RICPI Communications LLC v. Cubic Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RICPI Communications LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Cubic Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC; Ferraiuoli LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01508, D. Del., 09/27/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the District of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Vocality BASICS Radio Relay" product infringes a patent related to systems and methods for enabling two-way radio communications over a computer network.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns bridging conventional two-way radio systems with IP-based computer networks, such as the Internet, to extend communication range and reduce reliance on costly, dedicated telecommunication lines.
• 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.

Case Timeline

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," issued February 19, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional long-range two-way radio networks (TWRN) as reliant on "costly infrastructure" such as "audio switching networks or dedicated telephone lines" to connect disparate base stations. (’806 Patent, col. 2:33-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to bridge these radio networks using a general-purpose computer network like the Internet. A user with a two-way radio transmits a specific "signal code" to a local base/repeater station. A controller at that station receives the decoded signal, "correlates" it to an Internet Protocol (IP) address of a target base station, and establishes a "bi-directional computer network link" to exchange the radio communications in a digital format. (’806 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:20-38). This architecture is depicted in Figure 1, which shows two radio systems connected via a "network link" (80).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to leverage the efficiency and lower cost of packet-switched computer networks to provide a more economical alternative to traditional circuit-switched TWRN infrastructure. (’806 Patent, col. 2:41-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 24).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
  • A first two-way radio with means for selecting and transmitting a signal code.
  • A "shared, public base/repeater station" comprising a decoder and a controller.
  • The controller comprises a "means for... correlating said decoded signal to one or more internet addresses associated with at least one target base station" to establish a "bi-directional computer network link."
  • A "target base station" with a controller for establishing the network link and means for communicating with a second two-way radio.
  • A second two-way radio.
  • An operational state whereby communication signals are "bi-directionally exchanged directly" between the first and second radios via the network link connecting the station controllers.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the "Vocality BASICS Radio Relay" as 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 an "automatic radio-relay station". (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). It is alleged to connect two-way radios via a repeater transmission scheme. (Compl. ¶14). The complaint references a product webpage with the URL path "radio-to-sip," suggesting the product's function is to bridge radio frequency communications with Voice over IP (VoIP) communications using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). (Compl. ¶13, fn. 1).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’806 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 is written in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). A central dispute will concern whether the specific structures within the Accused Product (e.g., its processor, software, and network interfaces) are structurally equivalent to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent's specification, such as the "computer based relational database" described as a "preferable" means for correlation. (’806 Patent, col. 4:11-13, 60-62).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the Accused Product performs "correlating said decoded signal to one or more internet addresses." (Compl. ¶16). A key evidentiary question will be whether the Accused Product's "radio-to-sip" functionality operates by "correlating" a radio-side "signal code" to a network-side IP address, as claimed, or if it functions through a different technical mechanism, such as a statically configured gateway or a different protocol translation method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "means for... correlating said decoded signal to one or more internet addresses"

• Context and Importance: This term recites the core inventive concept of linking a radio signal to a specific network destination. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the Accused Product's method for bridging radio and IP networks falls within the scope of this "means." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the specific algorithm or structure required to infringe.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that correlation is "preferably" done by a "computer relational database" but that "any suitable means known to those skilled in the art" may be used, and that a "directory means" can be used for "referencing a location in a database directory." (’806 Patent, col. 4:11-14, 60-64). This language could support a construction that is not strictly limited to a database lookup.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment described involves using a "database directory containing destination IP addresses" and a "computer based relational database." (’806 Patent, col. 4:5-13, 60-62). A party could argue that these specific disclosed structures cabin the scope of the "means" to a system that performs a lookup in a pre-populated directory.

• The Term: "shared, public base/repeater station"

• Context and Importance: The characterization of the base station as "shared" and "public" may be a point of dispute. Infringement could turn on whether the Accused Product, when deployed, constitutes a "public" station or a private gateway for a single entity.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "shared" or "public." This may support a plain and ordinary meaning where "shared" simply means usable by more than one radio unit and "public" distinguishes it from a personal, non-repeater device.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background discusses "TWRN" (Two-Way Radio Networking), a term often associated with community repeater systems or services open to multiple subscribers. (’806 Patent, col. 2:18-20). A party could argue that "public" implies a station accessible to a general group of users, potentially excluding a product used as a private enterprise gateway.

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." (Compl. ¶32). The complaint alleges that Defendant "knew or should have known" its actions would induce infringement by its customers. (Compl. ¶32).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a count for willful infringement. It alleges that Defendant's knowledge of infringement began "at least as of the service of the present complaint," which could support a claim for post-filing willful infringement but does not allege pre-suit knowledge. (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 31).

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

• A core issue will be one of structural equivalence: As Claim 1 is drafted in means-plus-function format, the case will likely turn on whether the specific hardware and software architecture of the "Vocality BASICS Radio Relay" is equivalent to the "computer based relational database" and controller structures disclosed in the '806 patent for performing the claimed functions of "correlating" and establishing a network link.
• A second central question will be evidentiary: Do the internal operations of the Accused Product, once revealed in discovery, actually perform the claimed step of "correlating" a radio-originated "signal code" to a specific "internet address"? The complaint's pre-discovery allegations, which rely on high-level product marketing, will need to be substantiated with technical evidence showing a direct mapping between the accused functionality and the claim limitations.