DCT

1:25-cv-21034

TurboCode LLC v. BLU Products Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-21034, S.D. Fla., 03/05/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a Florida corporation headquartered within the Southern District of Florida.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones and other devices that comply with 4G/LTE cellular standards infringe a patent related to high-speed, low-power turbo code decoder architectures.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns error-correction coding, specifically turbo decoders, which are fundamental to ensuring reliable data transmission in modern wireless communication systems like 4G and 5G.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was subject to an Ex Parte Reexamination requested in 2006. An Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate was issued in 2009, which amended the asserted claim and confirmed the patentability of the claims. This history will be central to interpreting the scope of the amended claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-05-26 ’742 Patent Priority Date
2004-11-02 ’742 Patent Issue Date
2006-07-13 Ex Parte Reexamination Request Filed for ’742 Patent
2009-02-10 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issued for ’742 Patent
2020-06-24 Alleged Release Date of Accused BLU G90 Product
2020-11-01 Alleged Release Date of Accused BLU View 2 Product
2022-07-01 Alleged Release Date of Accused BLU Studio X5 Max Product
2025-03-05 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,813,742 - "High Speed Turbo Codes Decoder for 3G Using Pipelined SISO Log-Map Decoders Architecture"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,813,742, "High Speed Turbo Codes Decoder for 3G Using Pipelined SISO Log-Map Decoders Architecture," issued November 2, 2004.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that prior art turbo code decoders, while powerful, were too complex, costly, and power-intensive for practical use in consumer mobile devices. Their implementation in silicon (ASIC) required complex multiplier circuits, which slowed down decoding, reduced data throughput, and consumed significant power, making them unsuitable for battery-powered 3G phones ('742 Patent, col. 2:5-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more efficient decoder architecture using two pipelined "Soft-In Soft-Out (SISO) Log-MAP" decoders. This pipelined structure, depicted in Figure 4, allows for iterative decoding where one decoder processes a block of data while the other works on data from the previous iteration, increasing throughput ('742 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 2:36-52). The use of the "Log-MAP" algorithm allows computations to be performed in the log domain, replacing complex multiplications with simpler binary adder circuits, which simplifies the hardware design, lowers power consumption, and increases speed ('742 Patent, col. 2:54-60).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to make high-performance turbo coding feasible for mass-market, power-limited devices, a key step in enabling the high data rates promised by 3G and subsequent wireless standards ('742 Patent, col. 2:30-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 6, as amended by the Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate.
  • The essential elements of reexamined claim 6 are:
    • Providing an input buffer with at least three shift registers for receiving an input signal and generating first, second, and third shifted input signals.
    • Providing first and second soft decision decoders serially coupled in a circular circuit, where each decoder processes soft decision data from the preceding decoder, and where the decoders receive specific shifted input signals from the input buffer.
    • Providing at least one memory module coupled to the output of each decoder, where the output from the second decoder's associated memory module is fed back as an input to the first decoder.
    • Processing systematic and extrinsic information data using a maximum a posteriori (MAP) or logarithm approximation algorithm.
    • Generating a soft decision based on the MAP or logarithm approximation algorithm.
    • Weighing and storing the soft decision information into the corresponding memory module.
    • Performing iterative decoding for a predetermined number of times, where an output from the last decoder is fed back to the first, propagating through the decoders in a circular circuit.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies a wide range of BLU-branded smartphones and wireless devices, such as the BLU Studio Selfie LTE, BLU View series, and BLU G-series, collectively termed the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶12). The core accused component is the baseband processor within these devices that handles wireless communications.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities are designed to comply with the 3GPP standards for 4G/LTE wireless communications (Compl. ¶12). It provides numerous screenshots from product marketing materials and technical specification websites as evidence of this compliance (Compl. ¶14, pp. 5-23). The central accused functionality is the method of turbo decoding that the complaint alleges is required by the 4G/LTE standard to process received radio signals and correct transmission errors, a function performed by the baseband processor in each device (Compl. ¶¶15, 24). A product marketing image for the BLU Studio Selfie LTE shows its 4G LTE capability (Compl. p. 5). The extensive list of accused products suggests they constitute a significant portion of Defendant's consumer electronics portfolio in the U.S. market.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,813,742 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing an input buffer comprising at least three shift registers, for receiving an input signal and generating first, second, and third shifted input signals; The accused devices allegedly implement a turbo decoder that includes an input buffer structure with registers to provide time-aligned input signals for decoding, as shown in technical diagrams of LTE decoder architectures. The complaint notes that shift registers can be implemented in either hardware or software (Compl. ¶¶16, 18, 29). ¶18 col. 4:55-65
providing first and second soft decision decoders serially coupled in a circular circuit, wherein each decoder processes soft decision from the preceding decoder output data... The 4G/LTE turbo decoders in the accused devices allegedly use two interconnected Soft-In Soft-Out (SISO) decoders (e.g., "SISO 1" and "SISO 2"). The complaint points to technical diagrams showing a two-decoder architecture where the output of the second decoder is fed back to the first, forming the claimed "circular circuit" (Compl. ¶¶19, 32). ¶19 col. 4:9-13
providing at least one memory module coupled to an output of each of the first and second soft decision decoders, wherein the output of the memory module associated with the second soft decision decoder is fed back as an input of the first soft decision decoder; The accused decoders allegedly use memory modules, identified as "interleavers" and "deinterleavers," to store and pass data between the two SISO decoders. A diagram from a MathWorks reference shows a standard turbo decoder architecture with upper and lower decoders, an interleaver, and a deinterleaver (Compl. p. 25, Fig. 3). ¶22 col. 4:13-16
processing systematic information data and extrinsic information data using the maximum a posteriori (AP) probability algorithm, and/or logarithm approximation algorithm; The complaint alleges that the SISO decoders in the accused devices necessarily use a MAP decoding algorithm (or a variant like Log-MAP or Max-Log-MAP) to process systematic and extrinsic data, as this is the standard method for turbo decoding described in technical literature for LTE systems (Compl. ¶¶23, 24). ¶23 col. 6:39-44
generating soft decision based on the maximum a posteriori (MAP) probability algorithm, and/or logarithm approximation algorithm; Based on the use of the MAP algorithm, the accused decoders allegedly generate "soft decision" outputs, which are probabilistic values representing the likelihood of a received bit, a core feature of turbo decoding (Compl. ¶26). ¶26 col. 5:29-32
weighing and storing soft decision information into the corresponding memory module; The complaint alleges that the MAP algorithms used in the accused devices require "weighing (or 'normalization')" of the soft decision values before they are stored in the memory modules (interleavers/deinterleavers) for the next iteration of decoding (Compl. ¶¶28, 48). ¶28 col. 6:45-47
performing, for a predetermined number of times, iterative decoding from the first to the last of multiple decoders, wherein an output from the last soft decision decoder is fed back as an input to the first soft decision decoder...and propagate to the last decoder in a circular circuit. The accused devices allegedly perform decoding iteratively for a set number of times, as required by the turbo decoding process. A diagram from a 2019 academic paper illustrates the iterative feedback loop between two SISO decoders, which the complaint uses to show the claimed circular circuit (Compl. p. 32). ¶31 col. 6:47-53

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The patent is titled and described in the context of "3G" technology. The complaint accuses "4G/LTE" and "5G" products. A central question for the court will be whether the claims, as written and amended, are broad enough to read on the specific decoder implementations used in the later 4G/LTE standards, or if there are patentably distinct differences between the generations.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory is based on compliance with the 4G/LTE standard, supported by technical papers and reference designs, rather than direct analysis of Defendant's hardware. A key question is one of evidence: does compliance with the 4G/LTE standard necessarily require practicing every limitation of claim 6 as alleged? For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform "weighing" of soft decision information in a manner that falls within the scope of the claim?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "weighing"

    • Context and Importance: This term was added to claim 6 during reexamination and is not explicitly defined in the specification. Its interpretation is critical because it appears to add a specific functional step to the decoding method. The complaint alleges this limitation is met by the "normalization" inherent in certain MAP algorithms (Compl. ¶48). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether standard MAP/Log-MAP implementations, common in the industry, fall within the claim scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent lacks a specific definition, which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in the context of signal processing, potentially encompassing any step that scales or adjusts probabilistic values, such as normalization.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The absence of the term "weighing" in the original specification could support an argument that it must be interpreted narrowly. Opposing counsel might argue it implies a distinct step separate from the core MAP algorithm, and that equating it with "normalization" renders the term superfluous. The prosecution history of the reexamination will likely be the most important source of evidence for its intended meaning.

  • The Term: "circular circuit"

    • Context and Importance: This term describes the overall architecture of the decoders. The complaint alleges the iterative feedback loop between the first and second decoders constitutes a "circular circuit" (Compl. ¶19). The term's construction will be important to determine if the alleged logical data flow path in the accused devices meets this structural limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Figure 4 of the patent depicts a feedback loop where the output of the second decoder system (De-Interleaver Memory 45) is fed back as an input (Z1) to the first decoder (Decoder A 42). This diagram supports an interpretation where a "circular circuit" refers to this overall iterative feedback architecture, not necessarily a direct wire connection.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An opposing party might argue that the term "circuit" implies a more direct physical or hardware-level connection than the logical data flow path through complex memory modules (interleavers/deinterleavers) as alleged. The use of "serially coupled in a circular circuit" could be argued to impose a specific structural arrangement that is not met by all feedback-based decoder designs.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain separate counts for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement) and does not allege specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims, such as referencing user manuals or marketing materials that instruct on an infringing use.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges constructive notice of the ’742 Patent (Compl. ¶34) but does not allege pre- or post-suit knowledge of infringement, which is typically required to support a willfulness claim.

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

The resolution of this case appears to depend on three central questions:

  1. A primary issue will be one of standards-based infringement: Can the plaintiff prove that compliance with the 4G/LTE standard, as alleged for the accused products, necessarily entails practicing every element of the asserted method claim? This will be a key evidentiary battle, likely requiring expert testimony to connect the standard's requirements to the specific limitations of claim 6.
  2. The case will also turn on definitional scope: Can the term "weighing," which was added during reexamination, be construed to cover the standard "normalization" techniques that the complaint alleges are used in MAP-based decoders? The interpretation of this single word could be dispositive for the infringement analysis.
  3. Finally, a key question will be one of technological scope: Can the claims of the ’742 patent, conceived and written in the context of "3G" systems, be interpreted to cover the specific turbo decoder architectures implemented in later "4G/LTE" and "5G" devices, or are there material technical differences that place the accused products outside the claim's reach?