DCT
1:18-cv-01507
RICPI Communications LLC v. JPS Interoperability Solutions Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: RICPI Communications LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: JPS Interoperability Solutions, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC; Ferraiuoli LLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01507, D. Del., 09/27/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "NXU-2A Radio to RoIP Interface" product infringes a patent related to systems and methods for enabling two-way radio communications over a computer network.
- Technical Context: The technology, commonly known as Radio over IP (RoIP), involves bridging conventional two-way radio systems with packet-switched networks like the Internet, allowing for communications over greater distances than would be possible with direct radio-to-radio links.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. It notes only that the patent was issued after a "full and fair examination."
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-07-23 | ’806 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-02-19 | ’806 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-09-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,333,806 - "System and Method for Enabling Two-Way Radio Communications Over a Computer Network"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,333,806, "System and Method for Enabling Two-Way Radio Communications Over a Computer Network," issued February 19, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional long-range two-way radio networks as reliant on "audio switching networks or dedicated telephone lines," which require a "costly infrastructure" (’806 Patent, col. 2:36-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes replacing this costly infrastructure with a computer network. The system works by having a first two-way radio transmit a unique "signal code" to a local base station, which is then used by a controller to look up the IP address of a target base station (’806 Patent, col. 3:20-30). A "bi-directional computer network link" is then established between the base stations over the computer network (e.g., the Internet), allowing for the exchange of radio communications that have been translated into a digital format (’806 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:30-39).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to leverage the efficiency and lower cost of packet-switched computer networks, which were becoming pervasive, to reduce the expense of long-distance two-way radio communications (’806 Patent, col. 2:41-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 24).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- (a) a first two-way radio comprising means for selecting and transmitting a signal code and means for sending/receiving communication signals.
- (b) a shared, public base/repeater station comprising a decoder for decoding the signal code and a controller with a "means for... correlating said decoded signal to one or more internet addresses" to establish a network link.
- (c) at least one target base station comprising a controller for establishing the network link and means for sending/receiving signals to a second radio.
- (d) at least one second two-way radio.
- (e) whereby communications are bi-directionally exchanged between the first and second radios via the computer network link established between the base station controllers.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "NXU-2A Radio to RoIP Interface" (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶ 13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a system for two-way radio communication that functions as a "network extender unit" (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 17). It is alleged to establish a "bi-directional computer network link (e.g., internet connection)" between a local base station and a target base station, thereby enabling the exchange of two-way radio signals over an IP network (Compl. ¶ 17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’806 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) a first two-way radio comprising: (i) a means for selecting and transmitting a signal code to a shared, public base/repeater station... | The Accused Product comprises a first two-way radio with a means (e.g., a keypad) for selecting and transmitting a signal code (e.g., a PTT signal code) to a shared base/repeater station. | ¶14 | col. 5:7-8 |
| (b) said shared, public base/repeater station comprising: (i) a base/repeater station decoder... for decoding the signal code... and transferring said signal... (ii) wherein said base/repeater station controller comprises a means for... correlating said decoded signal to one or more internet addresses... by which there is established a bi-directional computer network link... | The Accused Product comprises a shared base/repeater station with a decoder. The station's controller receives the decoded signal and correlates it to an IP address associated with a target base station to establish a bi-directional IP network link for exchanging radio signals. | ¶¶15-16 | col. 5:16-34 |
| (c) wherein said at least one said target base station comprises: (i) a target station controller... comprising a means for establishing a bi-directional computer network link with said shared, public base/repeater station... | The Accused Product comprises a target base station with a target station controller. The system utilizes an "NXU, network extender unit" to establish the bi-directional computer network link between the shared and target base stations. | ¶17 | col. 5:40-45 |
| (d) at least one second two-way radio comprising: (i) a means for receiving... signals from said at least one target base station; and (ii) a means for sending... signals to said at least one target base station... | The Accused Product comprises at least one second two-way radio, described as the "second terminal to which first radio is in communication with," which has a receiver and transmitter for communicating with the target base station. | ¶18 | col. 5:49-53 |
| (e) whereby two-way radio communication signals are bi-directionally exchanged directly between said first two-way radio and said second two-way radio via said bi-directional computer network link directly between said shared, public base/repeater station controller and said target station controller. | The Accused Product provides for bi-directional exchange of communication signals between the first and second radios via the computer network link established between the controllers of the shared and target stations. | ¶19 | col. 5:54-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires "a shared, public base/repeater station" that comprises a specific decoder and controller (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16). The complaint alleges the Accused Product comprises this station. However, the product's name, "NXU-2A Radio to RoIP Interface," suggests it may be a peripheral device that connects to a base station rather than being one itself. This raises the question of whether the accused system includes an element that meets the "base/repeater station" limitation as claimed.
- Technical Questions: Claim 1 is written in means-plus-function format, such as the "means for... correlating said decoded signal to one or more internet addresses" (’806 Patent, col. 5:27-29). Infringement will require showing that the accused device performs the identical function using structure that is the same as, or equivalent to, the "computer based relational database" or other "directory means" disclosed in the patent's specification (’806 Patent, col. 4:9-16, 60-64). The evidence supporting the specific correlation mechanism within the Accused Product will be central to this inquiry.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "means for... correlating said decoded signal to one or more internet addresses"
Context and Importance: This means-plus-function term is at the core of the invention, defining how the system bridges the radio and IP network domains. The scope of this term is restricted to the specific structures disclosed in the specification for performing the correlation function, and their equivalents. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on how the court defines this structure.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the specification describes the structure broadly as a "lead controller 70" that employs a "correlation means" which can be accomplished by "any suitable means known to those skilled in the art," suggesting a range of possible implementations (’806 Patent, col. 4:58-64).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could counter that the specification discloses a more specific structure: a controller that uses a "directory means" to reference "a location in a database directory containing destination IP addresses" (’806 Patent, col. 4:5-12). This could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to systems that use a database lookup mechanism.
The Term: "shared, public base/repeater station"
Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges the accused "NXU-2A Radio to RoIP Interface" system comprises this element (Compl. ¶ 15). Whether the accused product can be properly characterized as a "base/repeater station" or is merely an accessory to one could be a dispositive issue for direct infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for this term. A party advocating for a broad construction might argue it should encompass any hardware that serves as the interface between a radio and a computer network in the claimed system.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "base/repeater station" is a well-understood term of art in the radio communications field that requires specific hardware (e.g., a high-power transceiver and antenna) not necessarily present in a device described as an "interface." The patent's own Figure 1 depicts the "base station/repeater" (50) as a component distinct from the "decoder" (60) and "controller" (70), which could support an argument that the interface functions are separate from the station itself.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant "sells, offers to sell and advertises the Accused Product... specifically intending that its customers use it" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶ 32). The basis for intent appears to be Defendant's marketing and sale of a product whose intended use allegedly infringes the patent.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement. It alleges knowledge of infringement only "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 31), which would only support a claim for enhanced damages based on post-filing conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the accused "NXU-2A Radio to RoIP Interface" be properly construed as a "shared, public base/repeater station" as required by Claim 1, or is it a separate component that works with, but is not, a base station? The answer to this may determine whether the accused system directly infringes.
- A second central issue will be one of structural equivalence under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): for the various "means for" limitations in Claim 1, does the Accused Product employ structures that are identical or equivalent to the specific controllers, decoders, and database-driven correlation mechanisms disclosed in the ’806 patent’s specification?