DCT

1:19-cv-01590

InterDigital Technology Corp v. Lenovo Holding Co Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01590, D. Del., 12/09/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as each Defendant was incorporated in Delaware and therefore resides within the district for purposes of patent venue.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cellular-enabled devices, including smartphones and tablets, infringe eight patents related to efficient data transmission and channel quality reporting in 3G and 4G wireless networks.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational challenges in mobile communications, such as managing bursty internet data on voice-centric networks and efficiently reporting channel conditions to optimize data rates.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of unsuccessful multi-year licensing negotiations between the parties. It also notes that the patents-in-suit have been disclosed to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) as potentially essential to cellular standards, implicating Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations, which are the subject of a parallel action filed by the Plaintiff in the United Kingdom.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-05-19 Priority Date for ’665 and ’954 Patents
2001-05-14 Priority Date for ’726, ’612, and ’449 Patents
2006-01-31 Priority Date for ’747 and ’580 Patents
2006-08-21 Priority Date for ’873 Patent
2011-12-27 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,085,665
2012-06-12 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,199,726
2013-04-23 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,427,954
2013-12-31 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,619,747
2014-03-18 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,675,612
2015-08-05 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,797,873
2015-12-01 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,203,580
2016-09-27 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,456,449
2019-08-28 Original Complaint Filing Date
2019-12-09 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,085,665 - “AUTOMATIC REVERSE CHANNEL ASSIGNMENT IN A TWO-WAY TDM COMMUNICATION SYSTEM,” Issued Dec. 27, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency of using wireless networks originally designed for continuous voice traffic to handle the "burst-oriented" nature of Internet data, such as web page requests (’665 Patent, col. 1:33-36, 1:51-54). Specifically, protocols like TCP/IP require acknowledgment messages, and allocating a channel for these short messages was a time-consuming process that created overhead (Compl. ¶15; ’665 Patent, col. 2:38-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where forward link (base station to device) and reverse link (device to base station) time slots are automatically assigned in pairs (’665 Patent, Abstract). When a device receives a data packet in a specific forward link time slot, a corresponding reverse link time slot is automatically allocated a predetermined amount of time later for sending an acknowledgment message, without requiring a separate, explicit allocation request from the device (’665 Patent, col. 2:56-65).
  • Technical Importance: This method was designed to reduce messaging overhead and latency for acknowledgment-based protocols like TCP/IP in a cellular network, thereby improving the efficiency of handling internet traffic (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶74).
  • Essential elements of claim 18 include:
    • A code division multiple access (CDMA) subscriber unit comprising circuitry.
    • Circuitry configured to receive a first wireless CDMA signal in a first time interval containing at least one time slot.
    • Circuitry configured, in response to receiving the first signal, to transmit an acknowledgement in a second time interval.
    • The second time interval is a predetermined time interval after the first time interval.
    • A specific allocation of the second time interval is not received by the CDMA subscriber unit.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶74).

U.S. Patent No. 8,199,726 - “CHANNEL QUALITY MEASUREMENTS FOR DOWNLINK RESOURCE ALLOCATION,” Issued Jun. 12, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In wireless systems, a user device must report channel quality (CQ) to the base station so the network can allocate resources efficiently. The patent notes a trade-off: reporting detailed CQ for every channel resource provides the most information but creates significant data overhead, while reporting a single value is inefficient if channel conditions vary across different resources (’726 Patent, col. 5:10-18; Compl. ¶22).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for generating a more compact CQ report. The user device measures the channel quality for a plurality of downlink resources (e.g., different frequency sub-bands), derives a single "first channel quality indication" for the group (e.g., an average or mean quality), and then derives a plurality of "difference indications" that represent how the quality of each individual resource deviates from that first indication (’726 Patent, col. 6:11-27; Compl. ¶23). This differential reporting requires fewer bits than transmitting the absolute quality value for every resource (’726 Patent, col. 6:24-27).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to reduce the signaling overhead required for channel quality feedback in systems with multiple downlink resources, allowing the network to make more granular resource allocation decisions without consuming excessive uplink bandwidth (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶79).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A user equipment (UE) comprising a measurement device, a channel quality determination device, and a transmitting device.
    • The measurement device is configured to take a plurality of measurements based on downlink quality, with each measurement on a respective downlink resource of a plurality of downlink resources.
    • The channel quality determination device is configured to derive a first channel quality indication for the plurality of downlink resources and to derive a plurality of difference indications, each being between the first channel quality indication and the quality indication for one of the downlink resources.
    • The transmitting device is configured to transmit at least one report including the first channel quality indication and the plurality of difference indications.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶79).

U.S. Patent No. 8,427,954 - “AUTOMATIC REVERSE CHANNEL ASSIGNMENT IN A TWO-WAY TDM COMMUNICATION SYSTEM,” Issued Apr. 23, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: Stemming from the same application as the ’665 patent, this patent addresses efficient handling of feedback information (’954 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶28). The invention provides for a subscriber unit to transmit feedback on one of two different uplink channels depending on whether an explicit allocation for the first channel was received, with one of these transmissions occurring automatically at a predetermined time after a downlink transmission (Compl. ¶30-31).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶84).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Motorola-branded smartphones operating on LTE networks infringe by using different physical uplink channels (PUSCH and PUCCH) to transmit feedback information depending on whether an explicit allocation is received (Compl. ¶84).

U.S. Patent No. 8,619,747 - “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING AND UTILIZING A NON-CONTENTION BASED CHANNEL IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM,” Issued Dec. 31, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a non-contention based (NCB) uplink control channel to address shortcomings of contention-based (e.g., RACH) or dedicated channels for varied traffic mixes in LTE systems (’747 Patent, col. 1:30-32, 1:44-48). A wireless device (WTRU) receives an allocation for transmitting scheduling requests on a time-multiplexed NCB channel, allowing for low-latency requests via a "burst" with minimal overhead (Compl. ¶34, ¶36).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify a claim number, but details infringement of a processor-based apparatus claim (Compl. ¶89).
  • Accused Features: Motorola-branded smartphones are accused of infringing by receiving allocations for and transmitting scheduling requests (SRs) over a time-multiplexed, non-contention based uplink control channel (Compl. ¶89).

U.S. Patent No. 8,675,612 - “CHANNEL QUALITY MEASUREMENTS FOR DOWNLINK RESOURCE ALLOCATION,” Issued Mar. 18, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: Sharing a specification with the ’726 patent, this invention focuses on how channel quality reports are transmitted over time (’612 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶39). The user equipment derives channel qualities for multiple downlink resources and transmits them in a pattern of time intervals by "rotating" through the derived qualities, such that each quality is sent in a different interval and not every interval in a frame contains a report (Compl. ¶41, ¶94).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: Motorola-branded smartphones are accused of infringing by deriving channel qualities for multiple downlink resources and transmitting them in a rotating pattern of time intervals (Compl. ¶94).

U.S. Patent No. 8,797,873 - “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING SCHEDULING INFORMATION IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORK,” Issued Aug. 5, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses a "blocking" problem in HSUPA systems where a device cannot transmit data if its granted power is below the minimum needed to send a full data packet (’873 Patent, col. 1:26-29, col. 2:11-18). The solution is for the device to trigger the transmission of scheduling information (SI) in response to having a non-zero grant that is smaller than needed, thereby preventing it from transmitting and alerting the network to the issue (Compl. ¶45).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 6 is asserted (Compl. ¶99).
  • Accused Features: Motorola-branded smartphones with HSUPA capabilities are accused of infringing by triggering the transmission of scheduling information when their transmission grant is non-zero but too small to transmit a protocol data unit (PDU) (Compl. ¶99).

U.S. Patent No. 9,203,580 - “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING AND UTILIZING A NON-CONTENTION BASED CHANNEL IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM,” Issued Dec. 1, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: Sharing a specification with the ’747 patent, this invention also relates to the use of a non-contention based (NCB) uplink control channel (’580 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶50). It details a device receiving an allocation from an evolved Node B (eNB) for the NCB channel, transmitting a scheduling request as a burst, monitoring a downlink channel for a subsequent allocation, and then transmitting data on an uplink shared channel (Compl. ¶104).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶104).
  • Accused Features: Motorola-branded smartphones are accused of infringing by using an NCB uplink control channel to transmit scheduling requests (SRs) as a burst and subsequently receiving a resource allocation on a downlink control channel (Compl. ¶104).

U.S. Patent No. 9,456,449 - “CHANNEL QUALITY MEASUREMENTS FOR DOWNLINK RESOURCE ALLOCATION,” Issued Sep. 27, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: Sharing a specification with the ’726 and ’612 patents, this invention also concerns efficient channel quality reporting (’449 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶54). A user equipment determines a first channel quality indication for a plurality of downlink resources and a second indication for a particular resource, both used to indicate a modulation and coding set (MCS) to the base station. The report comprises both indications, with the second reported as a differential relative to the first (Compl. ¶56-58).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶109).
  • Accused Features: Motorola-branded smartphones are accused of infringing by determining and transmitting channel quality reports that include a first quality indication for multiple downlink resources and a second, differential indication for a particular resource (Compl. ¶109).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are collectively identified as “Lenovo Wireless Devices” (Compl. ¶65). This category includes Motorola-branded and Lenovo-branded smartphones, cellular-enabled tablets, and notebook computers sold in the U.S. that are capable of operating on WCDMA, HSPA, and/or LTE cellular networks (Compl. ¶64, 65, 74, 79, 99). The complaint provides photographs of a purchased Motorola G7 smartphone as a representative example (Compl. ¶66).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these devices incorporate processors and circuitry that perform fundamental cellular communication functions (Compl. ¶74, 79, 89). The accused functionality includes receiving and transmitting signals according to 3G and 4G standards, such as automatically sending acknowledgements in WCDMA systems (Compl. ¶74), performing and reporting detailed multi-resource channel quality measurements in LTE systems (Compl. ¶79), and utilizing non-contention based channels for scheduling requests in LTE (Compl. ¶89). Lenovo is alleged to design, manufacture, and sell these devices in the U.S. through its own and third-party websites and cellular providers (Compl. ¶64-66).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’665 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A code division multiple access (CDMA) subscriber unit comprising: Motorola-branded smartphones are alleged to be CDMA subscriber units with WCDMA capabilities. ¶74 col. 4:50-54
circuitry configured to receive a first wireless CDMA signal in a first time interval, wherein the first time interval includes at least one time slot; The smartphones are alleged to have circuitry to receive a first wireless CDMA signal in a first time interval. ¶74 col. 7:52-65
and circuitry configured, in response to receipt of the first wireless CDMA signal, to transmit an acknowledgement in a second time interval, In response to receiving the signal, the smartphones are alleged to have circuitry to transmit an acknowledgement. ¶74 col. 8:7-13
wherein the second time interval is a predetermined time interval after the first time interval The second time interval is alleged to be a predetermined interval after the first. ¶74 col. 5:65-6:3
and a specific allocation of the second time interval is not received by the CDMA subscriber unit. The smartphones are alleged to transmit the acknowledgement without receiving a specific allocation for the second time interval. ¶74 col. 2:56-60
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "CDMA subscriber unit," as used in a patent with a 2000 priority date, can be construed to read on the accused modern "WCDMA" and LTE devices (Compl. ¶74). The technical specifics of how "WCDMA" differs from the "CDMA" described in the patent may be a focus of dispute.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on what constitutes a "predetermined time interval" and the absence of a "specific allocation" in the operation of the accused devices. The court may need to determine whether the timing and signaling mechanisms in the 3GPP standards implemented by the accused devices function in the same way as the automatic, paired-slot allocation described and claimed in the patent (’665 Patent, col. 2:56-65).

’726 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A user equipment (UE), comprising: a measurement device configured to take a plurality of measurements based on a downlink quality, wherein each of the plurality of measurements is taken on a respective downlink resource of a plurality of downlink resources; Motorola-branded smartphones allegedly constitute user equipment with a measurement device that takes multiple measurements of channel quality on a respective plurality of downlink resources, such as a plurality of subbands. ¶79 col. 4:1-11
a channel quality determination device configured to: derive a first channel quality indication indicating a channel quality of the plurality of downlink resources; The smartphones allegedly include a device that derives a first channel quality indication for the plurality of resources, such as a wideband report. ¶79 col. 9:11-16
and derive a plurality of difference indications, each difference indication being between the first channel quality indication and a channel quality indication for one of the plurality of downlink resources; The device allegedly derives multiple difference indications, such as subband differential values, representing the difference between subband quality and wideband quality. ¶79 col. 9:16-20
and a transmitting device configured to transmit at least one report including the first channel quality indication and the plurality of difference indications. The smartphones allegedly include a transmitting device configured to transmit a report containing both the first quality indication and the difference indications. ¶79 col. 9:5-10
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on the definitions of "first channel quality indication" and "difference indications." The complaint maps these terms to "wideband report" and "subband differential values," respectively (Compl. ¶79). The court will likely examine whether the functions and characteristics of these standard-defined terms align with the meaning of the claim terms as supported by the patent's specification and prosecution history.
    • Technical Questions: A key question is whether the accused devices, in implementing LTE standards, perform the specific two-part derivation process claimed: first deriving a single metric for a plurality of resources, and second, deriving differentials from that metric. The prosecution history cited in the complaint suggests the patentees distinguished their invention from prior art that only measured a single resource at multiple times (Compl. ¶24-25), making the "plurality of downlink resources" limitation a likely point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’665 Patent

  • The Term: "a specific allocation of the second time interval is not received"
  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is the core of the invention's "automatic" nature, distinguishing it from prior art systems that required explicit signaling to set up a channel for an acknowledgment message. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend on whether the signaling protocols used in the accused WCDMA devices lack the "specific allocation" that the patent sought to avoid.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent contrasts its invention with a multi-step, explicit allocation process involving "access," "paging," and "traffic" channel messages (’665 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 6:47-65). This could support a reading where "specific allocation" refers to any such multi-message channel setup procedure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states, "no control signaling is required on the paging channel 41 to allocate reverse link time slots for the acknowledgment messages" (’665 Patent, col. 6:9-12). This could support a narrower definition where the absence of a "specific allocation" means only the absence of a message on a paging channel, potentially permitting other forms of allocation signaling.

’726 Patent

  • The Term: "plurality of downlink resources"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the patent’s alleged novelty, as argued during prosecution, lies in measuring multiple distinct resources (e.g., frequency sub-bands) rather than a single resource (e.g., a pilot channel) at multiple points in time (Compl. ¶24). Infringement will hinge on whether the accused devices' measurement of "a plurality of subbands" (Compl. ¶79) falls within the scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a "collection of one or more timeslots is allocated together, it may be referred to as a sub-channel" and that "interference in all of the timeslots or sub-channels is not equal" (’726 Patent, col. 2:15-19). This suggests "resources" can broadly mean timeslots or sub-channels where channel quality can vary independently.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The arguments made during prosecution to overcome the "Lundby" prior art reference, as described in the complaint, may be used to argue for a narrower construction (Compl. ¶24-25). A defendant might argue that "plurality of downlink resources" requires resources that are qualitatively different in a way that the accused device's "subbands" are not, or that it excludes measuring a single channel type across different time slots.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all patents-in-suit. The basis for inducement is the allegation that Lenovo designs the accused devices with the infringing capabilities and encourages infringement by publishing user manuals and promotional literature, and by offering technical support that instructs customers on using the devices in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶75, 80, 85).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement. The basis for willfulness includes alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents through "patent licensing discussions for several years" (Compl. ¶60), disclosures made to the ETSI standards body (Compl. ¶61), and Lenovo’s own patent prosecution activities citing InterDigital patents (Compl. ¶62). Post-suit knowledge is alleged based on the service of the original complaint on August 28, 2019 (Compl. ¶63, 75).

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

This litigation presents several complex technical and legal questions for the court. The outcome will likely depend on the resolution of the following core issues:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope and technological evolution: Can claim terms from patents with priority dates in the early 2000s, written in the context of TDM and early CDMA systems, be construed to cover the distinct protocols and architectures of modern WCDMA and LTE standards? For example, does a "CDMA subscriber unit" (’665 Patent) read on a device implementing the WCDMA standard, and do the complex CQI reporting schemes in LTE map to the specific "first indication" and "difference indication" language of the ’726 Patent?
  • A second key issue will be one of functional operation: The infringement analysis will require a detailed technical comparison of how the accused devices actually operate versus the specific steps required by the claims. A central question will be whether the accused devices' standards-based operations achieve the claimed results in the same fundamental way as the patented inventions, such as whether the timing of an acknowledgement message in an accused device is truly "predetermined" and sent without a "specific allocation" as claimed in the ’665 Patent.
  • A pervasive legal question will be the role of standards-essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND obligations: The complaint acknowledges that the patents are declared as potentially essential to cellular standards and are subject to FRAND licensing commitments. While distinct from the technical infringement analysis, the ongoing licensing dispute and parallel UK litigation (Compl. ¶71) will form a critical backdrop to the case, influencing everything from discovery to potential remedies and damages calculations.