Stormborn Tech LLC v. Sentient Energy Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Sentient Energy, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01138, D. Del., 08/27/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Sentient MM3 Intelligent Sensor," used for power grid monitoring, infringes a patent related to dynamically adjusting data transmission rates in a wireless communication system based on the measured error rate of the connection.
• Technical Context: The patent operates in the field of spread-spectrum communications, a foundational technology for modern wireless systems like cellular and Wi-Fi that enhances resilience to interference.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in a prior case involving the same patent family (Stormborn Technologies, LLC v. TopCon Positioning Systems, Inc.), a court held the asserted technology to be patent-eligible, a point Plaintiff may use to preemptively counter potential invalidity arguments under 35 U.S.C. §101. The complaint also references the patent’s prosecution history to assert that the invention was distinguished from prior art based on its use of a command processor responsive to a measured error rate.

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’s background describes a problem in multi-cell wireless systems where a device near the boundary between two cells can experience significant interference from both, degrading the quality of the communication link (’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Prior methods to combat this, such as increasing the signal processing gain, often required reducing the data rate in a way that necessitated complex and costly changes to the receiver's physical architecture (’199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a closed-loop feedback system where the receiver actively monitors the quality of the incoming signal by measuring its error rate. A "command processor" at the receiver then generates a "data-rate control signal" based on this error rate and transmits it back to the original transmitter. This signal instructs the transmitter to adjust its data rate—for instance, by changing how data is allocated across multiple parallel sub-channels—to maintain a target level of performance (’199 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62-67). This allows the system to adapt to changing channel conditions dynamically.
• Technical Importance: This adaptive approach allows a communication system to maintain a reliable connection in the face of variable interference without requiring static, over-engineered hardware, thereby improving overall efficiency and throughput (’199 Patent, col. 2:10-15).

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 and de-interleaving channels, which provides 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 the control signal back to the transmitter.
  • "multiplexer circuitry" to combine the decoded channels into a single data stream.
• Independent Claim 13 recites a method comprising the steps of:
  • detecting transmitted signals in demodulated channels.
  • FEC decoding and de-interleaving the channels, providing decoded channels each having an "error rate".
  • using "command processor circuitry" responsive to the "error rate" to generate a "data-rate control signal".
  • transmitting the "data-rate control signal" back to the transmitter.
  • multiplexing the decoded channels into a single stream.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 12 and 14 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 22, 56).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Sentient MM3 Intelligent Sensor" and associated systems and methods (Compl. ¶57).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a solution that "practices a method for recovering wireless data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality of different sub-channel signals transmitted over a wireless channel" (Compl. ¶57). The infringement allegations assert that, during at least internal testing, the product performs the specific steps of the patented method, including detecting signals, decoding them, using a processor to generate a rate control signal based on a measured error rate, transmitting that signal back, and multiplexing the resulting data (Compl. ¶¶58-63). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the product's operation or its specific market positioning beyond identifying it as an "Intelligent Sensor" (Compl. ¶57).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint's infringement allegations for method claim 13 are summarized below.

RE44,199 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the control logic within the Accused Product constitutes "command processor circuitry" that generates a "data-rate control signal" as those terms are understood within the patent. The dispute may focus on whether any feedback mechanism used by the Defendant's sensor is functionally and structurally equivalent to the specific closed-loop system claimed.
• Technical Questions: What evidence shows that the Accused Product's feedback loop is specifically "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels"? The patent specification contrasts this with other feedback sources, such as a pilot signal (Compl. ¶47). The case may turn on proof of the precise technical trigger for any rate adaptation in the Defendant's system.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This phrase captures what the Plaintiff alleges is the core inventive concept (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 26, 32). The definition of this term and the required link between the "error rate" and the processor's action will be central to determining infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the processor's function in general terms, stating it "determines a desired-data rate" in response to a "syndrome signal" (’199 Patent, col. 2:62-64). This functional description could support an interpretation that covers various hardware or software implementations that perform this role.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures show a specific embodiment where the processor receives a "syndrome signal" from an FEC decoder and, in response, controls both adders in the receiver and a demultiplexer at the transmitter (’199 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 8:7-14). A party could argue the term should be limited to this more specific architecture, where the processor's inputs and outputs are narrowly defined.

The Term: "data-rate control signal"

• Context and Importance: Infringement requires proving that the Accused Product generates and transmits such a signal. Its definition is critical, as it dictates what form of communication between the receiver and transmitter falls within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 11 functionally defines the signal by its result: it "control[s] operation of circuitry at the transmitter to produce the desired data rate" (’199 Patent, col. 11:38-40). This language may be read to encompass any signal that causes the transmitter to change its data rate.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a more specific example, describing the signal as controlling "into how many data channels the demultiplexer demultiplexes the input data" at the transmitter (’199 Patent, col. 4:7-10). This could support an argument that the term is limited to signals that adjust the rate by manipulating the number of parallel channels, as opposed to other rate-adjustment techniques like changing the modulation or coding scheme.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "encouraging infringement" and contributory infringement by asserting the Accused Products are not "a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶¶ 70-71). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts detailing how Defendant allegedly encourages its customers to perform the infringing method or why the sensor has no substantial non-infringing application.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’199 Patent "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶68). This allegation appears to be based on post-suit conduct only, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are presented.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate," which the patent illustrates with a specific "syndrome signal" architecture, be construed broadly enough to read on the control systems used in Defendant's intelligent grid sensors?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Sentient MM3 sensor actually measure the "error rate" of decoded data channels to control its data rate, as claimed, or does it rely on a different metric for channel quality assessment, such as signal-to-noise ratio or a pilot signal, which may fall outside the scope of the claims?
• A third question concerns indirect infringement: assuming the method claims are infringed by the end-user of the sensor, the Plaintiff will need to produce evidence beyond the current pleadings to show that Defendant specifically intended for its customers to use the product in an infringing manner and that the product lacks substantial non-infringing uses.