Encoditech LLC v. Qardio Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Encoditech LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Qardio, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt, LLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-00864, D. Del., 09/25/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s QardioArm wireless blood pressure monitor and its associated mobile application infringe a patent related to establishing a direct, secure wireless communication link between two mobile devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for ad-hoc, point-to-point wireless communication, forming a basis for personal area networks without reliance on centralized infrastructure like cellular towers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a Certificate of Correction for the patent-in-suit was issued on May 4, 2017. It also references service of a prior version of the complaint on June 11, 2018, which may be relevant to the timing of Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,321,095 - "Wireless Communications Approach"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,321,095, "Wireless Communications Approach," issued November 20, 2001.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies drawbacks in prior art wireless systems, such as the lack of privacy and half-duplex limitations of two-way radios, and the reliance on costly, geographically limited infrastructure for digital cellular systems (’095 Patent, col. 1:24-col. 2:10). The inventors sought to create a wireless communication method that offered the mobility of radios with the security and services of digital cellular, but without needing a fixed network (’095 Patent, col. 3:56-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method for two "mobile stations" to establish a direct, digital communication link independent of any fixed infrastructure (’095 Patent, Abstract). The process involves one device selecting a radio frequency (RF) band, sending a request signal, and the second device responding with an acknowledgment signal to create a direct link, which can then be secured using encryption (’095 Patent, col. 2:14-29; col. 15:26-46).
• Technical Importance: This approach describes a foundational method for creating ad-hoc, peer-to-peer wireless networks, a key enabler for technologies like Bluetooth that allow personal devices to communicate directly and securely. (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent system claim 7, as amended by a Certificate of Correction. (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of the asserted independent claim 7 include:
  • A wireless communication system comprising a first mobile station and a second mobile station.
  • The first mobile station is configured to select an RF band, transmit a request signal, and establish a direct communication link upon receiving an acknowledge signal from the second mobile station.
  • The system uses a public key/private key encryption scheme to securely exchange a common encryption key (Ckey), which is then used to encrypt subsequent communications between the two stations.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's QardioArm, a wireless blood pressure monitor, when used in conjunction with the corresponding "Qardio App" software running on a smart phone or tablet. (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The QardioArm device and Qardio App work together as a system to measure and monitor a user's blood pressure, heart rate, and to detect irregular heartbeats. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges that the QardioArm device communicates directly with the mobile device running the Qardio App via the Bluetooth 4.0 low energy protocol. (Compl. ¶20, ¶22). A screenshot provided in the complaint from a product marketing page describes the Qardio App as a way to "TAKE YOUR MEASUREMENTS THE SMART WAY," highlighting features like irregular heartbeat detection and triple measurement averaging for accuracy. (Compl. ¶17, p. 5). The complaint also includes technical specifications for the QardioArm, noting its operating range and requirement for a smart phone or tablet with Bluetooth 4.0. (Compl. ¶17, p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’095 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the definition of "mobile station." The patent provides "a handset" as an example (col. 4:2), raising the question of whether a special-purpose peripheral device like the QardioArm, which lacks general communication capabilities, qualifies as a "mobile station" within the patent's scope.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory appears to equate the standard Bluetooth 4.0 protocol with the claimed method. A central question will be whether the specific sequence of operations in the Bluetooth standard, as implemented by the accused products, performs every step as recited in the claim. The complaint alleges the products use Bluetooth V4.0 (Compl. ¶20) but provides limited detail on the specific implementation beyond high-level functional descriptions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "mobile station"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claim, as the system requires both a "first mobile station" and a "second mobile station." The viability of the infringement case depends on both the smartphone running the app and the QardioArm peripheral device falling within the term's construed scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples differ from the accused peripheral.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term broadly as "a mobile communication device" without further express limitations. (’095 Patent, col. 4:1-2).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification immediately follows the definition with a narrowing example: "for example a handset." (’095 Patent, col. 4:2). The background section also frames the invention as an improvement over "two-way radios" and "cellular telephone systems," which could suggest the term implies a self-contained, general-purpose communication device rather than a tethered peripheral. (’095 Patent, col. 1:20-23).

• The Term: "direct communication link"

• Context and Importance: The patent's claimed novelty rests on establishing communications "directly" between stations, without the need for intermediary network infrastructure. The parties will likely dispute whether the Bluetooth connection between the QardioArm and a smartphone is "direct" in the manner contemplated by the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract states the invention involves establishing a "direct, digital communication link between mobile stations." (’095 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges the accused system "establishes a direct communication link." (Compl. ¶23).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently contrasts its "direct" approach with systems requiring "base stations" or a "fixed network of telephone lines." (’095 Patent, col. 1:15-16, 51-54). This context may support an interpretation where "direct" means free from any and all network intermediaries, not just public cellular or telephone networks.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Qardio actively induces its customers to infringe by "providing access to, support for, training and instructions for, its program." (Compl. ¶24). It further alleges that Qardio "specifically intended that its customers use its program in a manner that infringes." (Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge of this infringement of the '095 Patent no later than being served this complaint on June 11, 2018." (Compl. ¶25). This allegation may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness and a request for enhanced damages.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "mobile station," which the patent exemplifies with a "handset" in the context of improving on two-way radios and cell phones, be construed to cover a specialized, single-function peripheral like the QardioArm blood pressure monitor?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of infringement by standard: the complaint's infringement theory appears to rely on the accused products' implementation of the standardized Bluetooth 4.0 protocol. The case may turn on whether implementing this off-the-shelf standard, which post-dates the patent, is sufficient to meet every limitation of the asserted claim, and what evidence Plaintiff can produce regarding the specific operations of Defendant's products beyond their use of the standard.