Stormborn Tech LLC v. Telit IoT Platforms LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Telit IOT Platforms, LLC (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 9:22-cv-81644, S.D. Fla., 10/27/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is incorporated in Florida and maintains a regular and established place of business within the Southern District of Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless communication products infringe a patent related to a system for dynamically adjusting data transmission rates based on the measured error rate at the receiver.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns adaptive data rate control in spread-spectrum communication systems, a foundational technique for optimizing performance and reliability in wireless networks like cellular and IoT.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in prior litigation (Stormborn v. TopCon), a court allegedly held that representative claims of the patent-in-suit were not directed to an abstract idea, a finding that may be raised to counter potential patent eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,199 - "Variable throughput reduction communications system and method," issued May 7, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In spread-spectrum wireless systems, a device near the edge of a cell can suffer from significant interference from adjacent cells, degrading the signal quality (RE44,199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Prior methods to combat this, such as increasing processing gain, required reducing the data rate and making undesirable architectural changes to the receiver (RE44,199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a closed-loop feedback system. A receiver decodes incoming data, measures the resulting error rate (e.g., via a "syndrome signal"), and generates a "data-rate control signal" based on this measurement (RE44,199 Patent, col. 2:63-65). This control signal is sent back to the transmitter, which then adjusts its data rate—for instance, by changing how it allocates data across parallel channels—to meet a desired performance target without requiring physical changes to the receiver’s hardware (RE44,199 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 4:58-64).
• Technical Importance: This method allows a communication system to dynamically adapt to changing channel conditions in real-time, optimizing data throughput while maintaining a specified quality of service. (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 11 (a receiver) and 13 (a method), as well as dependent claims 12 and 14 (Compl. ¶55).
• Independent Claim 11 (A receiver... comprising):
  • "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".
  • The control signal "controll[s] operation of circuitry at the transmitter" to produce a desired data rate.
  • "transmitting circuitry" for sending the control signal back to the transmitter.
  • "multiplexer circuitry" for combining the decoded channels.
• Independent Claim 13 (A method... comprising the steps of):
  • "detecting" the transmitted signals.
  • "FEC decoding and de-interleaving" to provide decoded channels with 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.
  • "multiplexing" the decoded channels.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Telit UE910" is identified as the representative Accused Product (Compl. ¶56).

Functionality and Market Context

The Telit UE910 is described as a wireless communication solution used in Internet of Things (IoT) devices (Compl. ¶56). The complaint alleges, based on "internal testing and usage," that the product practices a method of recovering wireless data that involves dynamically adjusting its data rate (Compl. ¶¶57, 60). The allegations suggest the product contains functionality for detecting signals across sub-channels, decoding them, using a processor to generate a rate control signal based on channel quality, and transmitting that signal back to a transmitter to manage data rates (Compl. ¶¶57-63).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an exemplary claim chart in Exhibit C, but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint. The infringement theory is instead presented narratively.

RE44,199 Infringement Allegations (Claim 13)

The complaint alleges that the Accused Product, "at least in internal testing and usage," performs each step of method claim 13 (Compl. ¶¶57-64). The infringement theory can be summarized as follows:

• The Accused Product practices a method for recovering wireless data transmitted over sub-channels, thereby meeting the preamble (Compl. ¶57).
• It allegedly "detects" these transmitted signals in demodulated channels (Compl. ¶58).
• It performs "FEC decoding and de-interleaving", providing decoded channels that each have an "error rate" (Compl. ¶59).
• It is alleged to use "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate" to generate a "data-rate control signal" to achieve a desired data rate at the transmitter (Compl. ¶60).
• It then practices "transmitting" this control signal back to the data symbol transmitter (Compl. ¶61).
• Finally, it "multiplexes" the decoded channels into a single stream of received data (Compl. ¶62).
• The complaint further alleges infringement of dependent claim 14, stating the product practices "decoding FEC codes of different rates" (Compl. ¶63).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: The complaint's allegations hinge on the assertion that the Accused Product's rate control mechanism is "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels" (Compl. ¶60). A central question for the court will be whether discovery shows this to be the case, or if the product uses a different, non-infringing metric for channel quality, such as a signal-to-noise ratio or a pilot signal, which the complaint itself distinguishes from the claimed invention (Compl. ¶46).
• Scope Question: A key dispute may arise over the meaning of "command processor circuitry... generating a data-rate control signal." The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the specific control logic and signals used in the Telit UE910 fall within the scope of this term as construed in light of the patent's specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels for generating a data-rate control signal" (Claim 11).
• Context and Importance: This limitation captures the core of the invention: a feedback loop driven by the actual, measured error rate of the decoded data. The outcome of the case may turn on whether the accused product's rate adaptation mechanism is found to operate in this specific way. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from prior art methods that adjusted rates based on other metrics.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses functional language ("responsive to," "generating"), which a plaintiff may argue covers any circuitry that performs the stated function, regardless of its specific implementation (RE44,199 Patent, col. 11:33-37).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may point to the specification's consistent reference to generating a "syndrome signal" from the FEC decoder as the source of the error rate information. Language such as, "In response to the syndrome signal, the command processor determines a desired-data rate," could be used to argue the claim requires direct use of a decoder-generated syndrome (RE44,199 Patent, col. 2:63-65). The embodiment in Figure 5 shows a distinct "Error Rate and Data Rate Command Processor" (59) receiving a "Syndrome" input, which could support a more structural or specific reading (RE44,199 Patent, Fig. 5).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by "encouraging infringement" and contributory infringement by selling the Accused Products, which are alleged not to be staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶69-70). These allegations are made "upon information and belief" and lack specific factual support regarding Defendant's knowledge or intent to encourage infringement by others.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶67). This allegation, if proven, would only support a claim for post-suit willfulness. The complaint seeks enhanced damages and attorney's fees but does not plead facts supporting pre-suit knowledge of the patent or willful infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶f).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the central limitation "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels"? The breadth of this definition will be critical in determining whether the accused product's functionality infringes.

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: What evidence will discovery yield about how the Telit UE910's rate adaptation system actually functions? The case will likely turn on whether the plaintiff can prove that the accused system generates its control signal based on the specific metric required by the claims—the "error rate of the decoded channels"—as opposed to another proxy for signal quality.