Stormborn Tech LLC v. Lantronix Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Lantronix, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00692, D. Del., 05/25/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation within the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s industrial Internet of Things (IoT) gateway products infringe a patent related to adaptively controlling data transmission rates in wireless systems based on received signal quality.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns dynamic data rate adjustment in spread-spectrum communication systems, a method for maintaining reliable, high-throughput connections in environments with variable signal interference.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was the subject of prior litigation, Stormborn Tech LLC v. Topcon Positioning Systems Inc, in which a court held that representative Claim 11 was not directed to an abstract idea and was patent-eligible.

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 cellular communication systems where a remote device operating near the edge of a cell experiences significant signal interference from adjacent cells (RE44,199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Conventional methods to overcome this interference, such as increasing the system's processing gain, had the negative side effect of reducing the data transmission rate and requiring architectural changes to the receiver (RE44,199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a closed-loop feedback system to manage data rates dynamically. A receiver decodes incoming signals and measures the resulting error rate, generating a "syndrome signal." A "command processor" at the receiver uses this error rate information to generate a "data-rate control signal," which is then transmitted back to the original transmitter. The transmitter uses this signal to adjust its data rate, optimizing performance based on real-time channel conditions without altering the receiver's fundamental architecture (RE44,199 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 5; col. 2:63-65).
• Technical Importance: This method of adaptive rate control allows a communication system to maintain the highest possible data throughput while keeping the error rate at an acceptable level, a critical capability for reliable performance in variable wireless environments (RE44,199 Patent, col. 2:10-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 11 (a receiver) and 13 (a method) (Compl. ¶¶19, 21).
• Independent Claim 11 (receiver) comprises:
  • Demodulator circuitry for detecting transmitted signals.
  • Decoder circuitry for Forward Error Correction (FEC) decoding, which provides multiple decoded channels, each having an error rate.
  • Command processor circuitry that is responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels and generates a data-rate control signal for the transmitter.
  • Transmitting circuitry to send the control signal back to the transmitter.
  • Multiplexer circuitry to combine the decoded channels into a single stream.
• Independent Claim 13 (method) comprises the steps of:
  • Detecting transmitted signals in demodulated channels.
  • FEC decoding and de-interleaving the channels, providing multiple 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 data stream.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 12 and 14 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶¶20, 22, 56).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "PremierWave XC – HSPA+ Industrial Grade IoT Gateway" (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶57).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the Accused Product as a device that practices a method for recovering wireless data transmitted over a wireless channel (Compl. ¶57). It is alleged that the device's operation involves steps that correspond to the asserted claims, such as FEC decoding, generating an error rate for decoded channels, and using command processor circuitry to generate a data-rate control signal (Compl. ¶¶60-61). The complaint does not provide further detail on the product's specific functionality or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's infringement allegations are presented narratively by mapping the functions of the Accused Product to the elements of Claim 13, with each allegation citing an "Exhibit C" which was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶57). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

RE44,199 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory, essentially restating the claim language and asserting that the Accused Product performs the recited function, citing an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶58-64). A central question for the court will be whether discovery produces technical evidence demonstrating that the Accused Product’s internal operations actually map to these specific claim limitations.
• Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Accused Product's rate adaptation mechanism is specifically "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels," as required by the claim? The complaint itself, via an attached declaration, distinguishes this claimed method from alternatives like using a known pilot signal (Compl. ¶¶47-48). The case may turn on whether the accused system uses the claimed "syndrome" based approach or another signal quality metric (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio) that falls outside the claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"command processor circuitry"

• Context and Importance: This term recites the core structural component responsible for executing the invention's logic. The construction of this term will define the scope of hardware or software configurations that can be found to infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a restrictive definition, describing the element functionally as a "command processor" that "determines a desired-data rate" (RE44,199 Patent, col. 2:63-64). This may support a construction covering any general-purpose processor programmed to perform the claimed function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s preferred embodiment depicts a discrete block labeled "ERROR RATE AND DATA RATE COMMAND PROCESSOR (59)" that receives a "SYNDROME" signal from the decoder ('199 Patent, Fig. 5). A party could argue this context suggests a more specific structure than a generic processor.

"responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels"

• Context and Importance: This phrase is the functional heart of the asserted claims. The infringement analysis depends entirely on whether the accused device's rate adaptation is driven by this specific metric. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern wireless standards use complex rate adaptation algorithms, and the precise trigger for a rate change is a critical technical detail.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the term should be read to encompass any system where the measured error rate of user data is a direct or indirect input into the rate-control decision-making process.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly links this function to the "syndrome signal" generated by the FEC decoder ('199 Patent, col. 2:63; col. 4:62; Fig. 5). A party could argue that this language requires the error rate from the decoder to be the direct and primary input for generating the control signal, as distinct from other general signal quality metrics like signal-to-noise ratio.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement based on conclusory statements that Defendant encourages acts that constitute infringement (Compl. ¶70). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Products "are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶71). The complaint does not plead specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials, to support these allegations.

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation is based on knowledge of the '199 Patent "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶68). This pleading supports a claim for post-suit willfulness but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: The complaint's infringement allegations are wholly dependent on an unprovided exhibit. Consequently, a key question is whether discovery will uncover technical evidence to substantiate the claim that the Accused Product's rate adaptation mechanism operates in the specific manner recited by the patent, or if a material operational difference exists.
• The case will also likely turn on a question of claim scope: Can the phrase "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels" be construed broadly to cover modern, multi-faceted rate adaptation algorithms, or is it limited by the patent's disclosure to a system where a control signal is generated directly from the "syndrome" of an FEC decoder, to the exclusion of other signal quality metrics?