DCT

1:20-cv-01709

Koninklijke Philips NV v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01709, D. Del., 12/17/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants Thales DIS USA and Thales USA being Delaware corporations residing in the district, and on foreign Defendants Thales DIS Deutschland and Thales S.A. having committed acts of infringement giving rise to the action within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cellular communication modules, designed for Internet of Things (IoT) applications, infringe six U.S. patents related to foundational technologies for 3G (UMTS) and 4G (LTE) cellular communication systems.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address technical challenges in wireless communications, including performance of multi-antenna (MIMO) systems, transmitter power control efficiency, and overhead reduction in resource signaling.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of licensing negotiations, stating that Philips repeatedly offered its worldwide cellular communications portfolio to Thales (and its predecessor, Gemalto) on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms, which Thales refused. Plaintiff alleges that Thales has had knowledge of the asserted patent families since at least December 2015.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-01-06 ’028 and ’216 Patents Priority Date
2002-04-23 ’577 and ’599 Patents Priority Date
2003-05-03 ’929 Patent Priority Date
2006-08-08 ’028 Patent Issue Date
2006-12-14 ’814 Patent Priority Date
2012-03-13 ’929 Patent Issue Date
2012-06-05 ’216 Patent Issue Date
2015-11-03 ’577 Patent Issue Date
2015-12-11 Alleged notice of patent families to Defendant's predecessor
2017-04-25 ’599 Patent Issue Date
2019-04-01 Thales acquires Gemalto
2019-04-09 ’814 Patent Issue Date
2020-12-17 Complaint Filing Date

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: The patent’s background describes the challenge in multi-input multi-output (MIMO) wireless systems where different data streams may experience links of varying quality. If data from both high-quality and low-quality links are combined, the overall system performance can be degraded by the poor-quality links (Compl. ¶35; ’577 Patent, col. 2:6-11).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes transmitting multiple data packets simultaneously from a primary station (e.g., a base station) with multiple antennas to a secondary station (e.g., a mobile device). Critically, each packet is transmitted over a “different subset of the plurality of paths.” The secondary station then individually determines whether each packet was received correctly and signals this determination back to the primary station for each specific packet, allowing for more granular error correction (Compl. ¶36; ’577 Patent, col. 2:15-27).
  • Technical Importance: This approach improves the robustness and performance of MIMO systems by isolating the negative effects of a poor-quality path to only the data packet(s) transmitted over it, rather than allowing it to degrade the entire communication stream (Compl. ¶36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least dependent claim 18, which depends from independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶104).
  • Independent claim 8 is directed to a secondary station and recites the following essential elements:
    • At least one antenna.
    • Means for receiving a plurality of data packets transmitted substantially simultaneously from a primary station via different subsets of paths.
    • Means for determining whether each data packet is received correctly.
    • Means for signaling this determination to the primary station for each of the packets.
    • Means for signaling to the primary station a number of simultaneous data streams the station is capable of receiving.
    • Means for receiving a re-transmission of incorrectly received data packets.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but infringement allegations are not limited to claim 18.

U.S. Patent No. 9,635,599 - "System, Method, and Devices for Multi-Path Communication"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’577 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problem: the negative impact of differing radio link qualities on the overall performance of a MIMO communication system used for packet data transmission (Compl. ¶44; ’599 Patent, col. 2:19-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method of operating such a MIMO system. A primary station transmits data packets simultaneously over different subsets of paths. The secondary station receives the packets, determines their correctness, and notifies the primary station by transmitting a positive acknowledgement (ACK) for correctly received packets and a negative acknowledgement (NACK) for incorrectly received packets. The claim specifies that the same channelization and scrambling parameters are used for transmitting each ACK or NACK (Compl. ¶45; ’599 Patent, col. 2:30-42, col. 10:29-35).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific method for managing feedback in a multi-path communication system, aiming to improve efficiency and performance by enabling targeted retransmissions (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 20 (Compl. ¶131).
  • Independent claim 20 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
    • A primary station transmitting a plurality of data packets substantially simultaneously to a secondary station, with each packet sent via a different subset of paths.
    • The secondary station receiving the plurality of data packets.
    • The secondary station determining whether each packet is received correctly.
    • The secondary station notifying the primary station of this determination by transmitting an ACK for each correct packet and a NACK for each incorrect packet.
    • The notification uses the same channelization and scrambling parameters for each ACK or NACK corresponding to the plurality of data packets.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,089,028

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,089,028, "Radio Communication System," issued August 8, 2006.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem that power control loops in wireless systems can take time to converge at the start of a transmission, potentially causing data corruption or interference (Compl. ¶55). The proposed solution is to delay the initial transmission of data until after the control channels have been established, allowing the power control to stabilize (Compl. ¶56).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶157).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, when practicing UMTS standards, implement a random access procedure where control channels are established first, and the uplink data channel transmission is determinedly delayed until after the control information, infringing the patent (Compl. ¶¶ 165-168).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,195,216

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,195,216, "Radio Communication System," issued June 5, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of re-establishing power control quickly after a pause or interruption in transmission (Compl. ¶68). The solution is to set the initial transmission power after the pause to the level from before the pause, adjusted by an offset that is calculated from a weighted sum of the power control commands that were applied before the interruption (Compl. ¶67).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 13 is asserted (Compl. ¶174).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products' implementation of UMTS power control after a transmission gap, which involves changing power by an amount calculated via a specific formula, maps directly onto the equation claimed by the patent (Compl. ¶¶ 182-183).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,134,929

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,134,929, "Communication System," issued March 13, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent identifies a problem with conventional power control, where increasing transmitter power to overcome poor channel conditions consumes excess power and creates interference (Compl. ¶77). The invention proposes a counter-intuitive solution: decreasing data transmit power when channel quality degrades to a first criterion, and only increasing it once channel quality improves to a second criterion (Compl. ¶78).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 9 is asserted (Compl. ¶190).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products' power control for the UMTS Enhanced Dedicated Channel (E-DCH) infringes by reducing power when it would exceed a maximum allowed value (first criterion) and increasing it only when a received power control command indicates improved conditions (second criterion) (Compl. ¶¶ 199-200).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,257,814

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,257,814, "Addressing Available Resources for HSDPA Accesses," issued April 9, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of excessive signaling overhead required to allocate transmission resources in UMTS HSDPA (Compl. ¶89). The solution reduces this overhead by pre-configuring an association between a control channel and certain fixed resource parameters, requiring only the remaining dynamic parameters to be transmitted in a coded address (Compl. ¶91).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 10 is asserted (Compl. ¶207).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement based on the HSDPA resource allocation method in UMTS, where there is a preconfigured association between a control channel number and a fixed parameter, while the remaining dynamic parameters are coded into the address transmitted on that channel (Compl. ¶¶ 214-217).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies certain cellular communication modules, including the PLS8-US, PLS8-US-PCI, and mPLAS9-W, as non-limiting examples of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 101). The complaint includes photographs showing the Cinterion PLS8-US module, which identify it as a product of Thales's predecessor Gemalto and note its FCC ID (Compl. ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are described as modules that provide cellular connectivity for Internet of Things ("IoT") devices (Compl. ¶17). They are alleged to operate on U.S. cellular networks, including LTE and HSPA+ (UMTS) networks, and have obtained certification from carriers such as AT&T and Verizon (Compl. ¶32). Their function is to manage the radio communication link with a cellular base station by implementing the protocols defined in technical standards such as those from 3GPP for UMTS and LTE (Compl. ¶¶ 113, 164).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’577 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a secondary station The Accused Products operate as LTE user equipment ("UE"), which is a secondary station. ¶104, ¶114 col. 2:15-18
means for: receiving a plurality of data packets transmitted substantially simultaneously... via different subsets of the plurality of paths The UE receives one or two transport blocks (data packets) simultaneously on the PDSCH, which are mapped to one or several "layers" that are precoded for different antenna ports, creating different signal paths. ¶115-116 col. 2:19-21
determining whether each data packet is received correctly The UE attempts to decode each transport block and, based on the success of the decoding, generates a positive (ACK) or negative (NACK) acknowledgement for each. ¶117 col. 2:22-23
signaling said determination to the primary station The UE transmits the ACK/NACK information to the primary station (eNodeB) on the Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH). ¶118 col. 2:23-25
signaling to the primary station a number of simultaneous data streams that the secondary station is capable of receiving or processing The UE periodically sends a Rank Indicator ("RI") on the PUCCH, which indicates the number of data streams it is configured to receive. ¶125 col. 8:1-4
[From dependent claim 18] at least one of a modulation scheme and a coding scheme for re-transmission... is different... The complaint alleges that the modulation and/or coding scheme for re-transmission of data packets is different from that used for the initial transmission. ¶111 col. 8:43-51
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether an LTE "layer," a logical construct created through signal processing (precoding), constitutes a "subset of the plurality of paths" as that term is used in the patent. The complaint’s theory rests on the assertion that precoding to different layers results in different beam directions, thereby creating distinct paths (Compl. ¶116).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the Accused Products use a different modulation or coding scheme for retransmissions as required by asserted claim 18 (Compl. ¶111), but the accompanying paragraphs detailing the LTE standards do not appear to provide specific factual support for this limitation. This raises an evidentiary question regarding the basis for this specific allegation.

’599 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 20) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of operating a radio communication system... transmitting, by a primary station... a plurality of data packets... via a different subset of the plurality of paths An eNodeB (primary station) transmits one or two transport blocks simultaneously, mapping them to different "layers" which are transmitted via different antenna ports and/or beams, creating different paths. ¶141-143 col. 2:32-35
receiving, by the secondary station, the plurality of data packets An LTE UE (secondary station) receives the transport blocks on the physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH). ¶141 col. 2:35-36
determining, by the secondary station, whether each data packet is received correctly The UE attempts to decode each transport block to determine if it was successfully received. ¶143 col. 2:36-38
notifying... by transmitting, a positive acknowledgement (ACK)... and a negative acknowledgement (NACK) Based on the decoding attempt, the UE generates and transmits an ACK or NACK for each transport block as part of the HARQ process. ¶143-144 col. 2:38-42
wherein the same channelization and scrambling parameters are utilized for transmission of each positive acknowledgment (ACK) or negative acknowledgment (NACK)... The complaint alleges that the same channelization and scrambling parameters are utilized for the transmission of each ACK or NACK. ¶136 col. 10:29-35
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: As with the ’577 Patent, a potential dispute exists over whether the LTE standard's concept of a "layer" falls within the scope of the patent's term "a different subset of the plurality of paths."
    • Technical Questions: Claim 20 requires that the same channelization and scrambling parameters be used for transmitting the ACK/NACK corresponding to each of the simultaneously received packets. The complaint makes this allegation (Compl. ¶136), but the subsequent paragraphs citing the 3GPP standards do not explicitly state that this specific condition is met, raising a question of whether the LTE standard mandates the precise behavior required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "a different subset of the plurality of paths" (’577 Patent, Claim 8; ’599 Patent, Claim 20)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the core inventive concept of both lead patents. The infringement theory for both patents depends on mapping the accused LTE products' use of "layers" for spatial multiplexing to this claim language. Its construction will be critical to determining if the accused functionality is within the scope of the claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention in terms of separating data streams, for example, by arranging for each packet to be "transmitted via a different antenna or antenna beam" (’577 Patent, Abstract). This language may support an interpretation where any technique that directs signal energy differently, such as the precoding used to create LTE "layers," results in a "different subset of paths."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment illustrated shows a one-to-one mapping of data sub-streams to physically separate antennas (’577 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:52-54). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed more narrowly to require transmission from physically distinct antennas, not merely logical channels created through signal processing.

  • Term: "the same channelization and scrambling parameters are utilized for transmission of each positive acknowledgment (ACK) or negative acknowledgment (NACK)" (’599 Patent, Claim 20)

    • Context and Importance: This is a highly specific limitation concerning the method of transmitting feedback. Infringement of claim 20 hinges on whether the accused LTE implementation uses this exact feedback mechanism. Practitioners may focus on this term because it presents a clear technical question that can be verified against the 3GPP standards.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of intrinsic evidence supporting a broader interpretation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language of the claim is precise and appears unambiguous. The specification of the parent ’577 Patent, however, describes an embodiment where positive and negative acknowledgements are transmitted on "respective uplink sub-streams UL1 and UL2" (’577 Patent, col. 5:19-21), which could suggest the use of different, rather than the same, resources. This potential tension between a described embodiment and the claim language may be a focus of claim construction arguments.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations of pre-suit knowledge and Thales's provision of "instructions, user manuals, advertising, and/or marketing materials" that allegedly facilitate and encourage the infringing use of the Accused Products by end users (e.g., Compl. ¶102, ¶129). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused modules are a material part of the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and have no substantial non-infringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶103, ¶130).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The claim is primarily based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from communications as early as December 11, 2015, where Philips allegedly identified the asserted patents or their pending applications to Thales's predecessor, Gemalto (Compl. ¶27). The complaint characterizes Thales's conduct as an "'efficient infringement' tactical approach" (Compl. ¶28).

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

  1. Claim Scope vs. Standardized Technology: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms drafted in the context of early MIMO research (e.g., "subset of paths") be construed to cover the specific, and often more abstract, technical implementations later adopted in the 3GPP standards for UMTS and LTE (e.g., "layers")? The outcome of this question will likely determine infringement for several of the asserted patents.
  2. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key procedural and substantive question will be one of evidentiary specificity: does the complaint provide sufficient factual detail to plausibly allege infringement of highly specific technical limitations, such as the use of different coding schemes for retransmissions ('577 Patent) or the use of identical parameters for plural ACK/NACKs ('599 Patent), or does it rely on conclusory allegations that may be vulnerable to a motion to dismiss?
  3. FRAND and Willfulness: The dispute is set against a backdrop of failed FRAND licensing negotiations. This raises a central question regarding damages and intent: will Thales's alleged refusal to take a license and continued use of the technology be seen as willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge, or will its actions be interpreted as a good-faith dispute over the validity, scope, and value of the asserted patents within the complex framework of standards-essential patent licensing?