Stormborn Tech LLC v. CalAmp Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: CalAmp Corp. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02037, D. Del., 10/28/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware, establishing residency for patent venue purposes under TC Heartland.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telematics devices, which function as wireless receivers, infringe a patent related to dynamically adjusting data throughput in a communications system based on channel error rates.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns adaptive data rate control in wireless spread-spectrum systems, a foundational technique for ensuring reliable communication in variable signal conditions, such as in cellular or satellite networks.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE44,199, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,247. The patent claims priority to an application filed in 2000, placing its technological context in the era of 3G and early 4G wireless system development.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,199, Variable throughput reduction communications system and method, issued May 7, 2013.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of signal interference in wireless communication systems, particularly when a mobile device is at the edge of a cellular coverage area and receives interfering signals from adjacent cells (’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Conventional methods to overcome this, such as increasing the processing gain, were inflexible and often required undesirable changes to the receiver's architecture or a reduction in data rate (’199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a closed-loop feedback system where a receiver actively monitors the quality of the incoming signal by calculating an error rate. Based on this error rate, a "command processor" in the receiver generates a control signal that is sent back to the original transmitter, instructing it to adjust its data rate up or down to maintain a reliable connection (’199 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 5). This allows the system to dynamically trade speed for reliability as channel conditions change (’199 Patent, col. 8:7-19).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for adaptively managing communication links to optimize performance, a crucial capability for mobile devices that frequently experience fluctuating signal quality.
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claims 11 (a receiver) and 13 (a method) (Compl. ¶16, 18).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 11 include:
    • demodulator circuitry for detecting transmitted signals.
    • decoder circuitry for decoding the signals and determining an error rate.
    • command processor circuitry that is responsive to the error rate and generates a data-rate control signal to be sent to the transmitter.
    • transmitting circuitry to convey the control signal back to the transmitter.
    • multiplexer circuitry to combine the decoded data into a single stream.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 13 are the method steps corresponding to the functions of the circuitry in claim 11.
  • The complaint notes that dependent claims 12 and 14 are also asserted (Compl. ¶17, 19).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "CalAmp TTU-1230" device (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶24).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the Accused Product as a "receiver for recovering wireless data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality of different subchannel signals transmitted over a wireless channel" (Compl. ¶24). The infringement allegations suggest the device incorporates circuitry and performs methods for demodulating, decoding, and processing wireless signals in a manner that tracks the language of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶25-37). The complaint alleges that the Accused Product practices the patented method "at least in internal testing and usage" (Compl. ¶31). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "exemplary claim chart" in Exhibit B, which was not filed with the complaint. The infringement theory is instead drawn from the narrative allegations in paragraphs 25-29, which map elements of claim 11 to the Accused Product.

’199 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations track the claim language in a conclusory manner. A central question will be what evidence exists that the Accused Product’s components perform the specific functions claimed. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the device's standard wireless chipset contains a "command processor circuitry" that generates a "data-rate control signal" for the specific purpose of controlling the transmitter's data rate, as opposed to providing general channel quality feedback used by the network for other purposes.
  • Scope Questions: The term "circuitry" is used throughout the claim. The dispute may focus on whether the functions alleged to be performed by the Accused Product are implemented in distinct hardware or software modules that meet the definition of "circuitry," or if they are performed by a general-purpose processor in a way that does not correspond to the distinct structures implied by the claims and described in the patent's figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "command processor circuitry"
• Context and Importance: This term describes the "brain" of the claimed feedback loop. The case will likely hinge on whether the Accused Product has a structure that meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint does not specify what component of the CalAmp TTU-1230 constitutes this "circuitry" or how it is "responsive to the error rate" to generate the specific control signal.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the element functionally as a "command processor" (element 59 in Fig. 5) that "determines a data rate" in response to a "syndrome" or error rate signal, and notes it has a "communications link" to the transmitter, suggesting its implementation could be varied (’199 Patent, col. 8:7-13, 8:42-45).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed figures show the "command processor" as a distinct structural block separate from the "decoder" and "multiplexer", which could support an argument that the term requires a physically or logically distinct component, not merely a function performed by a general-purpose processor that also handles other tasks (’199 Patent, Fig. 5).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of induced infringement, stating Defendant encouraged infringement, knew the acts constituted infringement, and that the encouragement resulted in direct infringement (Compl. ¶43). No specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials, are provided to support this allegation.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’199 Patent "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶41). This allegation appears to be aimed at potential post-filing willful infringement, as no pre-suit knowledge is asserted.

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary mapping: Can Plaintiff produce evidence that the standard components within the CalAmp TTU-1230 device contain specific, identifiable structures that perform the distinct functions of the claimed "demodulator circuitry," "decoder circuitry," and especially the "command processor circuitry," or will discovery show these functions are performed by a generic, integrated processor in a manner that does not map to the claim's delineated structure?
• A key technical question will be one of functional purpose: Does the Accused Product's feedback mechanism, if one exists, generate and transmit a "data-rate control signal" for the specific purpose of "controlling operation of circuitry at the transmitter," as claimed? The defense may argue that any channel quality information sent by the device is part of a standard network protocol for general network management, not for the direct, closed-loop rate control described in the ’199 Patent.
• A third question concerns the basis of knowledge for infringement, particularly for the method claims. The complaint alleges the patented method is practiced "at least in internal testing and usage" (Compl. ¶31-37), which raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff possesses regarding Defendant's use of the accused system and whether such use occurs in the ordinary operation of the products in the field.