DCT
1:21-cv-20593
Koninklijke KPN NV v. BLU Products Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Koninklijke KPN N.V. (The Netherlands)
- Defendant: BLU Products, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP; Susman Godfrey, L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 1:21-cv-20593, D. Del., 01/15/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones and other mobile telecommunications devices infringe a patent related to methods for transmission error checking.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for detecting errors in digital data transmissions, a foundational component for ensuring reliability in modern telecommunications networks like LTE and UMTS.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent has a significant litigation history. It was previously litigated against Samsung, resulting in a settlement. In related and ongoing litigation, the District of Delaware has issued a claim construction order construing several key terms. The patent’s validity has been tested, with the Federal Circuit affirming that asserted claims 2-4 satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) confirming the patentability of claims 2-4 in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding and declining to institute several other IPRs. The complaint also notes that independent claim 1 of the patent, upon which the asserted claims depend, has been disclaimed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-06-26 | '662 Patent Priority Date |
| 2001-04-03 | '662 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-03-26 | KPN alleges first notice to BLU via licensing agent Sipro |
| 2019-XX-XX | Federal Circuit affirms validity of claims 2-4 under § 101 |
| 2020-09-29 | D. Del. issues claim construction order in related case |
| 2021-01-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 - "Method and Devices for the Transmission of Data With Transmission Error Checking," issued April 3, 2001
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of "systematic errors" in data transmission, where a repeating error pattern might not be detected by a fixed, or static, error-checking function. This is particularly problematic for compressed data streams, as a single undetected error can corrupt all subsequent data during decompression, rendering it unusable (’662 Patent, col. 1:47-59; col. 2:1-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a variable or time-dependent error detection function. Instead of using a static algorithm, the system varies the checking function, for example, by first permuting the bit order of the original data before generating the corresponding check data (’662 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:28-47). This dynamic process, illustrated in figures like Figure 3, ensures that the data is "effectively checked by a different function each time," making it highly improbable that a systematic error will repeatedly escape detection (’662 Patent, col. 2:41-47; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This approach enhances the reliability of data transmission systems, particularly those using adaptive compression schemes where the integrity of statistical data used for decompression is paramount (’662 Patent, col. 2:8-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts dependent claims 2, 3, and 4, all of which depend on the disclaimed independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶27). The limitations of claim 1 are incorporated into each asserted claim.
- Base Elements (from disclaimed Independent Claim 1):
- A device for producing error checking based on original data provided in blocks with each block having plural bits in a particular ordered sequence.
- A "generating device" configured to generate check data.
- A "varying device" configured to vary original data before supplying it to the generating device.
- The "varying device" includes a "permutating device" that performs a permutation of bit positions within data blocks without reordering the blocks themselves.
- Additional Limitations of Asserted Dependent Claims:
- Claim 2: The "varying device" is further configured to "modify the permutation in time."
- Claim 3: The "varying device" is further configured to "modify the permutation based on the original data."
- Claim 4: The "permutating device" "includes a table in which subsequent permutations are stored."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies a broad category of "smartphones and other mobile telecommunication devices configured to send or receive data over an LTE, UMTS, or cdma2000 radio telecommunication network" (Compl. ¶27). The "BLU Studio 5.0 LTE" is named as a representative accused product (Compl. ¶28).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are alleged to be devices that implement cellular communication standards which necessarily involve error detection and correction (Compl. ¶27).
- The complaint alleges that the accused devices contain the claimed "varying device" and "generating device" in the form of an "interleaver" and "one or more encoders," respectively (Compl. ¶¶31-32). These components are alleged to reorder the bits of original data before generating check data for transmission (Compl. ¶29).
- Regarding market context, the complaint alleges that the patented technology has been "licensed extensively by many of [Defendant's] mobile technology competitors" (Compl. ¶26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused devices, represented by the BLU Studio 5.0 LTE, practice claims 2-4 of the ’662 patent. The complaint provides an annotated circuit diagram, identified as a "representative depiction," to illustrate the alleged interaction between the "Varying device" (interleaver) and "Generating device" (encoder) in the accused products (Compl. ¶32, p. 8).
’662 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A device for producing error checking... | The BLU Studio 5.0 LTE is a device that receives data in blocks and generates check data to check for errors in transmission. | ¶30 | col. 7:4-8 |
| a generating device configured to generate check data; | The accused devices include one or more encoders that generate supplementary data (check data) for use in error checking. | ¶32 | col. 7:8-9 |
| a varying device configured to vary original data prior to supplying said original data to the generating device as varied data; | The accused devices include an interleaver or other permutating device that reorders the bit positions of the original data. | ¶31 | col. 7:10-13 |
| wherein said varying device includes a permutating device configured to perform a permutation of bit position... | The interleaver is alleged to reorder bits within data blocks without reordering the blocks themselves before supplying the varied data to the encoder. | ¶31 | col. 7:13-18 |
| Plus Claim 2: ...modify the permutation in time. | The accused devices' interleaver is configured to "change from time to time the manner in which it reorders" data bits. | ¶33 | col. 8:4-6 |
| Plus Claim 3: ...modify the permutation based on the original data. | The accused devices' interleaver is configured to change the reordering "based on the characteristics of the data it receives." | ¶34 | col. 8:7-9 |
| Plus Claim 4: ...includes a table in which subsequent permutations are stored. | The accused devices' interleaver "includes or makes use of data storage in which subsequent re-orderings... are stored." | ¶35 | col. 8:10-12 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint’s infringement allegations for the asserted dependent claims are made "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶¶33-35). A central factual dispute may arise over whether the standard-compliant interleavers in the accused devices actually perform the specific functions required by claims 2, 3, and 4. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the permutation scheme is modified "in time" (Claim 2) or "based on the original data" (Claim 3), rather than being a fixed algorithm defined by the relevant communication standard?
- Scope Questions: The patent’s background focuses on solving the problem of systematic errors that repeat (’662 Patent, col. 1:47-59). The accused interleavers in cellular standards are typically designed to combat burst errors (errors concentrated in a short duration). A potential point of contention is whether the function of a standard interleaver, designed for a different purpose, falls within the scope of the claims, which are directed to a variable checking function to defeat repeating errors.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint identifies a claim construction order from a related case that construed several terms from the ’662 Patent (Compl. ¶13). The dispute may focus on the application of these existing constructions to the accused technology.
- The Term: "modify the permutation in time" (from Claim 2)
- Context and Importance: This term, construed as "change the permutation from time to time" (Compl. ¶13), is the central limitation of asserted claim 2. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the operation of the accused interleavers constitutes such a "change." Practitioners may focus on this term because standard-compliant interleavers may use a deterministic, albeit complex, algorithm, raising the question of whether this constitutes a "change" as contemplated by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that the variation can be linked to a data packet index, which could include a "time indication" or "sequence number" (’662 Patent, col. 4:62-66). This language could support an argument that any change, including a switch between predefined patterns based on a packet counter, meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes the goal of preventing the non-detection of repetitive errors and describes using "random numbers" to vary the function (’662 Patent, col. 2:48-54; col. 4:46-50). This could support an argument that "change... from time to time" requires a degree of non-predictability beyond cycling through a small set of fixed permutations.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that the Defendant encourages infringement by customers and resellers through the dissemination of "promotional and marketing materials, supporting materials, instructions, [and] product manuals" with knowledge and intent (Compl. ¶37). The complaint references an exhibit (not provided) that allegedly instructs users on how to use the devices in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶41).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit notice. The complaint asserts that Defendant was notified of the ’662 Patent and its alleged infringement through its licensing agents on multiple occasions, beginning at least by March 26, 2015, but "deliberately continued to infringe" (Compl. ¶¶20-21, 45).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of functional operation: Can the Plaintiff provide sufficient technical evidence to demonstrate that the accused devices' standard-compliant interleavers perform the specific, dynamic functions required by asserted dependent claims 2, 3, and 4, or will discovery show that they employ a fixed permutation algorithm that does not "change... from time to time" or "based on the original data" in the manner claimed?
- A second key question will relate to the impact of the patent's litigation history: Given that key terms have been construed and the patent has survived multiple PTAB and court validity challenges (Compl. ¶¶13-18), a central issue will be how this history narrows the available defenses and focuses the dispute primarily on the factual question of whether the accused products meet the claim limitations as construed.
- A final evidentiary question will concern willfulness: The complaint alleges pre-suit notice dating back several years before the suit was filed (Compl. ¶45). The analysis will likely focus on the specific content of those notices and whether they were sufficient to give the Defendant actual knowledge of infringement by the accused products, thereby triggering a duty of care to avoid infringement.