Stormborn Tech LLC v. HID Global Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: HID Global Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01451, D. Del., 10/27/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district for patent venue purposes.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s biometric verification device infringes a patent related to adaptively controlling data transmission rates in a wireless communication system based on the measured error rate at the receiver.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns dynamic data rate adaptation in spread-spectrum wireless systems, a method used to balance transmission speed against reliability in the face of changing signal interference.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a representative claim of the asserted patent was previously found to be directed to patent-eligible subject matter in separate litigation, Stormborn Technologies, LLC v. TopCon Positioning Systems, Inc.

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: The patent’s background section describes a problem in multi-cell spread-spectrum communication systems where interference from adjacent cells can be substantial, particularly when a remote device is near a cell boundary, degrading the signal and increasing error rates (’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Prior methods to combat this interference, such as increasing the system’s processing gain, were inflexible, as they required reducing the data rate and changing the fundamental architecture of the receiver (’199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a closed-loop feedback system to dynamically manage data throughput. A receiver demodulates a signal, decodes the data across multiple sub-channels, and measures the resulting error rate. A "command processor" at the receiver then uses this error rate information to generate a "data-rate command signal," which is sent back to the original transmitter. The transmitter, in response, adjusts its data rate to a level appropriate for the current channel conditions, thereby optimizing performance without requiring physical changes to the receiver's hardware (’199 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62-65; Fig. 5).
• Technical Importance: This adaptive approach provides a more efficient and flexible method for maintaining reliable communication links in variable or noisy radio frequency environments compared to static systems (’199 Patent, col. 2:9-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 11 (a receiver) and 13 (a method), as well as dependent claims 12 and 14 (Compl. ¶¶18-21, 55).
• The essential elements of independent method claim 13 include:
  • detecting the transmitted signals in a plurality of demodulated channels;
  • FEC decoding and de-interleaving the plurality of demodulated channels, providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate;
  • using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels to generate a data-rate control signal to produce a desired data rate to be sent by the data symbol transmitter of the signals;
  • transmitting the error rate dependent data-rate control signal back to the data symbol transmitter; and
  • multiplexing the multiplicity of decoded channels into a single stream of received data.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶74).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "HID Crossmatch Verifier Sentry" (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶56).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Product "practices a method for recovering wireless data" transmitted over a wireless channel (Compl. ¶56). The infringement allegations center on the product's alleged use of a method that mirrors the steps of the asserted claims, specifically during "at least... internal testing and usage" (Compl. ¶¶57-62). The complaint does not provide further technical detail regarding the operation of the Accused Product or its specific market positioning beyond alleging that Defendant "commercializes" it (Compl. ¶55).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an exhibit that was not provided; the following table summarizes the narrative infringement theory for method claim 13 as presented in the body of the complaint.

RE44,199 Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: The complaint’s allegations raise a critical evidentiary question: what proof demonstrates that the Accused Product’s data rate adaptation is specifically "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels"? (Compl. ¶60). The case may turn on whether the accused system uses a post-decoding error metric as claimed, or if it uses a different, more common metric such as pre-decoding signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or received signal strength indication (RSSI) to control its data rate.
  • Scope Question: The complaint's recurring qualification that infringement occurs "at least in internal testing and usage" (Compl. ¶¶57-63) suggests a potential dispute over the scope and scale of the alleged infringement. A key question for discovery will be whether this functionality is enabled in commercially sold products and how widely it is used by end-customers.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels"
• Context and Importance: This phrase captures the functional core of the asserted claims. Its construction will be dispositive for infringement, as it defines the specific trigger for the data-rate control feedback loop. Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between feedback based on post-decoding error rates versus pre-decoding signal quality metrics is a fundamental technical difference in communication systems.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the command processor responding to a "syndrome signal," which itself is generated "from an error rate" (’199 Patent, col. 2:62-64). A party might argue this language suggests that any command signal ultimately caused by the need to mitigate bit errors falls within the claim scope, even if the directly measured parameter is a proxy for, rather than a direct calculation of, the error rate.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim specifies the "error rate of the decoded channels," which points to a measurement taken after the Forward Error Correction (FEC) decoding process. This reading is strongly supported by the patent’s figures, particularly Figure 5, which explicitly depicts the "Syndrome" signal flowing from the "FEC Decoder and Deinterleaver" (56) to the "Error Rate and Data Rate Command Processor" (59). This suggests the error rate is a specific, calculated output of the decoding stage, not a raw signal quality measurement taken beforehand.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of both induced and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendant encourages infringement and that the Accused Product is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶¶69-70). The complaint does not, however, allege specific supporting facts, such as references to instructions in user manuals or marketing materials.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of infringement commencing "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶67). This allegation forms a basis for potential post-filing willful infringement and enhanced damages but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A primary issue will be one of technical mechanism: can Plaintiff produce evidence that the Accused Product implements a feedback loop based on the specific metric of a post-decoding error rate? The case will likely hinge on whether the accused system's adaptation is driven by this claimed mechanism or by a different, potentially non-infringing technical approach, such as monitoring raw signal strength.
• The outcome will also depend on a key question of claim construction: how will the court define "responsive to the error rate"? A narrow construction limiting the term to a direct, calculated output of an FEC decoder would present a higher bar for proving infringement than a broader construction that encompasses responses to any metric correlated with bit errors.
• Finally, the complaint’s repeated reference to "internal testing" raises a question of infringement scope and damages. A central evidentiary challenge for the Plaintiff will be to demonstrate that the accused functionality operates in commercially distributed products, as the extent of such use is foundational to calculating any potential monetary damages.