DCT

1:25-cv-01871

Nokia Tech Oy v. Hisense Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01871, N.D. Ga., 04/07/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant Hisense USA Corporation maintains its principal place of business in the district, and Defendant Hisense Company Ltd. is a foreign corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s televisions that support H.264 and H.265 video decoding infringe five patents related to video compression technology.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on foundational video compression and decompression technologies that are essential for efficient streaming and playback of digital video over the internet.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a history of licensing negotiations between the parties, which Nokia alleges began as early as 2018. Nokia asserts that the patents are essential to the H.264 and H.265 video coding standards and that it has made good-faith offers to license them on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The complaint alleges that Hisense has refused to take a license and has engaged in delay tactics, including delegating negotiations to a third-party association.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-15 ’808 Patent Priority Date
2002-11-29 ’321 Patent Priority Date
2003-01-01 H.264 Standard First Released
2009-05-12 ’808 Patent Issue Date
2010-07-28 ’701 Patent Priority Date
2011-01-07 ’267 Patent Priority Date
2011-11-01 ’321 Patent Issue Date
2011-11-04 ’714 Patent Priority Date
2013-01-01 H.265 Standard First Released
2015-05-19 ’701 Patent Issue Date
2016-07-01 Nokia first informs Hisense of its patent portfolio
2018-01-01 Nokia and Hisense begin licensing negotiations
2020-01-14 ’714 Patent Issue Date
2021-05-19 Nokia provides further notice of infringement to Hisense
2022-01-13 Nokia provides additional patent lists to Hisense
2023-10-31 ’267 Patent Issue Date
2025-02-18 Nokia sends Hisense patent lists and license offers
2025-04-07 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,536,714 - Method for Coding and an apparatus, issued January 14, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In modern video compression, predicting the motion of a block of pixels involves generating a list of "motion vector prediction candidates" from neighboring blocks. The patent states that conventional methods for generating this list could create redundancy (including multiple candidates with the same motion information) and were computationally complex (Compl. ¶52; ’714 Patent, col. 3:66-4:3).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more efficient method for building this candidate list. Instead of comparing every available candidate against every other candidate to eliminate duplicates, the method performs a limited, non-exhaustive comparison. The decision of which candidates to compare is based on the location of the block associated with the candidate under consideration, thereby reducing computational complexity and redundancy (Compl. ¶53; ’714 Patent, col. 4:19-39).
  • Technical Importance: This technique refines a core process in motion-compensated prediction, aiming to make video encoding and decoding faster and more efficient, which is critical for devices implementing standards like H.265/HEVC (Compl. ¶54).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint references a claim chart for independent claim 9, though the exhibit containing the chart was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶103). The essential elements of claim 9 include:

  • Selecting a first spatial motion vector prediction candidate to potentially be included in a motion vector prediction list.
  • Determining a subset of other spatial motion vector prediction candidates based on the location of the block associated with the first candidate.
  • Comparing motion information of the first candidate with the motion information of candidates in the determined subset, but "without making a comparison of each possible candidate pair from the set of spatial motion vector prediction candidates."
  • Determining whether to include or exclude the first candidate from the list based on the comparison.
  • Selecting a candidate from the final list for use in decoding the encoded block.

U.S. Patent No. 11,805,267 - Motion Prediction in Video Coding, issued October 31, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: A common video compression technique called "bi-prediction" forms a prediction for a block of pixels by averaging two different prediction blocks. This process often involves rounding, and the patent asserts that the accumulation of these rounding errors over time degrades coding efficiency. Prior methods to address this were complex, requiring extra data to be sent (signaling) or doubling the motion estimation routines in the encoder (Compl. ¶62; ’267 Patent, col. 3:56-65, 4:21-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention's solution is to perform the intermediate calculations at a higher precision than that of the final pixel values. The two prediction signals are generated and combined while maintaining this higher precision. Only after they are combined is the precision reduced (e.g., via a bit-shifting operation) to match the original pixel bit-depth. This approach minimizes the accumulation of rounding errors without the complexity of prior solutions (Compl. ¶63; ’267 Patent, col. 4:29-35).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aims to increase the accuracy and efficiency of bi-prediction, a technique widely used in standards such as H.265/HEVC to improve compression ratios, particularly for B-pictures (Compl. ¶64).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint references claim charts for independent claim 19, though the exhibits were not provided (Compl. ¶113). The essential elements of claim 19 describe an apparatus configured to:

  • Determine first and second reference pixel locations in respective reference blocks.
  • Obtain a first prediction and a second prediction using those locations, where each prediction has a "second precision, which is higher than" the "first precision" of the original pixel values.
  • Combine the first and second predictions to obtain a combined prediction.
  • Decrease the precision of the combined prediction back to the first precision.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,050,321 - Grouping of Image Frames in Video Coding, issued November 1, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of a decoder incorrectly handling a user starting a video stream from the middle, which prior systems would interpret as unintentional data loss (Compl. ¶72; ’321 Patent, col. 11:11-25). The solution is to include an explicit indication of a first picture in an independently decodable group of pictures, which allows the decoder to begin processing from that point without needing any prior frames (Compl. ¶73; ’321 Patent, col. 4:16-38).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶122).
  • Accused Features: The ability of the Accused Products to decode video streams that are organized into independently decodable groups of pictures, a feature of the H.264 and H.265 standards (Compl. ¶2, ¶71-74).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,036,701 - Method and Apparatus for Providing Complexity Balanced Entropy Coding, issued May 19, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of increasing computational complexity in video coding, which can degrade user experience and consume battery power, particularly on mobile devices (Compl. ¶80; ’701 Patent, col. 1:37-50). The solution is a "complexity balanced" entropy coding system that categorizes syntax elements (e.g., by frequency of occurrence) and applies different coding techniques to each category, such as using a less complex "bypass coding" for more frequent symbols (Compl. ¶81-82; ’701 Patent, col. 9:51-10:3, 10:4-24).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶131).
  • Accused Features: The entropy coding systems within the Accused Products, particularly those compliant with the H.265 standard, which employs context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) techniques addressed by the patent (Compl. ¶2, ¶82).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 - Method for Coding Motion in a Video Sequence, issued May 12, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a problem with the conventional "SKIP" coding mode, which was inefficient at handling video with global or regional motion (e.g., camera pans or zooms) (Compl. ¶91; ’808 Patent, col. 12:41-47). The invention is an improved skip mode that can be associated with either a zero or a non-zero motion vector, with the choice determined by analyzing the motion in surrounding blocks. This allows the skip mode to adapt efficiently to regional motion without requiring additional data (Compl. ¶92; ’808 Patent, col. 14:23-32).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶139).
  • Accused Features: The implementation of the SKIP coding mode in the Accused Products' H.264-compliant decoders (Compl. ¶2, ¶92).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Accused Products are identified as Hisense's "unlicensed products (which support and implement, for example, H.264 and H.265 decoding), including without limitation televisions" (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The core accused functionality is the capability of Hisense televisions to decode and play back video compressed according to the H.264 and H.265 standards (Compl. ¶1-2). This functionality is alleged to be central to the products' value, enabling users to "stream and playback high quality video more efficiently and effectively" (Compl. ¶4). The complaint alleges that Hisense has sold "millions of infringing products" without paying royalties (Compl. ¶41). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include the referenced claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 9-16) that detail the infringement allegations for the asserted patents (Compl. ¶103, ¶113, ¶122, ¶131, ¶139). The infringement theory articulated in the complaint is one of standard-essentiality. For each patent, the complaint alleges that the Accused Products, by virtue of implementing the H.264 and/or H.265 video decoding standards, necessarily practice the methods and apparatuses claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶1-2, ¶98, ¶108). This theory suggests that compliance with the technical specifications of the standards is sufficient to establish direct infringement by the Accused Products and their users.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether compliance with the H.264 and H.265 standards requires the practice of each limitation of the asserted claims. The analysis may explore whether the standards allow for non-infringing alternative implementations that would fall outside the asserted claim scope. For the ’714 Patent, this raises the question of whether a compliant decoder could use a different, non-infringing method for pruning the motion vector candidate list.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’267 Patent, a key technical question is what evidence the complaint provides that the accused decoders' internal hardware or software architecture performs calculations at a "second precision, which is higher than said first precision" before combining them. The analysis will depend on evidence of the specific internal operation of the accused decoding chipsets or software.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’714 Patent (Claim 9): "without making a comparison of each possible candidate pair"

  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation defines the invention’s departure from a computationally expensive, exhaustive approach. Its construction will be critical to determining the boundary between the prior art and the claimed invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is the core of the alleged novelty and non-obviousness.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's objective is to "reduce the complexity" and "reduce redundancy," suggesting the phrase should be read broadly to encompass any method that avoids a brute-force check of all possible pairs (Compl. ¶53; ’714 Patent, col. 4:19-23).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed embodiments, such as the flowcharts in Figures 5b and 8b, disclose a specific, structured logic for selectively comparing candidates based on their spatial location and the picture's coding structure. A defendant may argue the claim should be limited to methods that employ this specific logic or a close equivalent (’714 Patent, Fig. 5b, steps 514-522).

’267 Patent (Claim 19): "a second precision, which is higher than said first precision"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the technical linchpin of the claim. The "first precision" refers to the standard bit-depth of the pixel values (e.g., 8 bits), while the "second precision" refers to the intermediate bit-depth used during calculation. The dispute will likely center on what level of technical implementation satisfies the "higher" precision requirement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the solution as "maintaining the prediction signals at a higher precision during the prediction calculation," which could be interpreted to cover any use of larger-bit-width registers or accumulators common in digital signal processing to avoid overflow and maintain accuracy (’267 Patent, col. 4:29-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes specific operations, such as adding rounding offsets and then performing bit-shifts, to manage precision (’267 Patent, Fig. 11). A defendant could argue that the term requires an explicit, intentional increase in precision for the specific purpose of the invention, not merely the incidental use of standard processor architecture.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Hisense manufactures, sells, and provides instructional materials (e.g., product manuals, marketing) that encourage customers to use the Accused Products' video streaming capabilities in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶99, ¶109). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the accused video decoding components are material to the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶100, ¶110).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that Nokia first notified Hisense of its relevant patent portfolio in 2016, began licensing negotiations in 2018, and provided specific patent lists and claim charts on multiple occasions through February 2025 (Compl. ¶40-44, ¶96, ¶105). The complaint asserts that Hisense’s continued infringement after these notices was and is willful.

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

  • A core issue will be one of standard-essentiality vs. implementation: The case will likely turn on whether implementing the H.264 and H.265 standards necessarily requires practicing every limitation of the asserted patent claims. This will involve a detailed comparison of the mandatory and optional provisions of the standards against the construed scope of the claims to determine if non-infringing, standard-compliant alternatives exist.
  • A second central issue will be one of FRAND obligations: Given the extensive history of licensing negotiations alleged in the complaint, the parties' compliance with their respective FRAND obligations will be scrutinized. Key questions will be whether Nokia offered a license on terms that were fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, and whether Hisense acted as a willing licensee by negotiating in good faith. The resolution of this issue could significantly impact both the availability of injunctive relief and the methodology for calculating damages.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of internal operation: For claims directed to specific internal processing methods, such as the use of "higher precision" in the '267 patent, the case may depend on Nokia's ability to produce direct evidence (e.g., from source code or reverse engineering) demonstrating that the accused Hisense decoders actually operate in the manner required by the claims.