DCT
1:20-cv-01707
Koninklijke Philips NV v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Koninklijke Philips N.V. (The Netherlands)
- Defendant: Quectel Wireless Solutions Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP; Foley & Lardner LLP
- Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01707, D. Del., 10/03/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the District of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cellular communication modules infringe four U.S. patents related to efficient and reliable data transmission in wireless networks.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for managing data transmission in mobile communication systems, such as 3G and 4G/LTE, to improve performance, control power usage, and handle signal degradation.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff repeatedly offered to license its worldwide cellular communications portfolio to Defendant, beginning with a letter identifying three of the asserted patents on December 29, 2015. The complaint frames Defendant's refusal to take a license as a "hold-out" strategy consistent with "efficient infringement."
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-01-06 | ’028 Patent Priority Date |
| 2000-01-06 | ’216 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-04-23 | ’577 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-04-23 | ’599 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-08-08 | U.S. Patent No. 7,089,028 Issued |
| 2012-06-05 | U.S. Patent No. 8,195,216 Issued |
| 2015-11-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,178,577 Issued |
| 2015-12-29 | Plaintiff allegedly sent letter to Defendant identifying the ’577, ’028, and ’216 patents |
| 2017-04-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,635,599 Issued |
| 2025-10-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,178,577 - Radio Communication System with Plural Paths From a Primary Station with Plural Antennas to a Secondary Station
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In radio systems with multiple antennas (MIMO), signals travel along multiple paths. Some of these paths may have poor quality links. When data from all paths—good and bad—is combined, the overall performance of the communication system can be degraded (’577 Patent, col. 2:6-11; Compl. ¶29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes transmitting multiple data packets at the same time, but sending each packet over a "different subset of the plurality of paths." The receiving device then determines whether each individual packet was received correctly and sends a separate confirmation or rejection for each packet back to the transmitter. This method isolates the negative impact of a poor-quality path to only the specific data packet transmitted over it, thereby improving overall system performance (’577 Patent, col. 2:15-34; Compl. ¶30). Figure 4 of the patent illustrates this parallel ARQ (Automatic Repeat Request) scheme, showing independent acknowledgement (A) and negative-acknowledgement (N) signals for data packets (P) sent on different downlink sub-streams (DL1, DL2) (’577 Patent, Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for higher data throughput in MIMO systems by preventing a single bad communication path from forcing re-transmission or degradation of all parallel data streams (’577 Patent, col. 2:30-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts dependent claim 18, which depends on independent claim 17 (’577 Patent, col. 11:10-12:13; Compl. ¶74). The key elements of independent claim 17, directed to a secondary station (e.g., a mobile device), include:
- At least one antenna and a transceiver.
- The transceiver is configured to receive a plurality of data packets transmitted "substantially simultaneously" by a primary station, with the packets being transmitted via "different subsets of the plurality of paths."
- The transceiver is configured to signal a determination of which packets are received correctly back to the primary station.
- The transceiver is configured to signal to the primary station a number of simultaneous data streams it is capable of receiving.
- The transceiver is configured to receive a re-transmission of incorrectly received packets.
- The modulation or coding scheme used for a re-transmission is different from the scheme used for the initial transmission.
U.S. Patent No. 9,635,599 - System, Method, and Devices for Multi-Path Communication
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’599 Patent, a continuation of the application that led to the ’577 Patent, addresses the same technical problem: the performance of MIMO systems is degraded when data streams from poor-quality radio links are combined with those from good-quality links (’599 Patent, col. 2:19-24; Compl. ¶38).
- The Patented Solution: The patented solution is a method for operating a radio communication system that mirrors the system described in the ’577 Patent. The primary station transmits multiple data packets simultaneously over different subsets of paths. The secondary station receives them, determines which were successful, and notifies the primary station by sending distinct positive (ACK) or negative (NACK) acknowledgements for each packet. A key feature is the use of the "same channelization and scrambling parameters" for transmitting each of these acknowledgements (’599 Patent, Claim 20; Compl. ¶106).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a specific protocol for managing parallel data streams and their individual acknowledgements, aiming to enhance the efficiency and reliability of MIMO communications (’599 Patent, col. 2:27-29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 20, a method claim for operating a radio communication system (Compl. ¶101). Its essential steps include:
- Transmitting, by a primary station, a plurality of data packets "substantially simultaneously" to a secondary station, each via a "different subset of the plurality of paths."
- Receiving the packets at the secondary station.
- Determining at the secondary station whether each packet was received correctly.
- Notifying the primary station by transmitting an ACK for each correct packet and a NACK for each incorrect packet, where the "same channelization and scrambling parameters are utilized for transmission of each" ACK or NACK.
- Sending an indication of the number of simultaneous data streams the secondary station can receive.
- Receiving a retransmission of incorrectly received packets.
U.S. Patent No. 7,089,028 - Radio Communication System
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem that at the start of a transmission, power control loops need time to converge to an optimal level, which can result in corrupted data or interference (Compl. ¶49). The invention solves this by "determinedly delaying" the initial transmission of the data channel until after the initial transmission of control channels, allowing the power control loop to stabilize first (Compl. ¶50, 132).
- Asserted Claims: At least claim 12 (Compl. ¶127).
- Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to infringe by practicing UMTS standards wherein, during channel establishment, the data channel (DPDCH) transmission is delayed by a predetermined number of radio frames after control channels (DPCCH) begin transmitting, allowing for a power control preamble (Compl. ¶136-138).
U.S. Patent No. 8,195,216 - Radio Communication System
- Technology Synopsis: This patent also addresses the problem of achieving rapid power control convergence, specifically after a "pause" or interruption in transmission (Compl. ¶59). The solution is to set the initial transmission power after the pause to the level used before the pause, adjusted by a calculated "offset." The offset is determined from a weighted sum of power control commands issued before the pause (Compl. ¶60-61, 63).
- Asserted Claims: At least claim 13 (Compl. ¶144).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused products, by practicing UMTS standards, calculate the change in transmit power after a transmission gap using a specific equation defined in the standard. This equation is alleged to correspond to the equation recited in claim 13 for determining the offset (Compl. ¶152-153).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are cellular communication modules, with the "EG25-G and the like" cited as a non-limiting example (Compl. ¶23-24). Photographs of the EG25-G module are provided in the complaint as visual evidence (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these modules provide cellular connectivity for Internet of Things ("IoT") and other devices (Compl. ¶14). They are designed to operate on U.S. cellular networks, including those of AT&T and Verizon, and support standards such as LTE, HSPA+, and UMTS (Compl. ¶26, 83, 109, 134, 149). The functionality relevant to the infringement allegations is the modules' alleged implementation of technical specifications from the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) that govern MIMO transmissions, HARQ feedback, and power control procedures (Compl. ¶83-95, 109-121, 134-138, 149-154).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’577 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receive a plurality of data packets transmitted substantially simultaneously by the primary station, the packets being transmitted via different subsets of the plurality of paths | The accused products, as LTE User Equipment (UE), are designed to receive one or two Transport Blocks (TBs), corresponding to "data packets," per subframe via the Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH). These TBs are mapped onto one or several "layers," which correspond to "different subsets of the plurality of paths." | ¶77, ¶84-86 | col. 11:18-22 |
| signal a determination of which data packets are received correctly to the primary station | The UE determines if each TB is successfully decoded and, based on the outcome, generates a positive (ACK) or negative (NACK) acknowledgement for each TB. | ¶78, ¶87-88 | col. 11:23-25 |
| signal to the primary a number of simultaneous data streams that the secondary station is capable of receiving | The UE is configured to periodically send a Rank Indicator (RI) on the Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH), which indicates the number of simultaneous data streams it can receive. | ¶79, ¶95 | col. 11:26-29 |
| receive a re-transmission of incorrectly received data packets... | The UE implements a Hybrid ARQ (HARQ) process where, if a TB is not successfully decoded, it receives a retransmission and combines the new data with the previously received data in a soft buffer to attempt decoding again. | ¶80, ¶87 | col. 11:30-36 |
| wherein at least one of a modulation scheme and a coding scheme for re-transmission...is different from the modulation and coding scheme utilized for said...initial transmission... | The modulation and/or coding scheme for a re-transmission of data packets is different from that used during the initial transmission, as required by dependent claim 18. | ¶81 | col. 12:4-13 |
’599 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 20) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| transmitting, by the primary station, substantially simultaneously, a plurality of data packets...each data packet being transmitted via a different subset of the plurality of paths | In an LTE system, the primary station (eNodeB) transmits one or two transport blocks (TBs) per subframe, mapped onto one or several "layers" which correspond to different signal paths. | ¶103, ¶110-112 | col. 9:48-54 |
| receiving, by the secondary station, the plurality of data packets | The accused product (UE) is designed to receive the TBs transmitted by the eNodeB using the PDSCH. | ¶104, ¶111 | col. 9:55-56 |
| determining, by the secondary station, whether each data packet is received correctly | The UE implements a HARQ process, attempting to decode data in a soft buffer and determining if the decoding was successful for each TB. | ¶105, ¶113 | col. 9:57-59 |
| notifying the primary station...transmitting, a positive acknowledgement (ACK)...and a negative acknowledgement (NACK)...wherein the same channelization and scrambling parameters are utilized... | The UE generates an ACK or NACK for each TB and transmits this HARQ feedback on the PUCCH. The complaint alleges that the 3GPP standards specify that the same parameters are used for this transmission. Table 5.4.1-1 from 3GPP TS 36.211 is cited to show modulation for 1-bit and 2-bit HARQ-ACK. | ¶106, ¶114-120 | col. 9:60-10:5 |
| sending the primary station...an indication of a number of simultaneous data streams... | The UE sends a Rank Indicator (RI) to the eNodeB, indicating the number of data streams it is capable of receiving or processing. | ¶107, ¶121 | col. 10:6-10 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary point of contention for the ’577 and ’599 patents may be whether the terms used in the 3GPP LTE standards, such as "transport block," "codeword," and "layer," map directly onto the patent claim terms "data packet" and "different subset of the plurality of paths." The complaint alleges this correspondence, but a defendant may argue that the technical definitions and operations diverge in a meaningful way (Compl. ¶84-86).
- Technical Questions: For the ’599 patent, a key technical question will be whether the transmission of multi-bit HARQ feedback (e.g., for two data packets) on the PUCCH, as defined by 3GPP TS 36.211, actually uses the "same channelization and scrambling parameters" for each ACK/NACK as required by claim 20. The complaint alleges this is the case, but the defense may argue that the process of modulating and scrambling a 2-bit HARQ-ACK signal constitutes a different use of those parameters than for a single ACK/NACK (Compl. ¶106, ¶120).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "different subset of the plurality of paths" (from claims of ’577 and ’599 patents)
- Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the ’577 and ’599 patents, as it defines how parallel data streams are isolated to improve MIMO performance. The infringement case hinges on whether the LTE standard's concept of "layers" falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory equates it with signal processing techniques (precoding) rather than just physical antenna separation (Compl. ¶84, ¶86).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that a "subset of paths" can be created by "arranging for each packet to be transmitted via a different antenna or antenna beam" (’577 Patent, Abstract). The term "antenna beam" suggests that signal processing to direct energy, not just physical antenna selection, is contemplated.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides a "simplest implementation" where "each data sub-stream is mapped to a separate antenna" (’577 Patent, col. 5:26-28). A defendant may argue this embodiment limits the term's scope to a direct one-to-one mapping between data streams and physical antennas.
The Term: "substantially simultaneously" (from claims of ’577 and ’599 patents)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the timing relationship of the parallel transmissions. The complaint alleges that transmissions occurring within the same LTE "subframe" meet this limitation (Compl. ¶85). The validity of this mapping is critical to the infringement read.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define a specific timing tolerance. The context of packet data systems, which operate in discrete time slots, suggests that transmissions occurring within the same scheduling interval (like a subframe) could be considered "substantially simultaneous."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning could be argued to require the transmissions to start and end at nearly the exact same moment, a much stricter requirement than merely occurring within the same time-slot or subframe.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four patents-in-suit. The inducement allegation is based on Defendant's alleged provision of "instructions, user manuals, advertising, and/or marketing materials" that encourage end-users to operate the modules in a manner that practices the claimed methods (e.g., by connecting to a cellular network) (Compl. ¶72, ¶99, ¶125, ¶142). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused modules are a material part of the inventions with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶73, ¶100, ¶126, ¶143).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The complaint bases this allegation on Defendant’s alleged pre-suit knowledge, stemming from a letter Plaintiff sent on December 29, 2015, that allegedly identified the ’577, ’028, and ’216 patents and the application leading to the ’599 patent (Compl. ¶21, ¶178).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent claim terms "data packet" and "different subset of the plurality of paths," which are described in the context of distinct data streams, be construed to cover the 3GPP LTE standard's implementation of "transport blocks" transmitted over "layers" created by signal processing techniques like precoding?
- A second central question will be one of functional specificity: for the '599 patent, does the LTE standard's method for transmitting multi-bit HARQ feedback on the PUCCH use the "same channelization and scrambling parameters" for each constituent acknowledgement, as strictly required by claim 20, or is there a technical distinction in how these parameters are applied that falls outside the claim?
- A third key question, pertinent to the ’028 and ’216 patents, will be one of structural equivalence for the means-plus-function claims: are the power control algorithms and delay mechanisms defined in the UMTS standards, which the accused products allegedly practice, structurally equivalent to the specific means disclosed in the patents' specifications for performing the functions of delaying data transmission and calculating a power offset after a pause?