DCT

2:18-cv-00405

Universal Transdata LLC v. PC Gear Head LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00405, M.D. Fla., 06/11/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a Florida limited liability company with a registered office and a regular and established place of business within the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless keyboard and mouse products infringe a patent related to a system for connecting remote wireless peripherals to a computer via a Universal Serial Bus (USB) hub.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the wireless connection of multiple computer peripherals, such as keyboards and mice, to a computer through a single USB receiver, aiming to reduce cable clutter.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the patent and the alleged infringement, a fact that may be used to support the claim for willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-08-11 '114 Patent Priority Date
2006-04-11 '114 Patent Issue Date
2018-06-11 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,028,114 - "Universal Serial Bus Hub with Wireless Communication to Remote Peripheral Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,028,114, "Universal Serial Bus Hub with Wireless Communication to Remote Peripheral Device," issued April 11, 2006.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the inconvenience of contemporary USB hubs, which "require peripheral devices to be physically connected to the hub using cable connectors" ('114 Patent, col. 1:47-49). The stated goal is to create a USB hub that can communicate with multiple remote wireless peripherals without needing physical cables ('114 Patent, col. 1:50-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system comprising one or more wireless peripherals (e.g., keyboard, mouse) and a corresponding wireless USB hub. The peripherals transmit data via radio frequency (RF) to a receiver in the hub. The hub then processes this data, converts it to a standard USB data signal, and passes it to the computer through a single upstream USB port ('114 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2). This architecture allows multiple wireless devices to be managed through a single hub connected to the computer.
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to simplify the user experience by consolidating the connection of multiple wireless peripherals into a single USB device, thereby reducing desktop clutter from both peripheral cables and multiple wireless receivers ('114 Patent, col. 1:36-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 3, and 9 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a wireless system comprising:
    • A "remote wireless peripheral device" (limited to a keyboard, mouse, or joystick) with an RF transmitter as the "sole means for communicating" and having "no USB communication capability."
    • A "Universal Serial Bus (USB) hub" with an upstream port and a "hub controller" that "converts said wireless signal to a USB data signal" and passes it to the computer.
  • Independent Claim 3 recites a similar wireless system but is not limited to a specific type of peripheral device. It requires:
    • A "remote wireless peripheral device" with an RF transmitter as the "sole means for communicating" and having "no USB communication capability."
    • A "Universal Serial Bus (USB) hub" with a "hub controller" that "converts said wireless signal to a USB data signal."
  • Independent Claim 9 recites a system comprising:
    • "at least two remote wireless peripheral devices" (including a keyboard and mouse), each with an RF transmitter as the "sole means for communicating" and "not having any USB communication capability."
    • A "data reception circuit," an "upstream USB port," and a "hub controller" that "converts each of said wireless signals to a USB data signal."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 6 (Compl. ¶23).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused products as Defendant’s "2.4 GHz Wireless Desktop and Optical Mouse and other as-yet-unknown products that similarly satisfy each element of each asserted claim" (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are wireless keyboard and mouse combinations that "embody the patented invention" (Compl. ¶24). It states these products satisfy every element of the asserted claims "either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents" (Compl. ¶25). The complaint does not provide further technical detail about the specific operation of the accused products or any information regarding their market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's "2.4 GHz Wireless Desktop and Optical Mouse" products directly infringe claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 of the ’114 Patent (Compl. ¶23). The infringement theory is that these products, which consist of a wireless keyboard, a wireless mouse, and a USB receiver, constitute the "wireless system" recited in the patent's claims (Compl. ¶24). The complaint incorporates by reference a "preliminary claim chart attached hereto as Exhibit B" to detail its infringement contentions; however, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶25). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the proper construction of "Universal Serial Bus (USB) hub." The infringement allegation raises the question of whether a compact USB receiver dongle, common with modern wireless peripherals, meets the definition of a "hub," particularly as the patent illustrates embodiments with multiple downstream physical ports ('114 Patent, Fig. 2, element 45).
    • Technical Questions: The asserted claims contain several negative limitations. The case may therefore involve factual questions regarding whether the accused peripherals truly have "no USB communication capability" and whether their RF transmitter is the "sole means for communicating," as required by the claims ('114 Patent, col. 8:52-56). Another technical question is whether the accused receiver's integrated circuitry contains a "hub controller" that performs the specific function of "convert[ing] said wireless signal to a USB data signal," or if its method of processing data is technically distinct from the architecture described in the patent ('114 Patent, col. 8:62-65).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "Universal Serial Bus (USB) hub" (Claim 1, 3, 9)
    • Context and Importance: The applicability of the patent to the accused products, which likely utilize a a small USB dongle, hinges on whether that dongle is considered a "hub." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive of infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not explicitly require the presence of multiple downstream ports, focusing instead on the hub's function of receiving wireless data and passing it to an "upstream USB port" ('114 Patent, col. 8:57-60). A plaintiff could argue that any device performing this core data aggregation and relay function for wireless peripherals constitutes a "hub" within the context of the invention.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's specification, including its description of prior art (Fig. 1) and its own embodiments (Fig. 2), consistently depicts a "hub" as a device with multiple downstream ports (elements 24, 45). A defendant could argue the term should be limited to this common understanding of a device for port expansion.
  • The Term: "sole means for communicating" (Claim 1, 3, 9)
    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a strict requirement. If the accused peripherals have any alternative method for transmitting data (e.g., a wired connection option via a USB charging port), they may not infringe.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that the term refers to the sole means for communicating the primary "device information" (e.g., keystrokes, mouse movements) during normal wireless operation, and that other data capabilities for different functions do not negate this element.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is absolute: "said RF transmitter being the sole means for communicating said device information from said peripheral device" ('114 Patent, col. 8:54-56). A defendant will likely argue that any other data communication capability, for any purpose, violates this express limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a count for induced infringement, alleging that Defendant acted "actively and intentionally, with prior knowledge" to induce infringement by others (Compl. ¶33). The complaint does not specify the particular acts of inducement, such as providing instructional materials or advertising.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶28). The basis for this allegation is Defendant’s purported "actual knowledge of the '114 Patent and Plaintiff's claims of infringement" acquired from a "pre-suit notice" sent by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶27).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "Universal Serial Bus (USB) hub," which the patent illustrates with multiple downstream ports, be construed to read on the compact USB receiver dongle likely used by the accused products?
  • A key evidentiary question will concern compliance with negative limitations: can the plaintiff prove, and can the defendant disprove, that the accused wireless peripherals have no other data communication capability beyond their RF transmitters, as strictly required by the "sole means for communicating" language in the asserted claims?
  • A central technical question will be one of operational architecture: does the integrated processing in the accused USB receiver perform the distinct functions of a "hub controller" that "converts" a wireless signal to a USB signal as claimed, or does it employ a more modern, integrated architecture that is functionally and structurally different from what the patent describes and claims?