DCT

1:17-cv-01089

Hera Wireless SA v. LG Electronics Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01089, D. Del., 08/04/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant LG Electronics USA Inc. is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products compliant with the IEEE 802.11n Wi-Fi standard infringe four patents related to Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) wireless communication technology.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to foundational techniques for MIMO communications, which uses multiple antennas to increase data rates and reliability in wireless networks like Wi-Fi.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs, through their licensing agent Sisvel, engaged in licensing activities and provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patents on April 27, 2016, more than a year before filing suit. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against the asserted patents. These proceedings ultimately resulted in the cancellation of all asserted claims of all four patents-in-suit by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, with certificates of cancellation issuing in June 2021.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-22 Earliest Priority Date for ’103, ’115, ’851 Patents
2004-09-10 Priority Date for ’400 Patent
2010-12-21 Panasonic completes acquisition of Sanyo, original patent owner
2011-03-XX Plaintiff Hera Wireless obtains licensing rights to asserted patents
2011-06-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,962,103 Issues
2012-10-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,295,400 Issues
2013-04-02 U.S. Patent No. 8,412,115 Issues
2014-06-XX Plaintiff Hera Wireless acquires asserted patents from Sanyo
2015-01-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,934,851 Issues
2016-04-27 Plaintiffs allegedly provide notice of infringement to LG
2017-08-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,962,103 - "Radio Apparatus, and Method and Program for Controlling Spatial Path"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,962,103, “Radio Apparatus, and Method and Program for Controlling Spatial Path,” issued June 14, 2011.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) communication schemes as lacking flexibility. Specifically, if a propagation path fails, the communication link can be disconnected because the system lacks a mechanism to adapt dynamically to changing conditions or hardware capabilities (U.S. Patent No. 7,962,103, col. 4:10-17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a radio apparatus that stores information about its own communication capabilities—specifically, a "value indicating possible multiplicity" related to the number of spatial paths it can form with its antenna array. The apparatus then transmits this capability information to another device at a "predetermined timing," enabling the two devices to establish a connection with an optimal number of spatial paths based on their respective hardware and the current channel conditions ('103 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:59-col. 8:13).
  • Technical Importance: This technology facilitates more robust and efficient MIMO communications by allowing devices to negotiate and adapt the number of spatial streams, a concept central to the development of flexible wireless standards ('103 Patent, col. 4:26-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 4 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An adaptive array unit for processing signals from a plurality of antennas.
    • A storage unit that stores a "value indicating possible multiplicity" associated with the number of formable spatial paths.
    • A control unit that transmits this value to another radio apparatus at a predetermined timing.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶28).

U.S. Patent No. 8,412,115 - "Radio Apparatus, and Method and Program for Controlling Spatial Path"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,412,115, “Radio Apparatus, and Method and Program for Controlling Spatial Path,” issued April 2, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the application leading to the ’103 patent, this patent addresses the same problem of inflexibility in conventional MIMO systems (U.S. Patent No. 8,412,115, col. 4:13-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is framed more broadly than in the ’103 patent. Instead of an "adaptive array unit," the claims recite a "communication unit configured to communicate using an antenna." The core inventive concept remains the same: a device stores its spatial path capabilities and transmits this information to another device to enable adaptive link setup ('115 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This patent covers a fundamental aspect of adaptive wireless communication systems, where devices must exchange capability information to optimize performance.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 4 (Compl. ¶46).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A communication unit configured to communicate using an antenna to form a plurality of spatial paths.
    • A storage unit that stores a "value indicating possible multiplicity" of formable spatial paths.
    • A control unit that transmits this value to another radio apparatus at a predetermined timing.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶43).

U.S. Patent No. 8,934,851 - "Radio Apparatus, and Method and Program for Controlling Spatial Path"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,934,851, “Radio Apparatus, and Method and Program for Controlling Spatial Path,” issued January 13, 2015 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’103 and ’115 patents, claims the receiving side of the capability exchange. It describes a radio apparatus with a "reception unit" configured to receive from another apparatus a value indicating the number of spatial paths that the other apparatus can form. This allows a device to learn the capabilities of its communication partner ('851 Patent, claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 4, and 7 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Accused Features: The functionality of LG's 802.11n-compliant products to receive and process the "HT Capabilities element," which contains information about the transmitting device's spatial stream capabilities (Compl. ¶¶62-63).

U.S. Patent No. 8,295,400 - "Receiving Method and Apparatus, and Communicating System Using the Same"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,295,400, “Receiving Method and Apparatus, and Communicating System Using the Same,” issued October 23, 2012 (Compl. ¶76).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to the specific structure of an Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM) signal burst. It claims a "first burst format" where non-MIMO and MIMO training and signal fields are arranged in a specific order. It also claims properties of pilot signals within the data portion of the burst, including that they use the same subcarriers and modulation scheme as in a non-MIMO format but have a different pattern, and that the signal is transmitted from multiple antennas with a cyclical time shift ('400 Patent, claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (apparatus) and claim 2 (method) (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: The generation and transmission of signals that comply with the IEEE 802.11n standard's "HT-mixed format," which allegedly follows the claimed arrangement of training signals and data fields (Compl. ¶¶79-80).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint accuses "any and all products" made, used, or sold by LG that are compliant with the IEEE Standard 802.11n-2009 (Compl. ¶31). Specific examples cited include the LG G6 mobile phone and the LG Chromebase 22CV241-W all-in-one computer (Compl. ¶31).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that compliance with the 802.11n standard is the basis for infringement (Compl. ¶19). The accused functionality is the implementation of features mandated by that standard. This includes transmitting an "HT Capabilities element" that advertises the device's ability to support a certain number of spatial streams (Compl. ¶33) and structuring transmitted data packets according to the standard's "HT-mixed format" preamble (Compl. ¶80). The complaint notes that MIMO technology, central to the 802.11n standard, is now found in most high-end Wi-Fi-enabled consumer electronics (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The core of the infringement allegation is that compliance with the IEEE 802.11n standard necessarily results in infringement of the asserted patents. The complaint frequently cites the standard itself as evidence of the accused products' functionality.

'7,962,103 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an adaptive array unit capable of performing adaptive array processing on signals corresponding to a plurality of antennas, respectively The accused products implement MIMO communication using techniques such as "Spatial mapping" as defined in the 802.11n standard to process signals across multiple antennas. The complaint provides a transmitter block diagram from the standard to illustrate this functionality (Compl. p. 8, Figure 20-3). ¶33 col. 7:39-42
a storage unit which stores beforehand a value indicating possible multiplicity associated with the number of spatial paths formable by said adaptive array unit The accused products store and transmit the "Supported MCS Set field" within the "HT Capabilities element," which includes a 2-bit subfield for "Tx Maximum Number Spatial Streams Supported" that indicates whether the device supports 1, 2, 3, or 4 spatial streams (Compl. p. 9, Figure 7-95o20). ¶33 col. 8:5-9
a control unit which controls a processing of transmitting the value indicating possible multiplicity to the another radio apparatus at a predetermined timing The "HT Capabilities element," containing the spatial stream information, is transmitted in specified management frames such as Beacons, which are transmitted periodically according to the standard, or in Association/Probe Request and Response frames. ¶33 col. 7:59-62
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary point of contention would be whether the claim term "value indicating possible multiplicity," as defined in the context of the patent's disclosure, can be construed to read on the "Tx Maximum Number Spatial Streams Supported" field of the 802.11n standard. A defendant might argue the patent's description of "subarrays" and adaptive path formation implies a more specific technical meaning than the general capability advertised in the standard.
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory rests on the premise that standard compliance equals infringement. A key question is what evidence demonstrates that LG's products practice the standard in a manner that meets every claim limitation. For example, does the accused product's transmission of capability information in a Beacon frame meet the "predetermined timing" limitation as construed in light of the patent's specification?

'8,412,115 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a communication unit configured to communicate using an antenna The accused products are configured to operate in a MIMO system using multiple antennas to create multiple spatial dimensions for communication, as required by the 802.11n standard's High Throughput (HT) operation. ¶48 col. 7:51-65
a storage unit which stores beforehand a value indicating possible multiplicity associated with the number of spatial paths formable by said communication unit This element is mapped to the same functionality as in the ’103 patent: the "Supported MCS Set field" that indicates the maximum number of supported spatial streams. ¶48 col. 8:7-11
a control unit which controls a processing of transmitting the value indicating possible multiplicity to the another radio apparatus at a predetermined timing This element is mapped to the same functionality as in the ’103 patent: the transmission of the "HT Capabilities element" in frames like Beacons at protocol-defined intervals. ¶48 col. 8:11-15
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central construction issue for this patent, distinct from the ’103 patent, would be the scope of "communication unit." The plaintiff's position appears to be that this term is broad enough to cover any MIMO-capable transmitter. A defendant might argue the term is indefinite or requires a more specific structure than that found in the accused products.
    • Technical Questions: As with the ’103 patent, the dispute would likely center on whether the functional blocks described in the 802.11n standard map precisely onto the claimed "storage unit" and "control unit" elements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "value indicating possible multiplicity" (from claims of ’103 and ’115 patents)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the plaintiff's infringement theory equates it with the "Tx Maximum Number Spatial Streams Supported" field in the IEEE 802.11n standard. The case hinges on whether this mapping is correct. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the patent's specific disclosure supports this broad interpretation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract states the memory stores "information on the number of antennas associated with the number of spatial paths that can be formed," suggesting the value is fundamentally a number ('103 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims link the "multiplicity" to the number of paths "formable by said adaptive array unit" ('103 Patent, claim 1) or "communication unit" ('115 Patent, claim 1). The specification heavily discusses dividing antennas into "subarrays" to form paths, which a defendant might argue narrows the scope of "multiplicity" to a value directly tied to this specific subarray architecture, rather than a general device capability ('103 Patent, col. 4:35-41).

  • The Term: "at a predetermined timing" (from claims of ’103 and ’115 patents)

  • Context and Importance: The plaintiff alleges this is met by the transmission of capability information in standard-defined frames like periodic Beacons or event-driven Association Requests. A defendant could challenge whether these protocol-driven events satisfy the "predetermined" requirement.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not impose any specific timing requirement beyond being "predetermined." The complaint's citation to the 802.11n standard's rule for periodic Beacon transmission appears to fit this broad meaning (Compl. ¶33).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background section describes the prior art Personal Handy-phone System (PHS), which uses a rigid TDMA frame structure with fixed time slots ('103 Patent, col. 1:28-44). A party could argue that "predetermined timing" should be interpreted in light of this more structured timing context, potentially excluding the more asynchronous communication patterns of Wi-Fi.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on Defendant’s advertising and distributing the accused products, as well as providing instruction materials and training, which allegedly encourage and facilitate direct infringement by end-users (Compl. ¶¶38-39, 53-54, 70-71, 85-86).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all four patents, based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. It states that a letter was sent to LG on April 27, 2016, disclosing the asserted patents and alleging that LG's products infringed them (Compl. ¶¶37, 52, 69, 84).

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

This case, as presented in the complaint, raises fundamental questions common in standards-essential patent litigation. The subsequent invalidation of all asserted claims in IPR proceedings, however, reframes the dispute around the core issue of patentability.

  • A primary issue is one of definitional mapping: do the specific claim terms of the patents, developed in the context of the patent specifications, map necessarily and without ambiguity onto the functional blocks and protocols mandated by the IEEE 802.11n standard? The plaintiff's case depends on an affirmative answer, while a defense would focus on exposing any technical or semantic gaps between the patent claims and the standard's language.
  • A foundational question is one of validity: were the inventions, as claimed in the asserted patents, patentable over the prior art at the time of invention? The subsequent cancellation of all asserted claims by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board indicates that this became the dispositive issue for the patents, suggesting the PTAB concluded the claims were either anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art.