Stormborn Tech LLC v. Trimble Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Trimble, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02040, D. Del., 10/28/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s incorporation in the state of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Trimble TDC150 system infringes a patent related to adaptive wireless communication systems that dynamically adjust data rates based on receiver feedback.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the challenge of maintaining reliable wireless communications in environments with variable signal interference by creating a closed-loop feedback system between a receiver and a transmitter.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE44,199, is a reissue patent. The complaint alleges that Defendant’s knowledge of the asserted patent began with the service of the complaint, which may limit any willfulness claims to post-suit conduct.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,199 - Variable Throughput Reduction Communications System and Method

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in spread-spectrum cellular systems where a remote device near the edge of a cell experiences significant signal interference from adjacent cells, which can degrade the connection quality below a usable level (RE44,199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Previous methods to combat this interference, such as reducing the data rate to increase processing gain, were described as inflexible and required disruptive changes to the receiver's architecture (RE44,199 Patent, col. 1:63-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system and method where the receiver actively participates in managing the data rate. The receiver decodes incoming signals, calculates an error rate (via a "syndrome signal"), and uses this information to generate a "data-rate command signal" that it sends back to the transmitter (RE44,199 Patent, col. 2:62-67; Fig. 5). This closed-loop feedback allows the transmitter to dynamically adjust its data throughput—for example, by lowering the rate to improve reliability when interference is high—without requiring a static, pre-configured system.
• Technical Importance: This adaptive approach allows a communication system to dynamically trade data rate for signal integrity, optimizing performance in real-world environments with changing levels of interference (RE44,199 Patent, col. 2:10-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 11 (a receiver apparatus) and 13 (a method).
• Independent Claim 11 recites a receiver comprising:
  • demodulator circuitry for detecting transmitted signals;
  • decoder circuitry for FEC decoding, providing decoded channels with an associated error rate;
  • command processor circuitry that is responsive to the error rate and generates a data-rate control signal for the transmitter;
  • transmitting circuitry for conveying the control signal back to the transmitter; and
  • multiplexer circuitry for combining the decoded channels into a single stream of data.
• Independent Claim 13 recites a method with steps that mirror the functions of the circuitry in Claim 11: detecting signals, decoding and determining an error rate, using a processor to generate a control signal, transmitting that control signal, and multiplexing the data.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims, including claims 12 and 14, which add the limitation of decoding Forward Error Correction (FEC) codes of different rates (Compl. ¶¶17, 19).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Trimble TDC150" system (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a "receiver for recovering wireless data" (Compl. ¶24). The infringement allegations assert, in conclusory fashion, that the TDC150 contains the various "circuitry" elements recited in Claim 11 and performs the method steps of Claim 13 (Compl. ¶¶25-37). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the TDC150’s architecture or how its components operate to allegedly perform the claimed functions. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint provides no specific details on the Accused Product's market positioning beyond alleging it is part of Defendant's business of "providing communication products and services" (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B" that was not included with the filing; the following summary is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body.

RE44,199 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations directly mirror the language of the claims without offering specific evidence of how the Accused Product's components operate (Compl. ¶¶25-29). This raises the evidentiary question of what proof Plaintiff will offer to show that the Trimble TDC150’s internal processing is in fact "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels" for the specific purpose of generating a "data-rate control signal," as the claim requires.
  • Scope Questions: Claim 11 recites "transmitting circuitry" as a component of the receiver. A potential dispute may arise over whether the mechanism used by the TDC150 to send a feedback signal (e.g., an I/O port, a connection to a modem) meets the definition of "transmitting circuitry" as an integral part of the claimed receiver, or if it constitutes a separate device.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate"

• Context and Importance: This term describes the core inventive concept of a closed-loop, adaptive system. The outcome of the infringement analysis will heavily depend on whether the accused processor's function is found to be "responsive to the error rate" in the manner claimed.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary describes the invention’s object as controlling a data rate "based on a required error rate" (RE44,199 Patent, col. 2:14-16). This language could support an interpretation covering any processing logic that uses error-rate information to influence the transmission rate.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that the command processor (59) acts in response to a "syndrome" from the FEC decoders and generates not only a "data-rate command signal" but also an "adder-control signal" and a "multiplexer-control signal" (RE44,199 Patent, col. 8:8-18). This could support a narrower construction requiring a processor that specifically bases its logic on a formal FEC syndrome signal and generates these multiple control outputs.

• The Term: "transmitting circuitry"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in a claim directed to a "receiver." Its construction is critical because it defines a required capability of the receiver itself, not a separate transmitter. Practitioners may focus on this term because the physical location and nature of this component could be a point of non-infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the command processor as having a "communications link to the spread-spectrum traqnsmitter, for sending the data-rate command signal" (RE44,199 Patent, col. 7:41-44). This could support construing "transmitting circuitry" broadly to include any component, like a data port or interface, that enables this link.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "circuitry" itself, when read in the context of the other "circuitry" limitations (demodulator, decoder, multiplexer), may suggest a more definite hardware structure integrated within the receiver unit. The patent figures do not depict a distinct transmitter block within the receiver (Fig. 5), which could lead to arguments that the term requires something more specific than a generic communications port.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "encouraging infringement" but does not plead specific underlying facts, such as references to user manuals, marketing materials, or technical data sheets that allegedly instruct users to operate the Accused Product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶43).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of infringement acquired "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶41). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-suit willful infringement only, as no facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are provided.

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

• A central issue will be one of functional mapping: As the complaint's allegations are highly conclusory, a key evidentiary question will be whether discovery produces technical evidence that the Trimble TDC150’s internal processors and related components actually perform the specific, closed-loop feedback functions required by the claims—most critically, generating a data-rate control signal that is functionally "responsive to the error rate" of decoded wireless channels.
• The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term "transmitting circuitry," recited as an element of the claimed receiver, be construed to read on the specific hardware components within the Accused Product that are used to send a feedback signal, or will its construction require a more integrated and specific hardware structure than the product contains?