DCT
1:23-cv-00462
Watchy Technology Pvt Ltd v. Dejero Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Watchy Technology Private Limited (India)
- Defendant: Dejero Inc. (Delaware) and Dejero Labs Inc. (Ontario, Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.; Palavan & Moore, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00462, D. Del., 04/26/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Dejero Inc. is incorporated in Delaware, and because Defendants allegedly conduct business and the infringing acts occur in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Smart Blending Technology, used in its video transmission and connectivity products, infringes a patent related to aggregating multiple network connections to increase bandwidth.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of providing reliable, high-bandwidth internet connectivity for applications like live video streaming by combining multiple different wireless and wired networks (e.g., cellular, Wi-Fi, satellite) into a single, more robust virtual connection.
- Key Procedural History: During U.S. prosecution, the patent examiner initially rejected the claims as obvious over the combination of U.S. Patent Publications Kahn and Kawai. The applicant subsequently amended the claims, arguing that the combination did not teach the claimed limitations, after which the examiner issued a notice of allowance. This prosecution history may be relevant to interpreting the scope of the amended claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-12-29 | U.S. Patent No. 10,454,726 Priority Date (Indian App.) |
| 2019-10-22 | U.S. Patent No. 10,454,726 Issue Date |
| 2023-04-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,454,726 - "System for Increasing Bandwidth Available for Data Communication"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,454,726 (“System for Increasing Bandwidth Available for Data Communication”), issued October 22, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of mobile devices having insufficient bandwidth for rich content like video streaming. Even when devices were equipped with multiple Radio Access Technologies (RATs), such as cellular and Wi-Fi, they were typically limited to using only one at a time, resulting in an unsatisfactory user experience (Compl. ¶¶27-28; ’726 Patent, col. 1:14-28). Prior art solutions for combining multiple network paths were often complex, required modifications at both the client and the destination server, and operated in an inefficient "all-or-nothing" manner that could waste resources (Compl. ¶¶29, 35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system with a user device and an intermediate server that sits between the user and the final destination server. The user device intelligently and selectively activates multiple RATs based on specific criteria, such as data usage exceeding a threshold. It then allocates and sends data across these multiple channels simultaneously to the intermediate server. The intermediate server reassembles the data and forwards it to the destination server using standard network protocols, making the aggregation process transparent to the destination (Compl. ¶¶36, 49; ’726 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:44-67). This architecture, depicted in the patent’s Figure 1, isolates the complexity of connection bonding to the link between the user equipment and the intermediate server (Compl. ¶49; ’726 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This architecture enables bandwidth aggregation without requiring any changes to the vast number of existing destination servers on the internet, thereby offering a more scalable and practical solution to improve mobile connectivity (Compl. ¶¶38, 44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (system) and 10 (method) (Compl. ¶108).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A system comprising a user equipment and an intermediate server.
- The user equipment is configured to allocate data to a plurality of data channels associated with different radio access technologies (RATs).
- The user equipment is configured to selectively enable simultaneous communication over the data channels based on at least one of three conditions:
- if data usage by the user equipment crosses a first threshold;
- if data communication is requested by one or more enlisted applications; or
- based on the type of content being communicated.
- The user equipment is further configured to send the allocated data simultaneously to the intermediate server, receive data back from the intermediate server simultaneously, and assemble the received data.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but infringement of claims 1 and 10 is alleged (Compl. ¶108).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses Dejero's "Smart Blending Technology" ("SBT") and the associated services and products that use it. These include the EnGo series of mobile transmitters, PathWay encoders, WayPoint receivers, GateWay network aggregation devices, and the LivePlus mobile application (Compl. ¶¶108-109).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused SBT system is described as a technology that "simultaneously blends together multiple wired (broadband, fiber) and wireless (3G/4G/5G, Wi-Fi, satellite) IP connections from multiple providers to form a virtual Dejero 'network of networks'" (Compl. ¶112; p. 53 visual). The complaint alleges this is achieved using a client device (e.g., an EnGo transmitter) and an intermediate server, which can be a physical appliance (like a WayPoint receiver) or a cloud-based service (like the Dejero GateWay Cloud Service) (Compl. ¶¶113-114).
- The complaint includes a marketing diagram illustrating the accused functionality, showing a "Remote location" device connecting via multiple, diverse network paths to a central "Dejero Virtual Network," which in turn connects to a "Headquarters" or other cloud resources (Compl. ¶112; p. 53). This diagram visually represents the alleged two-hop architecture involving an intermediate aggregation point.
- The complaint alleges these products are marketed for providing reliable, high-bandwidth connectivity for mission-critical applications, particularly for mobile professionals transmitting high-quality live video (Compl. ¶¶112-113; p. 58 visual).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’726 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for increasing bandwidth available for data communication, the system comprising a user equipment and an intermediate server... | The SBT system comprises a "remote terminal in the field (Dejero GateWay network aggregation device)" (user equipment) linked to an "endpoint in the cloud (Dejero GateWay Cloud Service)" (intermediate server) (Compl. ¶114, p. 64 visual). The user equipment can be an EnGo transmitter or a device running the LivePlus app, and the intermediate server can be a WayPoint receiver or cloud service (Compl. ¶¶109, 113-114). | ¶¶109, 113-114 | col. 1:37-40 |
| wherein the user equipment is configured to... allocate data to a plurality of data channels for transmission to the intermediate server; wherein each of the data channels is associated with a radio access technology... | The SBT system "blends together multiple... wireless (3G/4G/5G, Wi-Fi, satellite) IP connections" (Compl. ¶112, p. 53 visual). The system allocates portions of the communicated data to each of the enabled RATs to maximize data transfer (Compl. ¶116). | ¶¶112, 116 | col. 8:1-4 |
| wherein the user equipment is configured to selectively enable communication of data via a plurality of data channels simultaneously: if data usage by the user equipment crosses a first threshold...or...enlisted applications; or...based on type of content... | The complaint alleges infringement of the claim in full (Compl. ¶109). It further alleges the SBT system permits the use of any number of available wireless technologies "based on bandwidth needs, the data being communicated (e.g., live video streams), and/or to enhance reliability," implying a selective process (Compl. ¶115). | ¶¶109, 115 | col. 8:5-13 |
| send the allocated data via the plurality of data channels simultaneously to the intermediate server... | The SBT system "dynamically distribute[s] packets across the multiple connections" (Compl. ¶116, p. 73 visual). The system sends data over each selectively enabled RAT based on an allocation schema (Compl. ¶117). | ¶¶116, 117 | col. 8:13-15 |
| receive data from the intermediate server via the plurality of data channels simultaneously; and assemble data received from the intermediate server via the plurality of data channels. | The SBT system receives data from the intermediate server via the plurality of channels, with the user equipment collecting, aggregating, and assembling the data portions from each RAT into a full data item (Compl. ¶¶118-119). A diagram shows a tunnel between the Dejero GateWay device and Cloud Service for this communication (Compl. ¶118, p. 78 visual). | ¶¶118, 119 | col. 8:16-20 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The core of the dispute may turn on the "selectively enable" limitation. The complaint alleges infringement but primarily provides marketing materials describing "dynamic" and "intelligent" blending. A key question for the court will be whether Dejero's SBT system implements the specific, conditional logic required by the claim (i.e., activating channels only when a threshold is crossed or a specific application requests it), or if it aggregates all available connections by default. The evidence presented in the complaint does not definitively distinguish between these two modes of operation.
- Scope Questions: The prosecution history, where the applicant amended the claims to overcome prior art, will be critical. The defendant may argue that the term "selectively enable" was narrowed during prosecution to mean only the specific triggering events listed in the claim, and that their "always-on" blending approach falls outside this narrowed scope. Another question is whether Dejero's distributed "cloud service" or "virtual network" meets the claim's requirement for an "intermediate server," which the patent specification depicts as a discrete hardware component.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "selectively enable"
Context and Importance: This term appears to be the central point of novelty distinguished over the prior art during prosecution. Its construction will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition dictates whether a system that continuously blends all available connections infringes, or if the claim requires a system that explicitly decides to activate or deactivate secondary connections based on one of the three specified triggering events.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the goal is to "selectively improve bandwidth" ('726 Patent, col. 1:31-32). A party could argue that any intelligent, non-static method of using multiple channels, such as dynamically allocating packets based on real-time link quality, constitutes "selective enabling."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself provides a clear list of three specific, conditional triggers for the "selective enabling": crossing a data usage threshold, a request from an enlisted application, or the type of content ('726 Patent, col. 8:8-13). The specification reinforces this with examples, such as Figure 3 showing activation only when data usage (302) exceeds a threshold (T1) (Compl. ¶54; ’726 Patent, col. 6:30-41). This suggests "selective enabling" is not a continuous state but a discrete event.
The Term: "intermediate server"
Context and Importance: The claimed architecture relies on this component to act as an aggregation point. The infringement question depends on whether Dejero's cloud-based architecture is equivalent to the patent's "intermediate server."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "server" is a functional term and that any network entity, including a distributed cloud service, that performs the claimed functions of receiving, assembling, and forwarding data meets the definition. The complaint alleges Dejero's "GateWay Cloud Service" performs this role (Compl. ¶114, p. 64 visual).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification consistently depicts the intermediate server (104) as a distinct hardware entity, separate from the user equipment and the destination server, and possessing components like a "second processor" (103) and an "ethernet device" (116) ('726 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:8-10). This could support an argument that the term requires a single, co-located piece of equipment, not a diffuse cloud service.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by claiming Defendants provide products, instructions, and encouragement for customers to use the SBT system in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶121). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that the SBT system components are especially made and adapted for infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶122).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' constructive notice of the patent since its issuance and actual notice from the filing of the complaint. The complaint alleges that continued infringement post-notice is "willful, wanton, malicious, in bad-faith, deliberate, conscious and wrongful" (Compl. ¶¶123, 126).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction shaped by prosecution history: Can the claim term "selectively enable," which was added to overcome prior art, be interpreted to read on a system that "dynamically blends" multiple connections, or is it strictly limited to a system that activates additional connections only upon the occurrence of one of the three specific triggering events recited in the claim?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Beyond marketing language, what factual evidence will demonstrate whether the accused Smart Blending Technology actually implements the specific, conditional logic of Claim 1 (e.g., activating a second RAT only when a data usage threshold is crossed), or if it functions as a continuous, always-on aggregator that is fundamentally different from the patented method?
- A final question will be one of architectural equivalence: Does Dejero’s modern, cloud-based "virtual network" fall within the scope of the term "intermediate server," which the patent specification illustrates as a discrete hardware component with its own processor and ethernet port?