Nokia Of America Corp v. Acer Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiffs: Nokia of America Corporation; AT&T Services, Inc.; AT&T Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II LLC; T-Mobile USA, Inc.; Sprint, LLC f/k/a Sprint Corp.; Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (USA)
  • Defendant: Acer Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Farnan LLP; Richards Layton & Finger; Alston & Bird LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01106, D. Del., 02/04/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege that venue is proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant, Acer Inc., does not reside in the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their 4G and 5G mobile network infrastructure, which incorporates Nokia base station equipment, does not infringe ten U.S. patents owned by Defendant related to mobile communication standards.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for managing data transmission, connectivity, and power reporting in 4G LTE-A and 5G wireless telecommunication networks, which are foundational to modern mobile broadband services.
• Key Procedural History: This action arises from failed licensing negotiations between Nokia and Acer that began in 2018. Following litigation initiated by Nokia against Acer in April 2025 over different patents, Acer sent threat letters in July 2025 to Nokia's customers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon), alleging infringement of the patents-in-suit. Acer subsequently filed infringement suits in the Eastern District of Texas against AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon in January 2026, asserting six of the patents at issue in this case. The patents are alleged by Acer to be essential to the 4G LTE-A and 5G standards, raising potential obligations to license on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,252,641 - “Method of system information transmission and acquisition”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for efficient transmission of system information (SI) in a wireless network, particularly distinguishing between essential information needed for initial access and non-essential information that can be acquired later (’641 Patent, col. 1:19-33). Transmitting all information constantly consumes significant radio resources, but mobile devices need a way to acquire non-essential information when required ’641 Patent, col. 1:56-65
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a two-part system. "Essential minimum SI" is broadcast continuously on a fixed channel, containing scheduling information for "non-essential minimum SI" ’641 Patent, abstract This non-essential information is then broadcast on a dynamically scheduled shared channel, allowing the network to transmit it only when needed ’641 Patent, col. 2:4-10 The scheduling information in the essential broadcast includes an "availability information" flag that indicates whether the non-essential information is currently being broadcast, preventing mobile devices from searching for it unnecessarily ’641 Patent, col. 2:11-16
• Technical Importance: This method aims to conserve network bandwidth and device battery life by avoiding continuous broadcast of less critical system data while still providing a reliable mechanism for devices to obtain it on demand.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as a basis for its non-infringement count Compl. ¶¶83-84
• Claim 1 elements include:
  • A method performed by a network for system information transmission.
  • Broadcasting essential minimum SI with a fixed schedule on a downlink broadcast channel.
  • The essential minimum SI including scheduling information for non-essential minimum SI.
  • The scheduling information including availability information.
  • Broadcasting the non-essential minimum SI with a dynamic schedule on a downlink shared channel according to the availability information, enabling a mobile device to obtain it.
  • The availability information being set to a first value to indicate the cell broadcasts the non-essential SI and a second value to indicate it does not.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any claim" of the '641 Patent Compl. ¶88

U.S. Patent No. 11,044,053 - “Device and method of handling code block group-based communication operation”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In advanced wireless systems like LTE-A and 5G, large data packets (transport blocks) are divided into smaller "code blocks" for transmission. To improve efficiency, these code blocks can be bundled into "code block groups" (CBGs) for retransmission if an error occurs, rather than retransmitting the entire packet (’053 Patent, col. 1:51-61). However, the patent notes that a mechanism is needed to properly manage and acknowledge these CBG-based operations ’053 Patent, col. 1:62-67
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a network first sends an indication to a communication device to configure a CBG-based operation ’053 Patent, col. 2:11-15 The network then transmits a "maximum limit number of CBGs" for a given transport block, and the device performs the communication (e.g., receiving data and sending acknowledgements) according to this maximum number ’053 Patent, col. 2:15-20 This includes obtaining the size of a "CBG field" based on the maximum number of CBGs and transmitting this field in control information to indicate which specific CBGs are being sent or acknowledged ’053 Patent, col. 5:52-67
• Technical Importance: This system provides a structured framework for managing CBG-based transmissions and retransmissions, which is critical for achieving high data rates and reliability in 5G networks by allowing for more granular error correction.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent claim 22 as a basis for its non-infringement count Compl. ¶¶98-101
• Claim 22 elements include:
  • A method performed by a network for handling a CBG-based communication operation.
  • Transmitting an indication to configure at least one CBG-based communication operation.
  • Transmitting a maximum limit number of CBGs in a transport block.
  • Obtaining a size of a CBG field according to the maximum limit number of CBGs.
  • Transmitting the CBG field in downlink control information (DCI).
  • Performing the CBG-based communication according to the maximum limit number of CBGs and the CBG field.
• The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any claim" of the '053 Patent Compl. ¶105

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,791 - “Method of updating network detection and selection information and traffic routing information”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses methods for a communication device to manage its connection across different types of networks (e.g., cellular and WLAN). It discloses updating network selection and traffic routing policies using various cellular network procedures, such as handover or area updates, to ensure efficient data routing based on network conditions and rules provided by Radio Access Network (RAN) assistance information (’791 Patent, abstract; ’791 Patent, col. 2:8-20).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint cites independent claims 8 and 14 Compl. ¶115
• Accused Features: Plaintiffs allege their equipment is not capable of "transmitting a service region change accept message including... parameters of RAN assistance information/RAN rules" as required by claim 8, or "transmitting a connection reconfiguration message including... parameters of RAN assistance information/RAN rules" as required by claim 14 Compl. ¶115

U.S. Patent No. 9,999,097 - “Method of radio bearer establishment in dual connectivity”

• Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to "dual connectivity," where a mobile device is simultaneously connected to two different base stations (a master and a secondary). The invention describes a method for the master base station to coordinate with the secondary base station to establish or release radio bearers (data pathways) for the device, involving request and response messages between the two base stations (’097 Patent, abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint cites independent claims 1 and 8 Compl. ¶¶129-131
• Accused Features: Plaintiffs allege their equipment does not perform steps such as "receiving a response message including information about accepting or rejecting establishment or release" from a second base station, or "determining whether to establish or release" a radio bearer on that second base station Compl. ¶¶129-130

U.S. Patent No. 8,737,333 - “Method of power reporting and communication device thereof”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for a mobile device to manage reporting its maximum output power to the network, particularly in carrier aggregation scenarios where it uses multiple uplink carriers. The invention involves the device determining when to start or stop this power reporting based on characteristics of the device or the network (’333 Patent, abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint cites independent claims 17 and 21 Compl. ¶145
• Accused Features: Plaintiffs allege their equipment is not configured to "determin[e] whether to start a maximum output power reporting... according to a characteristic associated to the mobile device or the network" as required by the claims Compl. ¶145

U.S. Patent No. 9,807,746 - “Method of handling hybrid automatic repeat request feedback and related communication device”

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the handling of HARQ (Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request) feedback in TDD (Time Division Duplex) systems where different devices may have different uplink/downlink configurations. The invention provides a method for a device to determine whether HARQ feedback is located in a specific control channel (PHICH) based on the configurations of multiple devices in the system (’746 Patent, abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint cites independent claim 9 Compl. ¶¶156-158
• Accused Features: Plaintiffs allege their equipment does not practice the step of "determining whether the HARQ feedback is scheduled to exist in a physical HARQ indicator channel (PHICH)... according to the first UL/DL configuration of a first communication device... and the second UL/DL configuration of a second communication device" Compl. ¶156

U.S. Patent No. 8,798,663 - “Method of performing power headroom reporting and communication device thereof”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for reporting power headroom (the difference between maximum and current transmit power) in a carrier aggregation context. The invention involves transmitting mapping information between a power amplifier and the uplink component carriers it serves, which helps the network manage power control across multiple carriers served by a single amplifier (’663 Patent, abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint cites independent claims 9 and 19 Compl. ¶169
• Accused Features: Plaintiffs allege their equipment does not practice "transmitting mapping information between the power amplifier and the uplink component carriers with a message for component carrier configuration" Compl. ¶169

U.S. Patent No. 8,787,304 - “Method for reference signal pattern allocation and related communication device”

• Technology Synopsis: This patent concerns the allocation of demodulation reference signals (DM-RS), which are used for channel estimation. The invention describes mapping reference signal patterns, which are multiplied by orthogonal cover codes (OCC), onto physical resource blocks (PRBs) according to specific mapping rules that vary based on factors like the antenna port (’304 Patent, abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint cites independent claims 1 and 19 Compl. ¶180
• Accused Features: Plaintiffs allege their equipment does not practice the specific "mapping a plurality of reference signal patterns... according to an OCC mapping rule" where the rule dictates a particular forward/reverse mapping of Walsh code sequences across OFDM symbols Compl. ¶180

U.S. Patent No. 7,797,615 - “Utilizing variable-length inputs in an inter-sequence permutation turbo code system”

• Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to turbo codes, a type of error-correcting code. The invention discloses a system with a "bit-adding means" that processes an incoming information bit sequence before it enters the turbo encoder, allowing the system to handle variable-length inputs (’615 Patent, abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint cites independent claims 1 and 23 Compl. ¶191
• Accused Features: Plaintiffs allege their equipment does not practice and is not capable of practicing "a bit-adding means... processing the received information bit sequence input prior to any subsequent processing... in the inter-sequence permutation encode" Compl. ¶191

U.S. Patent No. 9,526,048 - “Method of handling measurement gap configuration and communication device thereof”

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses "measurement gaps," periods when a mobile device temporarily stops transmitting/receiving to measure signals from other cells or frequencies. The invention provides a method for configuring a measurement gap for a device with multiple component carriers using different gap offsets for different carriers, preventing all carriers from being interrupted simultaneously (’048 Patent, abstract).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint cites independent claim 1 Compl. ¶¶214-215
• Accused Features: Plaintiffs allege their equipment does not practice "configuring one measurement gap configuration to the mobile device with a first gap offset for at least a first component carrier... and with a second gap offset for at least a second component carrier" Compl. ¶214

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the 4G LTE-A and 5G mobile network infrastructures operated by Plaintiffs AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon Compl. ¶5 The complaint specifies that these networks rely on "Nokia 4G LTE-A and 5G base station equipment" Compl. ¶79 The action for declaratory judgment seeks to establish that both the Nokia equipment and the networks incorporating it do not infringe Acer's patents (Compl. ¶¶83, 98).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused instrumentalities provide nationwide mobile telecommunication, internet, and other data services to customers via cellular base stations Compl. ¶5 This infrastructure operates in accordance with 3GPP 4G/LTE and 5G standards, including Releases 8-15 Compl. ¶5 Acer's allegations, as described by the complaint, are predicated on the argument that operating standard-compliant "base transceiver station equipment" necessarily infringes its patents, which it claims are essential to those standards (Compl. ¶¶20, 33-34).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'641 Patent Infringement Allegations

'053 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The dispute centers on whether operating a standards-compliant 4G/5G network infrastructure inherently practices the specific methods claimed in Acer's patents. A central question for the court will be whether compliance with the 3GPP standards, as alleged by Acer, is sufficient to meet the specific limitations recited in the asserted claims, or if the claims describe optional implementations or specific methods not mandated by the standards.
  • Technical Questions: For the '641 patent, the analysis may turn on the precise mechanism by which the accused base stations manage and signal the availability of non-essential system information. For the '053 patent, a key question may be whether the accused equipment's handling of data retransmissions uses the specific CBG configuration, sizing, and signaling steps required by claim 22. Plaintiffs' blanket denials suggest a potential argument that their systems achieve similar outcomes through technically distinct methods.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "non-essential minimum SI" ’641 Patent, Claim 1
• Context and Importance: This term is central because the plaintiffs' non-infringement argument for the '641 patent focuses on the alleged inability of their equipment to perform the claimed broadcasting and signaling steps related to this specific type of information Compl. ¶¶83-84 The definition will determine what type of system information falls within the claim's scope and whether the accused systems handle such information in the claimed manner.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that non-essential minimum SI "is organized into one or more system information blocks (SIBs)" ’641 Patent, col. 1:29-32, which could suggest the term covers a wide range of standard SIBs.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes it as information that is "dynamically scheduled on a physical downlink shared channel" ’641 Patent, col. 1:29-32, in contrast to "essential minimum SI" which is on a fixed broadcast channel. This distinction may support a narrower construction limited to information handled via this specific dynamic scheduling mechanism.
• The Term: "CBG-based communication operation" ’053 Patent, Claim 22
• Context and Importance: Plaintiffs' non-infringement arguments for the '053 patent assert that their equipment is not configured to perform the claimed steps related to this operation, such as transmitting configuration indications and a "maximum limit number of CBGs" (Compl. ¶¶98-99). The construction of this term will be critical to determining if the retransmission and error-correction schemes used in the accused networks fall within the scope of the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background describes the operation generally as a proposal "to improve (re)transmission efficiency of a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process by grouping a number of code block(s) into a CBG" ’053 Patent, col. 1:51-56 This could support an interpretation covering various HARQ schemes that utilize code block grouping.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and claim 22 itself tie the "operation" to a specific sequence of steps: transmitting a configuration indication, transmitting a maximum limit number, obtaining a CBG field size, and transmitting that field in DCI ’053 Patent, Claim 22 This suggests the term may be limited to processes that follow this particular signaling and configuration protocol, and not just any process that uses CBGs.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and does not contain allegations by the Plaintiffs of indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willfulness but notes that Acer's threat letters to Nokia's customers created the controversy that forms the basis of this action. These letters allegedly warned that a "failure to respond... will result in a claim of willful infringement based upon [the customers'] knowing and intentional infringement of Acer's rights" Compl. ¶37 This suggests that if Acer were to counterclaim for infringement, it may allege willfulness based on pre-suit knowledge established by these letters.

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

This declaratory judgment action will likely center on the technical and legal distinctions between practicing a communication standard and infringing a patent alleged to be essential to that standard. The key questions for the court appear to be:

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can Plaintiffs demonstrate a technical mismatch between the actual operation of their 4G/5G base station equipment and the specific, multi-step methods recited in Acer's patent claims? The case may depend on evidence showing that the accused systems either do not perform certain claimed functions or perform them in a manner that falls outside a proper construction of the claim language.
• A second key question will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe foundational technical terms such as "non-essential minimum SI" and "CBG-based communication operation"? The outcome of claim construction will likely determine whether the functionality of the accused standard-compliant equipment reads on the patent claims.
• Finally, the case raises the broader issue of standard-essentiality: While Acer alleges its patents are essential to 4G/5G standards, this action challenges that premise by arguing that standard-compliant equipment does not infringe. The court's findings on infringement will directly test the veracity of Acer's essentiality claims for these ten patents.