Aviovision NV v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AvioVision N.V. (Belgium)
  • Defendant: Intellectual Ventures II LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: McCarter & English, LLP; Gish PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00134, D. Del., 02/04/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware because the defendant, Intellectual Ventures II LLC, is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and is therefore a resident of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff AvioVision seeks a declaratory judgment that its AvioCast product does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,032,000, and that the patent is invalid, in response to Defendant Intellectual Ventures suing AvioVision's customer, Southwest Airlines, for infringement of the same patent.
• Technical Context: The patent relates to managing uplink communications in wireless networks, specifically a method for a user device to send a control signal to a base station in a dedicated time interval to receive feedback on channel conditions.
• Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action arises from a prior lawsuit filed by Intellectual Ventures against AvioVision’s customer, Southwest Airlines, in the Northern District of Texas. In that action, Intellectual Ventures accused AvioVision's AvioCast device of infringing the patent-in-suit. The complaint also asserts that the patent is invalid as abstract under 35 U.S.C. § 101, anticipated or obvious over prior art under §§ 102/103, and indefinite under § 112.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,032,000 - "Communications in a Wireless Network"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,032,000, "Communications in a Wireless Network," issued June 8, 2021 (the ’000 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In wireless systems where uplink and downlink transmissions occur on different frequencies (Frequency Division Duplex or FDD), the ability to infer uplink channel quality from downlink signals ("channel reciprocity") is lost (’000 Patent, col. 2:7-11). This makes it difficult for a user device to efficiently perform functions like open-loop power control, which is important for managing interference in CDMA systems (’000 Patent, col. 1:35-43).
• The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a feedback-based system to substitute for the lack of channel reciprocity (’000 Patent, col. 2:20-24). The solution involves a user equipment (UE) transmitting a special uplink control signal, termed a "UL_Beacon," in a dedicated time interval when it is not sending normal data (’000 Patent, col. 2:37-41). A base station receives this beacon, determines channel conditions, and sends control information (e.g., power control commands) back to the UE on a downlink control channel (’000 Patent, col. 2:40-42). Figure 2 of the patent illustrates this concept, showing a dedicated "UL_Beacon" timeslot (216) that is temporally separate from the "normal traffic carrying timeslots" (214) used for data (’000 Patent, col. 6:3-6).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a system to implement closed-loop feedback for power control and other adjustments in FDD environments, aiming to replicate the efficiency benefits of TDD systems without relying on channel reciprocity (’000 Patent, col. 2:15-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint identifies independent claims 1 and 13 as asserted against AvioVision's product (Compl. ¶28).

• Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus Claim):

  • A user equipment (UE) comprising a receiver and processor configured to receive resource allocation information for an "uplink physical signal," where the signal and a "physical uplink shared channel" have different resources.
  • A transmitter and processor configured to send data over the physical uplink shared channel in assigned time intervals.
  • The transmitter and processor are further configured, in a time interval that it is not sending information over the physical uplink shared channel, to send the uplink physical signal.
  • This uplink physical signal is used by a base station to determine channel conditions, and multiple UEs transmit such signals in the same time interval.
  • The receiver and processor are further configured to receive control information (based on the determined channel conditions) on a physical control channel.

• Independent Claim 13 (Method Claim):

  • A method performed by a UE comprising steps that mirror the functions recited in the elements of Claim 1.

The complaint notes that dependent claims 2-6 and 14-18 have also been asserted against AvioVision's customer (Compl. ¶24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is AvioVision’s "Aircraft Interface Device (AID), known as AvioCast" (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the AvioCast device is installed on Southwest Airlines airplanes and includes a 4G modem to provide LTE ground connectivity (Compl. ¶25). The device acts as a user equipment (UE) within an LTE network while the aircraft is on the ground (Compl. ¶25). It is also alleged to generate a Wi-Fi network for use by the flight crew (Compl. ¶25).
• Intellectual Ventures’ infringement theory, as characterized by the complaint, is that the AvioCast device infringes by implementing standard LTE functionality, specifically by transmitting a "Sounding Reference Symbol (SRS)" which is alleged to be the claimed "uplink physical signal" (Compl. ¶¶26, 28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a full claim chart exhibit but describes the core of Intellectual Ventures' infringement theory and presents AvioVision's argument for non-infringement. The following summary is based on the complaint's characterization of the dispute.

’000 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

The central dispute appears to be the interpretation of the temporal limitation in claim element [1.3]. Figure 2 of the patent, which is reproduced and highlighted in the complaint, depicts the "UL_Beacon" control signal (216) occupying a timeslot distinct and non-overlapping with the "normal traffic carrying timeslots" (214) for data (Compl. ¶17). AvioVision leverages this figure to argue that the patent requires strict temporal separation.

• Scope Questions: The case raises the question of whether the claim phrase "in a time interval that it is not sending information over the physical uplink shared channel" requires a complete absence of data transmission during that interval, or if it can be satisfied by transmitting the control signal and data concurrently in the same time interval but on different resources (e.g., different frequencies).
• Technical Questions: A key technical question will be how LTE standards, which IV allegedly relies on, define the transmission timing of Sounding Reference Symbols (SRS) relative to the Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH). The complaint alleges that under LTE, SRSs and PUSCH data are transmitted in the same subframe or timeslot, which would appear to contradict the temporal separation shown in the patent's Figure 2 (Compl. ¶¶30-31).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "in a time interval that it is not sending information over the physical uplink shared channel" (’000 Patent, col. 10:4-6).
• Context and Importance: The construction of this phrase is dispositive for infringement. If it is construed to require that the "uplink physical signal" (the alleged SRS) be sent in a timeslot where no PUSCH data is present, AvioVision's non-infringement argument may be strengthened (Compl. ¶31). If it is construed more broadly to allow for simultaneous transmission on different frequency resources within the same timeslot, IV's infringement case may be viable. Practitioners may focus on this term because it creates a direct conflict between the patent's explicit teachings of temporal separation and the alleged operation of the accused LTE technology.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not present evidence for a broader reading. However, a party arguing for one might point to claim element [1.1], which introduces the concept that the uplink signal and the shared channel have "different resources" (’000 Patent, col. 9:60-62), and argue that "different resources" could encompass frequency, code, or time, making temporal separation just one possible, non-limiting embodiment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint heavily relies on intrinsic evidence for a narrow, temporally-separate construction. The specification states, "a UE allocates a time slot for a beacon signal separated from the time slots for data in a frame" (’000 Patent, col. 2:37-41). It further describes the uplink frame as comprising "a UL_Beacon control timeslot 216... and normal traffic carrying timeslots 214" (’000 Patent, col. 6:3-6). Figure 2 visually depicts these timeslots as distinct and non-overlapping (Compl. ¶17).

VI. Other Allegations

This section is not applicable, as the complaint is a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding of non-infringement and does not allege indirect or willful infringement by the defendant.

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

The resolution of this case appears to hinge on two primary questions for the court:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Must the claim phrase "in a time interval that it is not sending information over the physical uplink shared channel" be interpreted to require strict temporal separation, as depicted in the patent's specification and figures? Or can the limitation be met by simultaneous transmission in the same time interval using different frequency resources, as is alleged to occur in the accused LTE systems?
2. A related evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Assuming the claims are construed, what evidence will show how the accused AvioCast device actually transmits Sounding Reference Symbols (SRS) relative to data on the Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH)? The dispute will center on whether the device's operation aligns with the temporal requirements of the claims.