DCT
1:19-cv-02038
Stormborn Tech LLC v. Ge MDS LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Ge MDS, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02038, D. Del., 10/28/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district for purposes of patent venue.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "MDS Orbit" wireless communication device infringes a patent directed to a system and method for adaptively controlling data transmission rates based on the error rate measured at the receiver.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns adaptive data rate control in spread-spectrum communication systems, a technique used to optimize performance and maintain reliable connections in environments with variable signal quality and interference.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissue patent, U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,199, which stems from a patent family with a priority claim dating to June 2000. No other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-06-14 | Earliest Priority Date for '199 Patent |
| 2013-05-07 | U.S. Patent No. RE44,199 Issued |
| 2019-10-28 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,199 - "Variable throughput reduction communications system and method"
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem in multi-cell wireless communication systems where a device near a cell boundary experiences significant signal interference from adjacent cells, which can degrade the data connection to an unusable level (Compl. ¶13; ’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Prior methods to combat this, such as statically increasing the signal processing gain, were described as inefficient because they reduced the data rate and could require complex changes to the receiver's architecture (Compl. ¶14; ’199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a closed-loop feedback system to dynamically adjust the data transmission rate in response to real-time channel conditions. A receiver analyzes the error rate of incoming data (e.g., by generating a "syndrome signal" from an error-correction decoder) and, based on this rate, a "command processor" generates a "data-rate control signal." This control signal is then sent back to the transmitter, which adjusts its data rate accordingly to maintain a desired level of signal quality (Compl. ¶15; ’199 Patent, col. 2:62-67; Fig. 5).
- Technical Importance: This adaptive approach allows a communication system to maximize its data throughput when channel conditions are good and reduce the rate to maintain a reliable link when conditions worsen, rather than operating at a fixed, worst-case-scenario rate (’199 Patent, col. 2:10-18).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claims 11 (a receiver) and 13 (a method).
- Independent Claim 11 recites a receiver comprising five key elements:
- "demodulator circuitry" for detecting transmitted signals.
- "decoder circuitry" for Forward Error Correction (FEC) decoding, which provides decoded channels that each have an "error rate".
- "command processor circuitry" that is responsive to the "error rate" and generates a "data-rate control signal" to control the transmitter's data rate.
- "transmitting circuitry" for sending the "data-rate control signal" back to the transmitter.
- "multiplexer circuitry" for combining the decoded channels into a single data stream.
- Independent Claim 13 recites a method with steps that largely mirror the functions of the circuitry in claim 11.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 12 and 14, which add the limitation of decoding FEC codes of different rates (Compl. ¶¶17, 19).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "MDS Orbit" device offered by Defendant GE MDS, LLC (Compl. ¶24).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the MDS Orbit is a "receiver for recovering wireless data" that performs the functions recited in the asserted claims (Compl. ¶24). The infringement allegations state that the device includes circuitry for demodulating and decoding signals, generating a data-rate control signal based on an error rate, and transmitting that signal back to a data transmitter (Compl. ¶¶25-29). The complaint alleges infringement occurs, at a minimum, during "internal testing and usage" by the Defendant (Compl. ¶31). The complaint does not provide further detail on the product's market context or commercial importance.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s infringement allegations are presented in a conclusory manner, referencing an "exemplary claim chart" attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶24). This exhibit was not included in the filing. The analysis below summarizes the direct allegations from the complaint's text.
’199 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 11)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A receiver for recovering wireless data...comprising: demodulator circuitry for detecting the transmitted signals in a plurality of demodulated channels; | The complaint alleges the Accused Product includes demodulator circuitry for detecting transmitted signals. No further technical detail is provided beyond referencing the non-included Exhibit B. | ¶25 | col. 6:7-14 |
| decoder circuitry for FEC decoding and de-interleaving the plurality of demodulated channels, providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate; | The complaint alleges the Accused Product includes decoder circuitry for FEC decoding and de-interleaving, which provides decoded channels having an error rate. | ¶26 | col. 6:15-20 |
| command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels for generating a data-rate control signal...the data rate control signal controlling operation of circuitry at the transmitter to produce the desired data rate... | The complaint alleges the Accused Product includes command processor circuitry that is responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels to generate a data-rate control signal for controlling the transmitter. | ¶27 | col. 8:7-19 |
| transmitting circuitry for conveying the error rate dependent rate control signal back to the data symbol transmitter; | The complaint alleges the Accused Product includes transmitting circuitry for sending the error rate dependent rate control signal back to the transmitter. | ¶28 | col. 7:42-45 |
| and multiplexer circuitry for combining the multiplicity of decoded channels into a signal stream of received data. | The complaint alleges the Accused Product includes multiplexer circuitry for combining the decoded channels into a received data stream. | ¶29 | col. 7:54-59 |
The complaint makes parallel allegations for the method steps of Claim 13 (Compl. ¶¶31-36).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint’s allegations are highly conclusory and rely on a non-public exhibit. A central question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that the MDS Orbit device actually performs each claimed function. Specifically, what evidence demonstrates that the accused device (1) calculates an "error rate" from "decoded channels," (2) uses a "command processor" that is specifically "responsive" to that error rate, and (3) generates and transmits a "data-rate control signal" that controls the operation of a separate transmitter?
- Technical Questions: Does the accused device's mechanism for adapting to signal quality operate in the manner required by the claims? For example, does it use outputs from an FEC decoder to measure the error rate, as described in the patent’s preferred embodiment (’199 Patent, col. 8:7-14), or does it use a different metric for signal quality (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio) that may fall outside the scope of the claims?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate"
Context and Importance: This term is the functional core of the claimed invention, defining the "brain" of the feedback loop. Its construction will likely determine whether the claims cover any system that reacts to signal quality, or only systems that employ the specific logic described in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the mechanism of responsiveness, which a party might argue supports a construction covering any processor that uses an error rate metric as an input to generate a control output.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the command processor as operating in response to a "syndrome signal" generated by the FEC decoder (’199 Patent, col. 2:57-62; col. 8:7-14). A party could argue this context limits the scope of "responsive to the error rate" to systems that use this specific type of input from the decoder.
The Term: "data-rate control signal"
Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the information sent from the receiver back to the transmitter. Its definition is critical to establishing what the accused device must be shown to transmit to infringe.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term covers any signal that results in a change to the transmitter's data rate, such as a simple "increase/decrease" command.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the command processor "generates a data-rate command signal having the desired data rate" (’199 Patent, col. 4:62-64). This language may support a narrower construction requiring the signal to convey a specific, absolute data rate value, not just a relative adjustment command.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a boilerplate allegation of induced infringement, stating Defendant encouraged infringement with knowledge that the induced acts constituted infringement (Compl. ¶43). No specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials, are provided to support this allegation.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶41). This allegation, if proven, could support a finding of post-suit willful infringement. The prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages (Compl. ¶10(f)).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "responsive to the error rate," which is tied in the specification to an FEC decoder's "syndrome signal," be construed broadly enough to read on the specific method, if any, that the accused MDS Orbit device uses to assess signal quality and adapt its performance?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: given the conclusory nature of the complaint, what evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused product's internal operations map onto the specific components of the patent's closed-loop system? The case may turn on whether the accused device can be shown to generate and transmit a discrete "data-rate control signal" back to a transmitter, as opposed to employing a more generalized or self-contained signal quality adaptation mechanism.