Stormborn Tech LLC v. US Robotics Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: U.S. Robotics Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02041, D. Del., 10/28/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cellular gateway products infringe a patent related to dynamically adjusting data transmission rates in a wireless communication system based on feedback from the receiver.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns adaptive modulation and coding in wireless systems, a foundational technique for ensuring reliable communication by adjusting data throughput in response to changing channel conditions like interference or signal strength.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissued patent, which means it underwent a second examination by the USPTO to correct an error in the original patent. The complaint notes the patent was issued "after a full and fair examination," a statement intended to preemptively assert the patent's validity.

Case Timeline

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

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

• 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: In wireless spread-spectrum systems, a remote device (e.g., a mobile phone) near the edge of a cell can suffer from significant interference from adjacent cells, which degrades the signal and increases the data error rate (’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Prior methods to combat this interference, such as increasing the system's processing gain, required reducing the data rate and making significant changes to the receiver's architecture, which was inefficient (’199 Patent, col. 1:58-2:3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a closed-loop feedback system to dynamically manage data throughput. A receiver monitors the error rate of the incoming data channels (e.g., by analyzing a "syndrome signal" from a forward-error-correction decoder) and, in response, generates a "data-rate control signal" (’199 Patent, col. 4:62-65). This control signal is transmitted back to the original transmitter, instructing it to adjust the data rate—for instance, by reducing the number of unique data channels—to maintain a reliable connection without fundamentally altering the receiver's hardware (’199 Patent, FIG. 5; col. 8:12-19).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a communication system to adapt to real-time channel conditions, improving overall spectral efficiency and connection reliability by transmitting at the highest possible rate the channel can support at any given moment. (’199 Patent, col. 2:10-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 11 and 13, and dependent claims 12 and 14 (Compl. ¶¶ 20-22).
• Independent Claim 11 (Receiver Apparatus):
  • demodulator circuitry for detecting transmitted signals
  • decoder circuitry for FEC decoding and providing decoded channels, each having an error rate
  • command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate for generating a data-rate control signal to be sent back to the transmitter
  • transmitting circuitry for conveying the control signal back to the transmitter
  • multiplexer circuitry for combining the decoded channels into a data stream
• Independent Claim 13 (Method):
  • detecting transmitted signals
  • FEC decoding and de-interleaving to provide decoded channels with an error rate
  • using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate to generate a data-rate control signal
  • transmitting the control signal back to the transmitter
  • multiplexing the decoded channels into a single stream

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "USRobotics' Courier USR3513 Cellular Gateway" 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). The infringement allegations assert that the product contains circuitry corresponding to each element of the asserted claims, including demodulator, decoder, command processor, transmitter, and multiplexer components that collectively perform adaptive data rate control (Compl. ¶¶25-29). The complaint does not provide further detail on the product's specific operation or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" but does not include the exhibit (Compl. ¶24). The infringement theory is therefore drawn from the narrative allegations in the complaint body.

Plaintiff alleges that the Accused Product directly infringes at least Claim 11 of the ’199 Patent (Compl. ¶23). The complaint maps components of the Accused Product to the claim elements, alleging it includes "demodulator circuitry" (Compl. ¶25), "decoder circuitry for FEC decoding" that determines an error rate (Compl. ¶26), and "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate" for generating a control signal (Compl. ¶27). It further alleges the product has "transmitting circuitry" to send this control signal back to a data symbol transmitter (Compl. ¶28) and "multiplexer circuitry" to combine the resulting data (Compl. ¶29). The complaint makes parallel allegations that the Accused Product, through its use, practices the method steps of Claim 13 (Compl. ¶¶31-36).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The complaint's allegations are conclusory and merely recite the claim language. A central question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that the Accused Product’s internal architecture actually contains a "command processor circuitry" that generates a "data-rate control signal" that is specifically "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels," as required by the claims, rather than some other channel quality metric.
  • Functional Question: The claims require a closed-loop system where the receiver sends a control signal back to the transmitter to adjust the data rate. A key dispute may arise over whether the Accused Product actually performs this feedback function or if any rate adaptation it employs is a purely local function within the receiver or is controlled by the network in a manner different from that claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels for generating a data-rate control signal" (from Claim 11).
• Context and Importance: This term is the functional heart of the invention, defining the logic that drives the adaptive feedback loop. The case may turn on whether the accused device's rate-adaptation mechanism, if any, meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether systems that adapt rates based on other metrics (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, general channel quality indicators) fall within the scope of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention states a general object is "to vary the throughput of a transmitted spread-spectrum signal" based on "a required error rate at a spread-spectrum receiver" (’199 Patent, col. 2:10-16). This more general language could support an interpretation that covers any processing logic that uses an error rate metric to influence throughput.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figure 5 depict a very specific architecture where an "Error Rate and Data Rate Command Processor (59)" explicitly receives a "syndrome signal" from the "FEC decoder and de-interleavers (56)" to determine the error rate and generate the command signal (’199 Patent, FIG. 5; col. 8:6-19). This could support a narrower construction requiring the circuitry to directly use the output of an FEC decoder, as opposed to other, more general channel quality measurements.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of induced infringement, stating that Defendant encouraged infringement knowing its actions would lead to it (Compl. ¶43). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support this allegation, such as references to user manuals or technical documentation that instruct users on infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶41). This allegation, if proven, could only support a finding of post-suit willfulness, as no pre-suit knowledge is alleged. The prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages (Compl. p. 11, ¶f).

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

1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can Plaintiff produce evidence from the Accused Product's design or operation demonstrating an internal architecture that performs the specific closed-loop feedback mechanism recited in the claims? The complaint's lack of technical detail on how the product allegedly works suggests this will be a primary focus of discovery.
2. The case will also likely hinge on a question of claim construction: How will the court define "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate"? A narrow construction tied to the specific "syndrome signal" embodiment shown in the patent could exclude modern cellular devices that use more complex, standardized channel quality indicators (CQI) for rate adaptation, whereas a broader construction may read on such systems.