DCT
1:19-cv-24773
Cyndatek LLC v. BLU Products Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CyndaTek LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Blu Products, Inc. (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SAND SEBOLT & WERNOW LPA; Edmonds & Schlather PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-24773, S.D. Fla., 11/19/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant’s incorporation in Florida, its principal place of business in Doral, Florida, and having regular and established places of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s multi-mode mobile telephones infringe a patent related to controlling such devices through a single, consistent user interface.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of managing multiple wireless communication standards (e.g., cellular, Wi-Fi) on a single device without requiring separate, complex user interfaces for each standard.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit overcame rejections based on prior art references to Souissi, Sainton, and Rostocker during its prosecution, alleging that those references lacked the key inventive features of the asserted patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-08-06 | U.S. Patent No. 7,181,237 Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2007-02-20 | U.S. Patent No. 7,181,237 Issued |
| 2013-11-19 | Approximate start of alleged infringement ("last six years") |
| 2019-11-19 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,181,237 - Control of a Multi-Mode, Multi-Band Mobile Telephone via a Single Hardware and Software Man Machine Interface
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,181,237, issued February 20, 2007.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the issue that mobile phones supporting multiple air interface standards (e.g., GSM, TDMA) often require different software, and sometimes different hardware, for the man-machine interface (MMI) for each standard. This can lead to redundant software, increased memory consumption, and a more complex user experience (’237 Patent, col. 1:26-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture that uses a single, substantially consistent MMI to control the phone across its different operating modes. This is achieved through a software system that includes a "mode manager" to handle switching between protocol stacks and an "application layer" that reduces the functional interface between the protocols, thereby abstracting the underlying technical differences from the user (’237 Patent, col. 2:53-68; Fig. 2A).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to simplify the design and use of early multi-mode smartphones by reducing software complexity and memory usage, while providing a more seamless experience for the end-user (’237 Patent, col. 5:15-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 7 (’237 Patent, Compl. ¶19).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a mobile telephone system comprising:
- A "mode manager" for managing switching between a first mode (with a first air interface standard and protocol stack) and a second mode (with a second air interface standard and protocol stack), where the stacks are supported by at least one chipset, and the manager includes a "router" for routing information.
- A "user interface" for communicating information and commands between the protocol stacks and a user.
- A "bridge" for providing communication of information between the first and second protocol stacks.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but references infringement of "at least claims 1 and 7" (Compl. ¶19).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the "Pure XR, Vivo 8 and/or Vivo X, as well as any other BLU mobile telephone systems" sold within the last six years that have similar functionalities (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these devices are mobile telephone systems that operate in multiple modes, for example, using a first mode for cellular communication (e.g., LTE and/or 3G) and a second mode for Wi-Fi communication (Compl. ¶19). The complaint states that the cellular and Wi-Fi communications are supported by respective chipsets and protocol stacks. The functionality is controlled via a graphical user interface on the mobile telephone (Compl. ¶19). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’237 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mode manager for managing switching of the system between a first mode utilizing a first air interface standard supported by a first protocol stack and a second mode utilizing a second air interface standard supported by a second protocol stack, the first protocol stack and the second protocol stack being supported concurrently by at least one chipset of the mobile telephone, the mode manager including a router for routing information to one of the first protocol stack and the second protocol stack | A mode manager for managing switching between a cellular mode (e.g., LTE/3G) using a cellular protocol stack and a Wi-Fi mode using a Wi-Fi protocol stack, supported by respective chipsets (e.g., CPUs) (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 5:26-44 |
| a user interface for communicating information and commands between the first protocol stack and a user and between the second protocol stack and the user for controlling the mobile telephone | The graphical user interface of the mobile telephone, used for communicating calling and/or tethering-related commands (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 4:56-68 |
| a bridge for providing communication of information between the first protocol stack and the second protocol stack | An "AXI interconnect" that provides for communication of information between the cellular protocol stack and the Wi-Fi protocol stack (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 6:10-25 |
| wherein control of the mobile telephone is provided via a single man machine interface that is substantially consistent across the first and second modes | The user interface of the mobile telephone, which is alleged to be substantially consistent across the cellular and Wi-Fi modes (Compl. ¶19). | ¶19 | col. 5:21-25 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the term "air interface standard," which the patent exemplifies with cellular standards like GSM and TDMA, can be construed to read on the combination of a cellular standard (LTE/3G) and a local area networking standard (Wi-Fi) as alleged in the complaint. The defense may argue that Wi-Fi falls outside the scope of the standards contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that an "AXI interconnect" functions as the claimed "bridge." A key technical question will be whether this standard hardware bus performs the specific functions of the "bridge" as described in the patent, which includes facilitating communication between distinct software protocol stacks, potentially running on different chipsets, through a layered software structure (’237 Patent, Fig. 7; Compl. ¶19).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "bridge for providing communication of information between the first protocol stack and the second protocol stack"
- Context and Importance: The complaint’s identification of an "AXI interconnect" as the "bridge" makes this term’s construction critical. The case may turn on whether "bridge" is construed as a generic functional link or as the more specific software-based inter-process communication system detailed in the specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 defines the bridge functionally as a component "for providing communication of information" between the two stacks, which could support an argument that any component fulfilling this role, including a hardware bus, meets the limitation (’237 Patent, col. 10:62-65).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description illustrates the bridge as a specific, multi-layered software architecture for inter-processor communication, using an OSI model with distinct layers for physical transport, segmentation/reassembly, and application modules (’237 Patent, Figs. 7-8; col. 9:60-col. 10:43). This could support a narrower construction limiting the term to a software-implemented communication channel, not a generic hardware interconnect.
The Term: "a single man machine interface that is substantially consistent across the first and second modes"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is core to the patent's purported invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the user experience for managing cellular service (the patent’s context) and Wi-Fi service (the accused context) involves different settings and functionalities in modern operating systems.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the invention makes "differences in technologies... substantially transparent to mobile telephone users" and "greatly reduces the complexity of the MMI" (’237 Patent, col. 5:8-18). This language could support a view that as long as the high-level user interaction paradigm is consistent (e.g., within a single OS), the requirement is met.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The goal of abstracting complexity "from the user" and enabling applications to "support each air interface standard without special modification" could suggest a high degree of consistency is required (’237 Patent, col. 2:48-51, col. 5:15-18). A defendant might argue that the distinct settings, icons, and connection management procedures for cellular vs. Wi-Fi fail to meet this "substantially consistent" standard.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendant induces infringement by advertising and selling the accused phones and "providing instructions for infringing uses by BLU's customers and/or end users" (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continuation of infringing activities after receiving notice of the ’237 patent, with the complaint itself serving as, at a minimum, that notice (Compl. ¶¶21-22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the patent’s claims, drafted with reference to switching between different types of cellular network standards (e.g., GSM and TDMA), be interpreted to cover the accused functionality of switching between a cellular standard (LTE/3G) and a local area network standard (Wi-Fi)?
- A second central question will be one of technical embodiment: does a standard hardware bus like an "AXI interconnect," as alleged in the complaint, constitute the specific, software-layered "bridge" for inter-process communication that is described in the patent’s specification?
- Finally, the dispute may turn on a definitional question: what is the scope of "substantially consistent" in the context of a user interface, and does the user experience of managing cellular and Wi-Fi connections on a modern smartphone meet that threshold as it was contemplated by the inventors?