21(e) | col. 10:49-52 |
| retransmitting said modified routing message | The accused systems allegedly retransmit the modified message. | ¶21(f) | col. 10:49-52 |
| assembling said preferred radio links into a radio communication route between an originating node and a destination node | The accused systems allegedly assemble the links into a complete route. | ¶21(g) | col. 13:1-4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "controllable independent of a central computer" reads on modern mesh networking systems, which may have centralized management or monitoring components even if routing is distributed.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges a specific sequence of steps (storing, selecting, deleting, modifying, retransmitting). A point of contention may be whether the accused systems perform these discrete steps in the recited order, or if they achieve a similar result through a technically different process. The nature of the "actual radio parameter" and how it is "used" for selection will also be a focus.
’648 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 29) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| measuring values of a radio parameter of radio signals received by a said node | The accused systems allegedly measure radio parameter values. | ¶32(b) | col. 10:59-65 |
| transmitting from at least two of said nodes radio signals with associated routing messages, wherein said routing message...identifies a multilink route segment to another said node and includes a value of a radio parameter related to a condition of said route segment | The accused systems allegedly transmit routing messages from multiple nodes that identify a multi-link segment and include a parameter value. | ¶32(c) | col. 9:44-52 |
| selecting at a said node receiving said radio signals a preferred said multi-link route segment, wherein said selection is based on the measured values of said radio parameter...and the values of said radio parameter included with said routing messages | The accused systems allegedly select a route segment based on both measured and received parameter values. | ¶32(d) | col. 12:10-19 |
| transmitting from said selecting node a radio signal with a routing message identifying said selecting node and said preferred route segment | The accused systems allegedly transmit a new message identifying the chosen segment. | ¶32(e) | col. 12:45-53 |
| assembling a radio communication route between an originating node and a destination node...said route including at least one said preferred multi-link route segment | The accused systems allegedly assemble a final route including the chosen segment. | ¶32(f) | col. 13:1-8 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The definition of "multi-link route segment" will be critical. Does this term require a specific data structure or message format, and if so, do the accused systems use it?
- Technical Questions: The claim requires selection based on both measured radio parameters and included radio parameters from routing messages. The case may turn on evidence demonstrating that the accused systems perform this specific two-part comparison logic, rather than relying solely on one type of data.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’828 Patent:
- The Term: "actual radio parameter"
- Context and Importance: This term is the basis for selecting preferred routes. Its scope will determine what kind of information (e.g., only signal strength, or also latency, error rate, etc.) can satisfy the claim limitation. A narrow definition could make infringement harder to prove, while a broad one may raise validity questions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to explicitly limit the term, suggesting it could encompass any measurable radio characteristic. The term "parameter" itself is general.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment and examples focus heavily on signal strength as the key parameter for making routing decisions (’828 Patent, col. 9:59-61, Table VI). An argument could be made that the invention is centered on signal strength, implicitly limiting the scope of "actual radio parameter."
For the ’648 Patent:
- The Term: "multi-link route segment"
- Context and Importance: This term is the unit of information that is identified, selected, and assembled into a complete route. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused system’s routing messages identify a "segment" that includes more than one link, as opposed to simply identifying the next hop.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, leaving open the possibility that any message conveying information about a path involving more than one link could qualify.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims distinguish between a "link" and a "multi-link route segment," implying a segment is necessarily composed of multiple links. The specification’s description of master cycles where the number of links in a route increases suggests a process of building up multi-link paths (’648 Patent, col. 9:5-8).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint states that Plaintiff reserves the right to assert claims for indirect infringement for infringing activities that continue after Defendants receive notice of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶¶45, 54). No specific facts supporting inducement or contributory infringement are alleged.
- Willful Infringement: For the unexpired ’675 and ’607 patents, the complaint alleges that if Defendants continue their infringing activities after being served with the complaint, they will have knowledge of an objectively high likelihood of infringement, which may support a claim for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶46, 55). The allegation is predicated on post-filing conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Can terms like "actual radio parameter" and "multi-link route segment," which originate from patents filed in the 1990s describing decentralized telephone networks, be construed to read on the specific protocols and data structures used in modern M2M industrial cybersecurity mesh networks?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational mapping: The complaint makes conclusory allegations that track the specific, multi-step processes of the asserted method claims (e.g., selecting, deleting, modifying, retransmitting). A central dispute will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused systems perform these discrete claimed steps, or if they achieve a similar routing outcome through a fundamentally different technical operation.
- A third question relates to technological evolution: The accused systems are marketed as M2M cybersecurity solutions. This suggests they may incorporate functionalities (e.g., security protocols, traffic prioritization) not contemplated in the patents-in-suit. The case may explore whether these additional functionalities place the accused systems outside the scope of the claimed methods for basic call routing.