DCT

1:22-cv-01272

Redwood Tech LLC v. Netgear Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01272, D. Del., 03/02/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Netgear being incorporated in Delaware, maintaining regular and established places of business in the district, and having committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Wi-Fi compliant devices infringe five patents related to wireless communication technologies, including MIMO-OFDM signal transmission and communication protocols.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to technologies foundational to modern Wi-Fi networking under various IEEE 802.11 standards, a technology domain of significant importance in both consumer and enterprise electronics markets.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant notice letters regarding the asserted patents on November 8, 2021, January 11, 2022, and May 23, 2022. These allegations of pre-suit knowledge form the basis for claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-11-13 U.S. Patent No. 10,341,071 Priority Date
2003-04-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,654,754 Priority Date
2005-08-24 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,005,165, 9,628,300, and 10,075,272 Priority Date
2011-08-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,005,165 Issue Date
2014-02-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,654,754 Issue Date
2017-04-18 U.S. Patent No. 9,628,300 Issue Date
2018-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,075,272 Issue Date
2019-07-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,341,071 Issue Date
2021-11-08 Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant
2022-01-11 Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Defendant
2022-05-23 Plaintiff sends third notice letter to Defendant
2023-03-02 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,005,165 - “MIMO-OFDM Transmission Device, MIMO-OFDM Transmission Method, Reception Apparatus and Reception Method”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,005,165, entitled “MIMO-OFDM Transmission Device, MIMO-OFDM Transmission Method, Reception Apparatus and Reception Method,” issued August 23, 2011 (Compl. ¶16).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that in Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) communication, "sufficient consideration has not been given to the method of transmitting symbols" needed to achieve high-accuracy estimation of frequency offset and transmission path fluctuations, which is required for high reception quality (’165) Patent, col. 2:41-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes forming pilot carriers by assigning "orthogonal sequences to corresponding subcarriers among OFDM signals transmitted at the same time from the respective antennas in the time domain" (’165 Patent, col. 3:4-10). This structure allows a receiver to extract the pilot symbols for each channel without first needing a channel estimation value, thereby simplifying the receiver's design for compensating for frequency offset and phase noise (’165 Patent, col. 3:10-15).
  • Technical Importance: This approach is intended to improve the accuracy and efficiency of channel estimation in complex multi-antenna wireless systems, a critical factor for enabling the high data rates and reliability expected in modern Wi-Fi networks (Compl. ¶33; ’165 Patent, col. 1:20-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 7 (Compl. ¶26).
  • Claim 7 includes the following essential elements:
    • Forming a plurality of OFDM signals, each comprising several pilot carriers located on identical carrier positions among the signals.
    • Assigning orthogonal pilot sequences to identical time slots of pilot carriers on an identical carrier position among the signals.
    • Assigning an identical pilot sequence to at least two of the plurality of OFDM signals.
    • Transmitting the plurality of OFDM signals from a plurality of antennas over an identical frequency band at an identical time period (Compl. ¶32).
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶24).

U.S. Patent No. 8,654,754 - “Communication System, A Communication Method, and a Communication Apparatus With Clear to Send Signal Frame”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,654,754, entitled “Communication System, A Communication Method, and a Communication Apparatus With Clear to Send Signal Frame,” issued February 18, 2014 (Compl. ¶17).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the need for a system that enables "space division multiplexing communication" between an access point and multiple stations, while also ensuring coexistence with devices operating under conventional protocols (’754) Patent, col. 6:25-37).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes new frame formats for Request-to-Send (RTS) and Clear-to-Send (CTS) signals. The access point transmits an RTS signal that contains the addresses of multiple destination stations. In response, it receives multiple CTS signals from those stations, which enables the system to establish simultaneous communication links with each (’754 Patent, col. 6:28-37; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows a single access point to communicate with multiple devices concurrently over the same frequency band, which can significantly increase the overall capacity and efficiency of a wireless network (Compl. ¶53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent apparatus claim 43 (Compl. ¶47).
  • Claim 43 recites a first electronic device comprising processing circuitry configured to perform several functions, including:
    • Controlling transmission of a request to send (RTS) signal to a second electronic device, where the RTS frame includes the address of the second device.
    • Controlling reception of a clear to send (CTS) signal in reply, where the CTS signal includes at least a first, second, and third section.
    • The first section includes duration information for setting a counter value for controlling communication operation.
    • The second section includes the address of the first electronic device.
    • The third section includes the address of the second electronic device (’754 Patent, cl. 43).
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶45).

U.S. Patent No. 9,628,300 - “Method and Signal Generating Apparatus for Generating Modulation Signals”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,628,300, “Method and Signal Generating Apparatus for Generating Modulation Signals,” issued April 18, 2017 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of accurately estimating communication channels when demultiplexing signals transmitted simultaneously from multiple antennas (Compl. ¶73). The patented solution involves generating modulation signals that include orthogonal pilot symbol sequences, where the quantity of pilot symbols is greater than the quantity of modulation signals, thereby allowing the receiver to more easily isolate the symbols for each channel to perform accurate estimation (’300) Patent, col. 1:66-2:1; Compl. ¶72).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶63).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Netgear products of infringing by generating and transmitting modulation signals (e.g., HT-mixed format PPDUs) that include pilot symbol sequences for demodulation, allegedly embodying the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶64-66).

U.S. Patent No. 10,075,272 - “Transmission Signal Generation Apparatus, Transmission Signal Generation Method, Reception Signal Apparatus, and Reception Signal Method”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,075,272, “Transmission Signal Generation Apparatus, Transmission Signal Generation Method, Reception Signal Apparatus, and Reception Signal Method,” issued September 11, 2018 (Compl. ¶19).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a transmission apparatus designed to improve transmission speed by enabling high-accuracy frequency offset and channel fluctuation estimation (’272) Patent, col. 2:54-59; Compl. ¶101). The solution involves specific electronic circuitry that processes separate input data streams to generate two distinct OFDM signals, each containing specific pilot information, which are then transmitted from two different antennas simultaneously over the same frequency band (’272 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶103).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent apparatus claim 1 (Compl. ¶85).
  • Accused Features: Infringement allegations target the electronic circuitry within the Accused Products that performs the claimed steps of mapping data to complex symbols, converting them to parallel format, performing an inverse Fourier transform, and transmitting the resulting distinct OFDM signals and pilot information from first and second antennas (Compl. ¶¶86-97).

U.S. Patent No. 10,341,071 - “Radio Transmission Apparatus and Methods”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,341,071, “Radio Transmission Apparatus and Methods,” issued July 2, 2019 (Compl. ¶20).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent aims to improve both the quality and rate of data transmission by dynamically switching the transmission method based on the radio-wave propagation environment (’071) Patent, col. 4:40-48). The invention is a radio apparatus with circuitry that, based on estimated channel conditions, generates either a single modulation signal for transmission from one antenna or a plurality of modulation signals for transmission from multiple antennas (Compl. ¶122).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent apparatus claim 1 (Compl. ¶115).
  • Accused Features: The complaint targets the circuitry in Accused Products that, based on channel quality information (such as an MCS value), configures the device to transmit either a single modulation signal or multiple modulation signals (spatial streams) from its antennas (Compl. ¶¶116-117). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused Netgear Nighthawk XR1000 router (Compl. p. 34).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Accused Products are Netgear devices compliant with IEEE 802.11 wireless standards, including 802.11n, 802.11ac, 802.11ax, and 802.11ad (Compl. ¶15). The complaint specifically identifies the Netgear Nighthawk AX5400 WiFi Gaming Router (XR1000), Orbi Pro mesh systems, Nighthawk AD7200 Gaming Router Model (XR700), and Nighthawk X10 Smart WiFi Router (AD7200) as exemplary infringing products (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are Wi-Fi routers and mesh networking systems that provide wireless internet access for consumer and professional use (Compl. ¶¶6-7). Their relevant technical functionality includes performing MIMO-OFDM transmissions by generating and sending multiple spatial streams containing data and pilot symbols (Compl. ¶¶26-27). They also implement medium access control protocols, including the RTS/CTS mechanism specified in standards such as IEEE 802.11ad (Compl. ¶¶48-49). A key feature is their ability to adaptively select a transmission mode, such as the number of spatial streams, based on assessments of the communication channel quality (Compl. ¶116).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,005,165 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A MIMO-OFDM transmission method comprising: forming a plurality of OFDM signals, each of the plurality of OFDM signals comprising several pilot carriers, the several pilot carriers being located on identical carrier positions among the plurality of OFDM signals, such that orthogonal pilot sequences are assigned to identical time slots of pilot carriers on an identical carrier position among the plurality of OFDM signals and an identical pilot sequence is assigned to at least two of the plurality of OFDM signals; The Accused Products form multiple spatial streams for transmission as OFDM signals (e.g., HT-mixed format PPDUs). These signals contain pilot carriers at identical positions (e.g., -21, -7, 7, 21), and the pilot sequences for different spatial streams are alleged to be orthogonal. ¶27 col. 3:4-10
and transmitting the plurality of OFDM signals from a plurality of antennas over an identical frequency band at an identical time period. The Accused Products transmit signals from multiple antennas simultaneously over the same frequency channel (e.g., a 20 MHz channel). ¶28 Abstract

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the pilot structure defined in the IEEE 802.11 standard, which the complaint cites as the basis for infringement, meets the specific claim limitations of "orthogonal pilot sequences" and an "identical pilot sequence... assigned to at least two" signals as those terms are construed in the context of the ’165 Patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that pilot sequences are orthogonal based on their function within the IEEE 802.11 standard. A point of contention may be what evidence, beyond reference to the standard, demonstrates that the specific sequences used by the Accused Products meet the patent's definition of orthogonality and are assigned in the claimed manner.

U.S. Patent No. 8,654,754 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 43) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first electronic device comprising processing circuitry configured to: control transmitting a request to send signal to a second electronic device, wherein the request to send signal indicates a request to initiate data transmission and the request to send signal frame includes an address of the second electronic device; The Accused Products (e.g., XR700) are configured to transmit a Request to Send (RTS) frame to another wireless station, which contains the address of that station (the receiver address). The complaint provides a screenshot from the XR700 user manual listing 'IEEE 802.11ad 60 GHz' under its 'Data encoding standards' (Compl. p. 13). ¶48 Abstract
control receiving a clear to send signal from the second electronic device, wherein the clear to send signal is transmitted in reply to the request to send signal, and wherein the clear to send signal includes at least a first section, a second section, and a third section; The Accused Products are configured to receive a Directional Multi-Gigabit (DMG) Clear to Send (CTS) frame in response to the RTS frame. The DMG CTS frame is alleged to include a series of sections. ¶49 Abstract
the first section includes a duration information for setting a counter value for controlling communication operation; The DMG CTS frame includes a duration field. The complaint alleges the network allocation vector (NAV) uses this duration information to set a counter that determines how long the medium must be idle, thereby controlling communication. ¶49 col. 14:10-15
the second section includes the address of the first electronic device; The receiver address (RA) section of the DMG CTS frame is alleged to contain the address of the first electronic device (the original transmitter of the RTS). ¶49 col. 12:1-10
and the third section includes the address of the second electronic device. The transmitter address (TA) section of the DMG CTS frame is alleged to include the address of the second electronic device (the transmitter of the CTS). ¶49 col. 12:1-10

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory relies on mapping the structure of a standard-compliant IEEE 802.11ad DMG CTS frame onto the claimed three-part structure. A key question will be whether the standard's "Duration," "Receiver Address," and "Transmitter Address" fields correspond directly in structure and function to the claimed "first section," "second section," and "third section."
  • Technical Questions: Does the standard Network Allocation Vector (NAV) function, which uses the duration field to defer access, perform the specific function of setting "a counter value for controlling communication operation" as required by the claim, or is there a material functional difference between a deferral timer and the claimed control mechanism?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from U.S. Patent No. 8,005,165: "orthogonal pilot sequences"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention, as the use of orthogonal sequences is what allegedly allows the receiver to distinguish between pilot signals from different antennas and perform accurate estimations. The infringement case hinges on whether the pilot signals used in the Accused Products, as defined by the IEEE 802.11 standard, fall within the patent's definition of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the purpose of the sequences as enabling the receiver to extract pilot symbols "without using a channel estimation value" (’165 Patent, col. 3:10-15), which could support a functional definition covering any sequences that achieve this result.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent may disclose specific mathematical constructions for the sequences in its detailed description or figures. A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to these disclosed embodiments, such as sequences derived from a Walsh-Hadamard conversion, rather than covering any set of sequences that are merely mathematically separable.

Term from U.S. Patent No. 8,654,754: "a counter value for controlling communication operation"

  • Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that the Network Allocation Vector (NAV) timer in the accused devices satisfies this limitation. The dispute will likely focus on whether the standard NAV function, a mechanism for deferring transmission, is equivalent to the claimed "counter value for controlling communication operation."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the "duration information" is used to specify the "amount of time... necessary for the medium to be idle" (’754 Patent, col. 14:10-15), a description that aligns with the general purpose of a NAV timer.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the claim requires more than a simple deferral timer. The phrase "controlling communication operation" could be interpreted to require a more active or complex control function than the passive NAV mechanism, which simply instructs other stations to wait.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • For all five asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations state that Netgear, with knowledge of the patents, intended to cause infringement by, among other things, distributing user manuals, creating advertisements, and providing technical support that instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶39, 55, 77, 107, 124).

Willful Infringement

  • For all five asserted patents, the complaint alleges willful infringement. The basis for these allegations is Netgear's alleged knowledge of the patents and its infringement since at least the receipt of notice letters sent by Redwood on November 8, 2021, January 11, 2022, and May 23, 2022 (Compl. ¶¶40, 56, 78, 108, 125).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of standard-essentiality and claim mapping: The complaint heavily relies on the accused products' compliance with various IEEE 802.11 standards to establish infringement. This raises a central question of whether mere compliance is sufficient to meet the specific limitations of the patent claims as they will be construed by the court, or if this case will pivot to a dispute over whether the patents are essential to the standards and subject to FRAND licensing obligations.
  • A key technical question will be one of functional correspondence: Do the standardized functionalities alleged to be infringing—such as the 802.11n/ac pilot signal structure or the 802.11ad NAV mechanism—perform the exact technical operations required by the patent claims? The case may turn on whether there are subtle but material differences in implementation or purpose that could distinguish the accused functionality from the patented inventions.