Stormborn Tech LLC v Axxcss Wireless Solutions, Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Axxcss Wireless Solutions, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA; SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:21-cv-00254, D. Del., 02/23/2021
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is therefore domiciled in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s LTE base station products infringe a patent related to dynamically adjusting the data rate of a wireless transmission based on a feedback signal from a remote terminal.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns adaptive modulation and coding in spread-spectrum wireless communication systems, a foundational technique for optimizing performance and reliability in modern cellular networks.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was previously subject to a motion to dismiss on abstractness grounds in a separate case, which was denied, suggesting the patent's claims are tied to a concrete technological solution.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,199 - "Variable throughput reduction communications system and method"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,199, "Variable throughput reduction communications system and method," issued May 7, 2013.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in multi-cell wireless systems where a remote device at the edge of a cell experiences significant signal interference from adjacent cells, which degrades the connection quality (’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Prior solutions to increase interference immunity, such as increasing processing gain, came at the cost of reducing the data rate and requiring complex changes to the receiver's hardware architecture (’199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a closed-loop feedback system. A receiver measures the error rate of the incoming signal, typically by analyzing a "syndrome signal" from its error-correction decoder, and generates a "data-rate command signal" based on this measurement (’199 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:63-65). This command signal is sent back to the transmitter, which then adjusts the data rate of its transmission—for instance, by changing the number of data channels or how data is allocated to them—to maintain a desired quality level without altering the receiver's core architecture (’199 Patent, col. 4:6-21; Fig. 5).
• Technical Importance: This method of dynamically adapting transmission parameters based on real-time channel conditions allows for more efficient and robust communication, a principle that is central to modern high-speed wireless standards.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 18 and dependent claims 20 and 21 (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 50).
• Independent Claim 18 recites a method for transmitting a wireless signal, including the essential elements of:
  • Demultiplexing input data into a plurality of independent data channels;
  • FEC (Forward Error Correction) encoding and interleaving the data channels;
  • Processing the encoded channels into a plurality of modulated channels;
  • Receiving an error rate dependent data rate control signal generated from a remote terminal; and
  • Adjusting the data rate of the transmitted signal in accordance with that control signal.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies Defendant’s "AxxceLTE eNodeB" as the Accused Product (Compl. ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Product is described as a solution that practices a method for transmitting wireless signals, specifically an LTE eNodeB (base station) operating in E-UTRA frequency bands (Compl. ¶42). The complaint alleges the product performs the claimed steps by demultiplexing data, performing FEC encoding, modulating data streams (e.g., QPSK/16QAM/64AQAM), and, critically, receiving a "4-Bit CQI signal" from user equipment (such as a smartphone) that it uses to control the data rate and code rate of its transmissions (Compl. ¶¶ 43-47). The product’s name suggests it is a component of LTE cellular infrastructure.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B" that was not included in the provided filing; the following summary is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body.

RE44,199 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The central dispute may turn on whether the accused "4-Bit CQI signal" standard in LTE communications qualifies as an "error rate dependent data rate control signal" as recited in the claim. A CQI value is a broader measure of channel quality, not necessarily a direct report of a decoded error rate from a "syndrome signal" as described in the patent’s preferred embodiment (’199 Patent, col. 2:63-65). The court may need to decide if "error rate dependent" requires a direct calculation from decoded errors or if it can encompass a more general channel quality metric that predicts future error rates.
  • Technical Questions: What specific mechanism does the Accused Product use to "adjust[] the data rate"? The complaint alleges changes to the "FEC encoding rate" (Compl. ¶49), which aligns with dependent claim 21. A factual question will be whether the accused adjustment method functions in a way consistent with the method disclosed in the ’199 patent, which describes controlling a demultiplexer to vary how many parallel channels carry unique versus duplicated data (’199 Patent, col. 5:9-20).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "error rate dependent data rate control signal"
• Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the invention's feedback mechanism and the infringement case. Whether the accused LTE CQI signal falls within the scope of this term will be a dispositive issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specific embodiments tie the signal to an FEC "syndrome," while the accused product uses a standardized channel quality metric.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may point to language describing the signal’s function more broadly, such as a "control signal indicating a desired data rate" (’199 Patent, col. 13:8-9) or a "feedback control signal being an indication of the signal quality" (’199 Patent, col. 14:52-53). This could support an argument that any signal used to manage data rate based on channel quality, including CQI, is covered.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue the term is defined by its implementation in the specification, where the "command processor" acts in response to the "syndrome signal" generated from the "error rate of the multiplicity of added channels" (’199 Patent, col. 2:63-65; col. 10:59-62). This could support a narrower construction requiring the control signal to be derived directly from post-decoding error calculations, not predictive channel quality estimates.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 55-56). The factual support is general, alleging Defendant encourages infringement by selling the Accused Products to customers for infringing use and that the products are not staple articles of commerce.
• Willful Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶53) and includes a prayer for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. §285 (Prayer for Relief, f). This suggests a theory of post-suit willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "error rate dependent data rate control signal," which the patent specification links to a post-decoding "syndrome signal," be construed to cover the standardized, predictive "Channel Quality Indicator" (CQI) signal used in the accused LTE product?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: does the infringement theory, which maps the claim element of "receiving an error rate dependent... control signal" to the accused product's receipt of a CQI signal, represent a functional match or a mismatch between the patent's specific feedback mechanism and the operation of the LTE standard?
• A third question concerns patent eligibility history: how will the prior judicial finding that the patent claims a "specific technological solution" and not an abstract idea (Compl. ¶40) influence claim construction and the overall trajectory of the case, potentially limiting certain invalidity defenses at an early stage?