Stormborn Tech LLC v. Leica Geosystems Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Leica Geosystems, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02039, 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.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s professional GPS receiver systems infringe a patent related to dynamically adjusting data throughput in wireless communication systems based on channel quality feedback.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to spread-spectrum communication systems, which are foundational to modern wireless technologies like cellular networks and GPS, where maintaining signal integrity in the presence of interference is critical.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE44,199, is a reissued patent. Reissue proceedings allow a patentee to correct errors in an original patent, which can sometimes result in altered claim scope. The prosecution history of both the original patent and the reissue proceeding may be relevant for claim construction.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,199 - "Variable throughput reduction communications system and method"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,199, "Variable throughput reduction communications system and method," issued May 7, 2013.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In wireless multi-cell systems, a remote device (e.g., a mobile phone) near the edge of a cell can experience significant interference from adjacent cell towers, which degrades the signal and increases the error rate (’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Conventional methods to combat this, such as increasing the system's processing gain, often required reducing the data rate and making significant architectural changes to the receiver (’199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a closed-loop feedback system to dynamically manage data throughput. A receiver monitors the error rate of the incoming data channels and generates a "syndrome signal" reflecting the current signal quality (’199 Patent, Abstract). Based on this signal, a "command processor" at the receiver determines a desired data rate and generates a "data-rate command signal" that is sent back to the transmitter (’199 Patent, col. 8:7-19; Fig. 5). The transmitter then adjusts its transmission—for example, by changing how many parallel data channels it uses or by sending redundant data—to meet the new rate, thereby maintaining a reliable connection without requiring the receiver's hardware to be reconfigured (’199 Patent, col. 7:25-31).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a communication system to adapt to changing channel conditions in real time, optimizing for either higher throughput when conditions are good or higher reliability when interference is high.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 11 (a receiver apparatus) and 13 (a corresponding method) (’199 Patent, col. 11:25-12:14; Compl. ¶¶16, 18).
• The essential elements of independent claim 11, a receiver, include:
  • demodulator circuitry for detecting transmitted signals.
  • decoder circuitry for decoding the signals and providing decoded channels, each having 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 that control signal back to the transmitter.
  • multiplexer circuitry to combine the decoded channels into a single data stream.
• The complaint notes that dependent claims 12 and 14 are also asserted (Compl. ¶¶17, 19).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Leica Icon gps 80" system (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a "receiver for recovering wireless data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality of different subchannel signals transmitted over a wireless channel" (Compl. ¶24). It is a professional-grade Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver used in fields like construction and surveying. The complaint alleges that this system, at least in internal testing and usage, utilizes methods that infringe the ’199 Patent (Compl. ¶25). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include the referenced Exhibit B claim chart; however, it provides a narrative breakdown of its infringement theory against claim 11.

'199 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Architectural Questions: The infringement theory raises a fundamental question about the architecture of the accused system. The ’199 Patent describes a two-way, closed-loop system where the receiver actively sends a control signal back to the transmitter to modulate its output. The Accused Product is a GNSS receiver. The "transmitters" are satellites, which the Leica receiver does not control. The central issue will be whether the Accused Product actually contains "transmitting circuitry for conveying the...rate control signal back to the data symbol transmitter."
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Accused Product's internal signal processing, which may respond to errors, generates a "data-rate control signal" intended for an external transmitter, as opposed to an internal signal for its own error correction or processing adjustments? The complaint's allegations are conclusory on this point.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "data symbol transmitter"

• Context and Importance: The identity and nature of the "transmitter" is central to the dispute. The patent's specification appears to describe a terrestrial, two-way communication system (e.g., cellular). Plaintiff’s theory requires this term to be broad enough to read on a GNSS satellite. The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether the Accused Product communicates with a "transmitter" it can actually control.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not explicitly limit the transmitter to a terrestrial or two-way system, using general terms like "wireless channel" and "data symbol transmitter." A party might argue this broad language was intentional.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The entire feedback mechanism described in the patent, including the receiver sending a "data-rate command signal" to the transmitter to "control the data rate of data from the demultiplexer" at the transmitter, implies a cooperative, closed-loop system unlike a one-way satellite broadcast (’199 Patent, col. 7:25-31). The figures and description consistently depict a system where the receiver's command signal directly causes a change at the transmitter (’199 Patent, Fig. 4, Fig. 5).

• The Term: "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate... for generating a data-rate control signal to produce a desired data rate to be sent by the data symbol transmitter"

• Context and Importance: This lengthy functional language is the core of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether any generic error-handling mechanism infringes, or if infringement requires the specific feedback loop taught in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any processor that detects errors and generates any signal that could be used to adjust a data rate meets this limitation, even if the signal is used internally.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language explicitly requires the signal to be "for generating" a desired rate "to be sent by the data symbol transmitter" and "for conveying" it "back to the data symbol transmitter" (col. 11:35-46). This suggests the signal's purpose and destination are integral parts of the claim, potentially limiting it to systems that actually implement the described feedback loop to an external transmitter.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has induced infringement by "encouraging infringement" and knowing the induced acts constituted infringement (Compl. ¶43). The complaint does not plead specific facts supporting these allegations, such as referencing user manuals or marketing materials that instruct users on an infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not explicitly pleaded as a separate count, but the prayer for relief requests enhanced damages (Compl. p. 11, ¶f). The complaint alleges knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶41), which would only support a claim for post-filing willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural applicability: Can the claims of the ’199 Patent, which describe a closed-loop feedback system where a receiver commands a transmitter to change its data rate, be plausibly applied to the accused GNSS technology, where the receiver passively receives signals from satellites it does not control?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functionality: Does the Accused Product's internal processing for handling signal degradation perform the specific function of generating and transmitting a "data-rate control signal" back to a "data symbol transmitter" as required by the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation? The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that such a feedback loop to an external transmitter exists in the accused system.