Universal Transdata LLC v. Deerbrook Electronics LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Universal Transdata, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Deerbrook Electronics, LLC (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ausley McMullen; Kent & Risley LLC
• Case Identification: 8:18-cv-01353, M.D. Fla., 06/05/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the judicial district and has a regular and established place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless keyboard and mouse combination product infringes a patent related to a wireless Universal Serial Bus (USB) hub system for communicating with remote peripheral devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems and methods for connecting multiple wireless peripherals, such as keyboards and mice, to a computer via a single USB hub that receives and processes their respective wireless signals.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the patent and the alleged infringement, which may form the basis for a subsequent claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-08-11	'114 Patent Priority Date
2000-08-04	'114 Patent Application Filing Date
2006-04-11	'114 Patent Issue Date
2018-06-05	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," issued April 11, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inconvenience of conventional Universal Serial Bus (USB) hubs, which required peripheral devices like keyboards and mice to be physically connected to the hub with cables. (’114 Patent, col. 1:49-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a wireless USB hub system that eliminates the need for physical cables between peripherals and the hub. The system comprises one or more wireless peripheral devices (e.g., a keyboard, mouse) that transmit data via radio frequency (RF), and a corresponding USB hub with RF reception capabilities. (’114 Patent, Abstract). The hub receives the wireless signals, processes them to identify the source and format the data, and then passes the information to a computer through a single upstream USB connection, as depicted in Figure 2. (’114 Patent, col. 2:61-68).
• Technical Importance: This technology aimed to simplify computer workspaces by removing cable clutter while preserving the utility of a central USB connection point for multiple devices. (’114 Patent, col. 1:29-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 3, and 9.
• Independent Claim 1 recites a wireless system comprising:
  • A remote wireless peripheral device (one of a keyboard, a mouse, and a joystick) with a circuit and an RF transmitter.
  • The RF transmitter is the "sole means for communicating" device information.
  • The peripheral device does "not having any USB communication capability."
  • A USB hub with an upstream port, a data reception circuit, and a hub controller that "converts said wireless signal to a USB data signal."
• Independent Claim 3 recites a wireless system comprising:
  • A remote wireless peripheral device with a circuit and an RF transmitter.
  • The RF transmitter is the "sole means for communicating" and the device lacks USB communication capability.
  • A USB hub with an upstream port and a hub controller that converts the wireless signal to a USB data signal for the computer.
• Independent Claim 9 recites a wireless USB hub system comprising:
  • "at least two remote wireless peripheral devices," including a keyboard and a mouse.
  • A data reception circuit for receiving the wireless signals.
  • An upstream USB port.
  • A hub controller that "converts each of said wireless signals to a USB data signal."
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 6 and reserves the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶23).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "OfficeTec Wireless Keyboard and Mouse Combo" and other "as-yet-unknown products that similarly satisfy each element of each asserted claim." (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused product is a combination wireless keyboard and mouse sold in the United States. (Compl. ¶23-24). The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the accused product but alleges that it embodies the patented invention. (Compl. ¶23). The specific infringement theory is contained within a preliminary claim chart (Exhibit B) that is incorporated by reference but was not attached to the filed complaint. (Compl. ¶25). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain narrative infringement allegations or an attached claim chart. It asserts that the Accused Products "satisfy each and every element of each asserted claim" and incorporates by reference a "preliminary claim chart attached hereto as Exhibit B," which was not provided. (Compl. ¶25).

The infringement theory, as implied by the asserted claims and the identity of the accused product, is that the OfficeTec wireless keyboard and wireless mouse constitute the claimed "remote wireless peripheral devices." (Compl. ¶14, ¶20). The theory further suggests that a single USB dongle sold with the keyboard and mouse combination functions as the claimed "Universal Serial Bus (USB) hub," which receives wireless signals from both peripherals, converts them into USB data signals, and passes them to the host computer. (Compl. ¶14, ¶16, ¶20). The specifics of how the accused product allegedly meets each claim limitation are not available for analysis.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the accused product's USB receiver/dongle qualifies as a "Universal Serial Bus (USB) hub" as that term is used in the patent. The specification consistently illustrates hubs with a plurality of downstream physical ports, which a compact dongle may lack. (’114 Patent, Fig. 2, element 45; col. 1:42-45). The definition of "hub" will therefore be critical to the infringement analysis.
• Technical Questions: Claims 1 and 3 require the peripheral's RF transmitter to be the "sole means for communicating." A factual dispute could arise if the accused keyboard or mouse has any alternative communication channel, even for non-primary functions like firmware updates or pairing.
• Technical Questions: Claim 9 requires a hub controller that "converts each of said wireless signals to a USB data signal," which implies an ability to distinguish between and independently process signals from the keyboard and mouse. The complaint does not provide evidence demonstrating how the accused product’s single receiver allegedly performs this discriminating function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "Universal Serial Bus (USB) hub" (appearing in claims 1, 3, and 9)

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is fundamental. If the accused product's USB dongle is determined not to be a "USB hub," the infringement case may fail. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused instrumentality is likely a small dongle, whereas the patent specification repeatedly depicts a more traditional hub with multiple physical downstream ports.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not explicitly require the presence of multiple downstream ports; they require a hub with an "upstream USB port" and a "hub controller" that performs certain functions. (’114 Patent, col. 8:34-44). A party may argue that any device performing these claimed hub functions for one or more wireless peripherals meets the definition, regardless of its physical form factor.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background describes a "USB hub" as having "a plurality of downstream ports for connecting the peripheral devices to the hub." (’114 Patent, col. 1:42-45). The detailed description and figures consistently show this structure, suggesting that a "hub" was understood by the inventor to be a device providing multiple physical connection points. (’114 Patent, Fig. 2, element 45).

The Term: "sole means for communicating" (appearing in claims 1 and 3)

• Context and Importance: This limitation presents a clear path for a non-infringement defense. If the accused peripherals have any other method of communication, this element may not be met.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "sole means for communicating" should be read in the context of the preceding limitation, "communicating said device information," meaning it is the only means for transmitting the primary operational data (e.g., keystrokes, mouse movements), while not precluding other communication types for other purposes. (’114 Patent, col. 7:54-55).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of "sole means" suggests an absolute condition. A party could argue that any other communication capability, such as a physical port for charging that can also transfer data, or a separate radio for device pairing, would place the accused product outside the scope of this limitation. The specification does not appear to provide explicit definitions that would resolve this ambiguity.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a count for induced infringement, alleging that Defendant, with prior knowledge, "actively and intentionally...induced the direct infringement by others" (presumably end-users) by selling the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶33). The complaint does not plead specific facts regarding the acts of inducement, such as references to user manuals or advertising materials.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been and continues to be "willful and deliberate." (Compl. ¶28). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendant had "actual knowledge of the '114 Patent...at least since receiving pre-suit notice." (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 specification consistently depicts as a device with multiple downstream physical ports, be construed to cover a compact USB receiver/dongle that lacks such ports but allegedly performs the claimed signal-processing functions for multiple wireless peripherals?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: As the complaint relies entirely on an unprovided claim chart to support its infringement allegations, a central challenge for the Plaintiff will be to produce technical evidence demonstrating that the accused product's single USB dongle actually performs the specific functions of the claimed "hub controller," particularly the ability to receive, distinguish, and convert separate wireless signals from both a keyboard and a mouse as required by Claim 9.