Stormborn Tech LLC v. Omega Engineering

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Omega Engineering, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm PA
• Case Identification: 1:21-cv-01367, D. Del., 09/28/2021
• 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 purposes of patent venue.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s data logger products infringe a patent related to dynamically adjusting data rates in wireless communication systems based on received signal quality.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses managing interference in spread-spectrum wireless networks by enabling a receiver to command a transmitter to alter its data throughput, a crucial function for maintaining reliable connections, particularly at the edge of cellular coverage.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in prior litigation involving the same patent (Stormborn Tech LLC v. Topcon Positioning Systems Inc), a court found representative Claim 11 to recite a "specific technological solution" and not an abstract idea. The complaint also references the patent's prosecution history, where the inventor allegedly distinguished the invention by its use of "command processor circuitry response to the error rate of decoded channels" to control the data rate.

Case Timeline

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

• 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 describes a problem in spread-spectrum communication systems where a remote station near the edge of a cellular area experiences substantial interference from adjacent cells, which can degrade the error rate of the signal to an unusable level (’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Conventional methods to overcome this, such as increasing processing gain, undesirably reduced the data rate and required changing the physical architecture of the receiver (’199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a closed-loop feedback system where a receiver analyzes the error rate of the data it receives and, in response, generates and transmits a "data-rate command signal" back to the transmitter (’199 Patent, Abstract). As shown in the patent's figures, an "Error Rate and Data Rate Command Processor" (59) at the receiver uses error information (a "syndrome" signal) from the decoder to generate this command, which instructs the transmitter to adjust its data rate, for instance by sending the same data over multiple channels to increase robustness (’199 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 2:63-67).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows the communication system to dynamically adapt to changing interference conditions to maintain signal quality, allegedly without requiring burdensome architectural changes to the receiver (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method Claim 13 and dependent Claim 14.
• Essential elements of independent Claim 13 include:
  • Detecting transmitted signals in demodulated channels.
  • FEC decoding the channels to provide decoded channels, each having an error rate.
  • Using command processor circuitry that is responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels to generate a data-rate control signal for the transmitter.
  • Transmitting this error-rate-dependent control signal back to the transmitter.
  • Multiplexing the decoded channels into a single stream of received data.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other dependent claims but notes that its investigation is ongoing (Compl. ¶56, fn. 1).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Omega OM-240 Data Logger" (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶56).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Product is a system that practices a method for recovering wireless data (Compl. ¶57). It alleges, based on "at least in internal testing and usage," that the product performs the specific steps of the asserted claims, including decoding channels, calculating an error rate, using a command processor to generate a control signal based on that error rate, and transmitting that signal back to a data transmitter (Compl. ¶¶59-61). The complaint does not provide independent technical details about the Accused Product's operation or its specific market context beyond these infringement allegations.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Claim Chart Summary: The following table summarizes the infringement allegations for the primary asserted independent claim, based on the narrative provided in the complaint.

RE44,199 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: The complaint's allegations rely on "internal testing and usage" (Compl. ¶57). A central question is what evidence exists that the OM-240 Data Logger actually performs the claimed method. Specifically, does the accused system calculate an "error rate" from "FEC decoded channels" and use that specific metric to generate an explicit "data-rate control signal" that is then transmitted back to the source, or does it use a different mechanism for rate adaptation?
• Scope Questions: The patent's background focuses on multi-cell telecommunication networks. A potential question is whether the operation of the accused industrial data logger falls within the scope of the claims as understood in light of the patent's specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels"

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be the core inventive concept distinguished during prosecution and cited in prior litigation as non-abstract (Compl. ¶25, ¶54). The case will likely hinge on whether the Accused Product's architecture meets this specific functional requirement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language "responsive to" could be argued to encompass any system where the error rate is an input that has some causal effect on the generation of a control signal, even if indirect.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment where a command processor (59) receives a "syndrome signal" directly from the FEC decoder (56) to determine the data rate (’199 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 8:8-14). This could support a narrower construction requiring the processor to act directly on error data generated during the FEC decoding process.

• The Term: "data-rate control signal"

• Context and Importance: Defining what constitutes this "signal" is critical. Infringement depends on whether the Accused Product transmits a communication that meets the definition of this term back to the transmitter.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any data transmitted from the receiver that causes the transmitter to change its data rate—even a general channel quality indicator—functions as a "data-rate control signal".
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 of the patent shows a dedicated "DATA-RATE COMMAND SIGNAL" (31) that directly controls a demultiplexer at the transmitter to adjust the number of parallel channels used (’199 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 7:26-31). This suggests the term refers to an explicit command for a specific purpose, not a general status message from which a rate change could be inferred.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting Defendant encouraged its customers to perform the infringing method (Compl. ¶69). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Products are sold for an infringing use and are not a "staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶70).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of infringement acquired "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶67). This is an allegation of post-suit willfulness, forming a basis for the prayer for enhanced damages.

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

1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: What technical evidence will emerge from discovery to show that the accused "Omega OM-240 Data Logger" actually performs the specific feedback loop recited in the claims? The case may turn on whether the Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused system generates a control signal that is functionally "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels," as opposed to some other channel quality metric.

2. The dispute will also involve a core question of claim construction: How will the court define "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate"? The outcome will likely depend on whether the court adopts a broader functional definition or a narrower one tied to the specific FEC-syndrome-based implementation detailed in the patent's specification and emphasized during its prosecution.