DCT
8:22-cv-02212
Stormborn Tech LLC v. Geo Instruments Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Geo-Instruments, Inc. (Maryland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
- Case Identification: 8:22-cv-02212, M.D. Fla., 09/26/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a "regular and established place of business" within the Middle District of Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Dust Sentry" environmental monitoring solutions infringe a patent related to dynamically adjusting data rates in wireless communication systems based on measured error rates.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of maintaining reliable, high-speed data transmission in wireless environments subject to interference by creating a feedback loop between a receiver and a transmitter.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE44,199, is a reissue patent. The complaint notes a prior court order in a separate case (Stormborn Technologies, LLC v. TopCon Positioning Systems, Inc.) that reportedly found claims of the patent family to be directed to a specific technological solution and not an abstract idea, suggesting Plaintiff anticipates and is prepared to counter a patent eligibility challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-06-14 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. RE44,199 |
| 2013-05-07 | U.S. Patent No. RE44,199 Issued |
| 2020-03-17 | Date of Cited Docket Entry in Stormborn v. TopCon Case |
| 2022-09-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,199, "Variable throughput reduction communications system and method," issued May 7, 2013 (the “’199 Patent”)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a problem in multi-cell wireless systems where a device operating near the edge of a cell experiences significant signal interference from adjacent cells (’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Prior art methods for mitigating this interference, such as increasing the "processing gain," came with the trade-off of reducing the data rate and requiring architectural changes to the receiver hardware (’199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a closed-loop feedback system to manage this trade-off dynamically. A receiver decodes incoming data, calculates the resulting error rate (a "syndrome"), and generates a "data-rate command signal" based on that error rate (’199 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:63-66). This command signal is sent back to the transmitter, instructing it to adjust the data rate—for example, by changing how it allocates data across multiple parallel channels—to achieve a desired quality of service without altering the receiver's fundamental hardware architecture (’199 Patent, col. 7:26-35).
- Technical Importance: This method allows a communication system to adapt in real-time to changing channel conditions, optimizing the balance between transmission speed and reliability. (Compl. ¶35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 11 (a receiver) and 13 (a method) (Compl. ¶¶19, 21).
- Independent Claim 11 (receiver) includes these essential elements:
- demodulator circuitry for detecting transmitted signals;
- decoder circuitry for FEC decoding, which provides decoded channels each having an error rate;
- command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate for generating a data-rate control signal that controls the transmitter's operation to produce a desired data rate;
- transmitting circuitry to send this control signal back to the transmitter; and
- multiplexer circuitry to combine the decoded channels into a received data stream.
- Independent Claim 13 (method) includes these essential steps:
- detecting transmitted signals;
- FEC decoding to produce decoded channels, each having an error rate;
- using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate to generate a data-rate control signal;
- transmitting the control signal back to the transmitter; and
- multiplexing the decoded channels into a received data stream.
- The complaint also identifies dependent claims 12 and 14 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶¶20, 22, 73).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies "Geo Instruments' Dust Sentry" as the Accused Product (Compl. ¶57).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Accused Product "practices a method for recovering wireless data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality of different sub-channel signals transmitted over a wireless channel" (Compl. ¶57). However, the complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the Dust Sentry device itself. The infringement allegations are based on the product's use "at least in internal testing and usage" rather than on publicly available documentation describing its communication protocol (Compl. ¶¶58-64). The complaint provides no information regarding the product's market position or commercial significance.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart exhibit (Exhibit C) that was not provided with the filed document; the following summary is based on the narrative allegations for method claim 13. (Compl. ¶¶58-63).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’199 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| detecting the transmitted signals in a plurality of demodulated channels; | The Accused Product practices detecting the transmitted signals in a plurality of demodulated channels. | ¶59 | col. 11:51-53 |
| FEC decoding and de-interleaving the plurality of demodulated channels, providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate; | The Accused Product practices FEC decoding and de-interleaving the plurality of demodulated channels, providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate. | ¶60 | col. 11:54-57 |
| using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels to generate a data-rate control signal to produce a desired data rate to be sent by the data symbol transmitter of the signals, | The Accused Product practices using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels to generate a data-rate control signal. | ¶61 | col. 11:58-62 |
| transmitting the error rate dependent data-rate control signal back to the data symbol transmitter; and | The Accused Product practices transmitting the error rate dependent data-rate control signal back to the data symbol transmitter. | ¶62 | col. 11:60-62 |
| multiplexing the multiplicity of decoded channels into a single stream of received data. | The Accused Product practices multiplexing the multiplicity of decoded channels into a single stream of received data. | ¶63 | col. 11:63-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint’s allegations are uniformly conclusory, stating that the Accused Product "practices" each claimed step without providing any supporting factual detail from datasheets, technical manuals, or other public sources. This raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff possesses to support its claim that the "Dust Sentry," an environmental monitor, implements this specific, sophisticated communication protocol.
- Technical Question: A key technical question is whether the Accused Product, if it does adjust its data rate, does so "responsive to the error rate" as claimed. The complaint itself distinguishes the invention from systems that adjust rates based on other factors, such as a known pilot signal (Compl. ¶47). The case may turn on evidence showing the specific trigger for any data rate adjustments in the Accused Product.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "command processor circuitry"
Context and Importance: This term identifies the "brain" of the claimed receiver that generates the control signal. Its construction is critical because the dispute may focus on whether the Accused Product contains a specific, dedicated hardware component corresponding to this term or performs the function in software on a general-purpose processor. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if a software implementation falls within the scope of "circuitry."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent frequently describes this element by its function, stating that "the command processor determines a desired-data rate, and generates a data-rate command signal" in response to an error rate (’199 Patent, col. 2:63-66). This functional description could support a construction that is not limited to a specific hardware structure.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict the "command processor" as a distinct block (element 59 in Fig. 5) separate from other processing blocks like the "FEC DECODER AND DEINTERLEAVER" (element 56). This could support an argument that the term requires a structurally distinct component, not merely a function performed by another processor.
The Term: "responsive to the error rate"
Context and Importance: This phrase establishes the causal link between the measured channel quality and the resulting data-rate adjustment. The infringement analysis depends on whether the Accused Product's control signal is in fact triggered by a calculated error rate from decoded data, as opposed to other metrics like signal strength or a pre-set schedule.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "responsive to" could be argued to encompass any system where the error rate is an input into the rate-adjustment decision, even if it is not the sole input.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "the data rate is dependent on the error rate of data being received and decoded" (’199 Patent, col. 8:11-13). This language could be used to argue for a narrower construction where the error rate must be the determinative factor for the control signal, distinguishing it from systems that primarily use other metrics.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement "upon information and belief," asserting that Defendant encourages its customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner and that the products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶75-76).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint requests enhanced damages but bases Defendant's knowledge of the ’199 Patent on the date of service of the complaint (Compl. ¶68; Prayer for Relief ¶f). This alleges only post-suit knowledge, which may make proving the "egregious" conduct typically required for enhanced damages more challenging.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be evidentiary: The complaint makes infringement allegations based on the Accused Product's internal operations without providing public-facing technical evidence. A dispositive question will be whether discovery uncovers evidence to substantiate the claim that an environmental "Dust Sentry" monitor actually implements the specific error-rate feedback loop recited in the ’199 Patent.
- The case may also turn on a question of functional causality: Assuming the Accused Product does adjust its data rate, does it do so "responsive to the error rate" of decoded user data as required by the claims? Or does it rely on other channel-quality metrics, such as signal-to-noise ratio or pilot signal analysis, potentially placing its operation outside the scope of the asserted claims?