DCT

1:25-cv-04730

Sovereign Peak Ventures LLC v. VeriFone Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04730, N.D. Ga., 08/20/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Verifone, Inc. having regular and established places of business within the Northern District of Georgia, specifically in Alpharetta.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 4G- and 5G-enabled mobile Point-of-Sale terminals infringe four patents related to wireless communication technologies, including cell selection in heterogeneous networks, channel quality measurement, inter-RAT handovers, and secure network connections.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on foundational technologies for modern mobile communication standards like LTE, LTE-Advanced, and 5G, particularly those managing device operation in complex network environments with multiple cell types and radio access technologies.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement for all asserted patents, including claim charts, on or about June 3 and June 6, 2024, approximately 14 months before filing suit. This alleged pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for Plaintiff's claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-07-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,467,723 Priority Date
2007-10-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,374,152 Priority Date
2008-12-03 U.S. Patent No. 8,792,453 Priority Date
2009-03-16 U.S. Patent No. 8,442,569 Priority Date
2013-02-12 U.S. Patent No. 8,374,152 Issued
2013-05-14 U.S. Patent No. 8,442,569 Issued
2013-06-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,467,723 Issued
2014-07-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,792,453 Issued
2024-06-03 Alleged date of notice letter to Verifone
2024-06-06 Alleged date of follow-up email with claim charts to Verifone
2025-08-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,374,152 - "Cell Selection System, Cell Selection Method, and Mobile Terminal"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In wireless networks where large cellular "macro" cells contain numerous smaller cells of a different type (e.g., WLAN hot spots), broadcasting unique cell-selection parameters for every small cell can make the broadcast information voluminous and difficult to manage, particularly when new small cells are added. (’152 Patent, col. 3:51-64; col. 4:1-6).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more efficient system where the primary cell (e.g., a cellular base station) broadcasts a limited number of pre-defined "patterns" of cell-selection parameters. A mobile device receives these patterns, separately receives identifying information from a nearby small cell (e.g., a WLAN access point), and uses that local information to select the appropriate pattern to guide its decision on whether to switch cells. This avoids the need for the primary cell to broadcast unique data for every single small cell within its coverage area. (’152 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:11-31).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a scalable method for managing cell selection in heterogeneous networks, a foundational concept for increasing capacity and coverage in 4G/LTE and subsequent wireless standards. (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claim 9, which depends on independent claim 4. (Compl. ¶27). The infringement allegations map to the elements of independent apparatus claim 4.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 4 for a mobile terminal include:
    • Functioning in a network with a "first cell" (using a first protocol) and "a plurality of second cells" (using a different, second protocol) within the first cell’s coverage area.
    • Receiving broadcast information from the first cell that includes a "common parameter" used for judging cell selection for all second cells.
    • Receiving broadcast information from a second cell that includes an "individual parameter" used for judging cell selection for that specific second cell.
    • A processor that reads both the common and individual parameters.
    • A cell change controller that uses both parameters to judge whether to switch the communication connection from the first cell to the second cell.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶24).

U.S. Patent No. 8,442,569 - "Radio Reception Apparatus, Radio Transmission Apparatus, and Radio Communication Method"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: When a new wireless standard (e.g., LTE-Advanced) introduces a second reference signal for advanced features like higher-order MIMO, transmitting this new signal can interfere with and degrade the performance of legacy devices (e.g., LTE-only) that are only designed to interpret the original, first reference signal. (’569 Patent, col. 2:50-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for allocating the second reference signal to "distributed type resources"—resource blocks that are divided in time and spread out at predetermined frequency intervals. The receiving device acquires information about this specific resource allocation, receives the signal, uses it to measure the channel quality, and transmits feedback. This structured, distributed allocation minimizes the resources affected, thereby preventing throughput deterioration for legacy devices not using the second signal. (’569 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:6-33).
  • Technical Importance: This technology facilitates backward compatibility in evolving wireless standards, allowing network operators to deploy advanced features on their networks without disrupting service for the existing user base of older devices. (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 11. (Compl. ¶45).
  • The essential steps of independent claim 11 include:
    • Acquiring "distribution resource information" for a "second reference signal" in a system that also transmits a "first reference signal", where the second signal uses "distributed type resources".
    • Receiving a signal containing the second reference signal.
    • Measuring "channel quality" of a transmission channel using the second reference signal from the distributed resources.
    • Transmitting "feedback information" containing the measured channel quality to the transmission apparatus.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. 8,467,723 - "Base Station Apparatus, Mobile Apparatus, and Communication Method"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses communication management when a mobile device is in an area covered by two different Radio Access Technologies (RATs), such as 4G/LTE and 3G. To avoid the overhead of a dedicated control channel for reporting RAT information, the invention provides a method where the mobile device, while connected to a base station on a first RAT, notifies that base station when it detects the presence of a second RAT, allowing the base station to efficiently control a potential handover. (Compl. ¶17; ’723 Patent, col. 2:19-30).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent apparatus claim 5. (Compl. ¶62).
  • Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to perform inter-RAT handovers by transmitting measurement information to an LTE base station to trigger a handover to a different network, such as a 3G GERAN/UTRAN network. (Compl. ¶¶ 63-65).

U.S. Patent No. 8,792,453 - "Secure Tunnel Establishment Upon Attachment or Handover to an Access Network"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent seeks to reduce connection delays during network handovers that require establishing a new secure tunnel to a packet data gateway. The invention describes a method where a mobile device maintains a "reachability list" that tracks which trusted gateways are accessible through various data paths. Upon moving to a new network, the device can consult this list to quickly identify a reachable gateway and establish the secure tunnel. (Compl. ¶18; ’453 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 1. (Compl. ¶77).
  • Accused Features: The accused 4G/5G products are alleged to use a pre-configured "reachability list" to determine a trusted evolved packet data gateway (ePDG) and establish a secure IPsec tunnel when attaching to a target access network. (Compl. ¶¶ 78-80).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Verifone’s mobile Point-of-Sale terminals, including but not limited to the Verifone Victa, T650p, V400m, T650c, T650m, Carbon Mobile 5, and e235 devices. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these are 4G- and 5G-enabled mobile devices that incorporate cellular modems to connect to wireless networks. (Compl. ¶9). The complaint provides an illustration of how Licensed Assisted Access (LAA) is implemented in various deployment scenarios, a feature central to the infringement allegations. (Compl. ¶20, p. 15).
  • Their accused technical functionalities include performing inter-RAT (Radio Access Technology) handovers between different network types, utilizing LAA to combine licensed and unlicensed spectrum, and establishing secure tunnels to network gateways. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 14, 18, 20).
  • The complaint positions these devices as part of Verifone's core business as a "global payments technology company" that are imported, distributed, and sold in the United States. (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,374,152 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A mobile terminal used in a network having a first cell using a first communication protocol and a plurality of second cells which are included in the first cell and use a second communication protocol which is different from that for the first cell... The Accused Products operate in LAA-enabled networks, where a primary LTE cell (PCell) using a first protocol covers multiple LAA small cells (SCells) using a different protocol. ¶28 col. 21:55-64
...a first broadcast information receiver for receiving broadcast information of the first cell including cell selection information comprising a common parameter that is commonly used for a judgment on cell selection of all the second cells... The Accused Products contain first receiver circuitry to receive broadcast information over licensed spectrum from the LTE PCell, including a common parameter for selecting any of the LAA SCells. ¶29 col. 22:4-10
...a second broadcast information receiver for receiving broadcast information of one of the second cells including an individual parameter that is individually used for a judgment on cell selection of a second cell... The Accused Products contain second receiver circuitry to receive broadcast information over unlicensed spectrum from an LAA SCell, including an individual parameter for that specific cell. ¶30 col. 22:11-16
...a first broadcast information processor for reading the common parameter... a second broadcast information processor for reading the individual parameter... A baseband processor core in the Accused Products reads the common parameter from the LTE cell's broadcast and the individual parameter from the LAA cell's broadcast. ¶¶31-32 col. 22:17-22
...a cell change controller for judging by the common and individual parameters whether to change a communication connection of the mobile terminal from the first cell to the second cell. The baseband processor is programmed to use both the common and individual parameters to judge whether to switch the connection from the LTE cell to the LAA cell. ¶33 col. 22:23-28

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the patent's model of a "mobile phone network" cell containing distinct "WLAN cells" (’152 Patent, Abstract) can be construed to cover the more tightly integrated LTE PCell and LAA SCell architecture alleged in the complaint.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the existence of a "common parameter" and an "individual parameter." The complaint includes a diagram illustrating how a Qualcomm processor can have distinct receive paths for licensed and unlicensed traffic, supporting the structural elements of the claim. (Compl. ¶29, p. 19). However, a key factual question will be whether the specific cell selection data used by the Accused Products actually functions as two distinct parameter types as claimed, or as a single, integrated set of parameters.

U.S. Patent No. 8,442,569 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A radio communication method... comprising: acquiring distribution resource information for a second reference signal...in a case where distributed type resources...are used as resources for the second reference signal. A modem in the Accused Products acquires distribution resource information for a discovery reference signal (DRS), which serves as a second reference signal for an LAA SCell, where the DRS uses distributed type resources. ¶47 col. 19:10-20
...receiving a signal containing the second reference signal transmitted from the transmission apparatus. An RF transceiver within a chip (e.g., from Qualcomm or Quectel) in the Accused Products receives the signal containing the DRS from a base station. ¶48 col. 19:21-23
...measuring a channel quality of a transmission channel by using the second reference signal that is allocated in the distributed type resources on the basis of the distribution resource information. A chip in the Accused Products measures channel quality of the transmission channel using the received DRS from the LAA SCell based on the acquired resource information. ¶49 col. 19:24-29
...transmitting feedback information containing channel quality information indicative of the channel quality, to the transmission apparatus. An RF transceiver in the Accused Products transmits feedback containing the channel quality information to the base station. ¶50 col. 19:30-33

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the "discovery reference signal (DRS)" used in LAA networks qualifying as the "second reference signal" for a "second communication system" as required by the claim. A dispute may arise over whether LAA is a distinct "second communication system" or merely an extension of the primary LTE system.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint must establish that the DRS in the accused products is allocated in what the patent defines as "distributed type resources." This will require a technical analysis of how resources are defined, divided in time, and allocated at predetermined frequency intervals in the accused LAA implementation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term (’152 Patent): "common parameter" / "individual parameter"

    • Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’152 Patent depends on mapping the accused LAA cell selection process onto this claimed two-parameter structure. The definitions of these terms will be critical, as Verifone may argue its system does not use this specific bifurcated parameter scheme.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes parameters generally as being "used for judgment about cell reselection" (’152 Patent, col. 2:21-22). Plaintiff may argue that any data used commonly across all secondary cells fits the plain meaning of "common parameter," and any data specific to one secondary cell fits the meaning of "individual parameter."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed table with specific examples of parameters, such as "Ssearch," "Qrxlevmin," "Offset," and "Scaling factor" (’152 Patent, FIG. 3B; col. 11:11-18). Defendant may argue that the terms should be construed to be limited to these specific types of parameters or those that function in a directly analogous manner.

  • Term (’569 Patent): "distributed type resources"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific technical structure in which the claimed method must operate. Whether the accused DRS is allocated within such resources is a core infringement question.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself provides a functional definition: "resources in which a resource unit defined in the frequency-time domain is divided in a time direction and distributedly allocated at predetermined frequency intervals" (’569 Patent, cl. 11). Plaintiff will likely argue that any resource allocation meeting this functional description, such as that used for DRS in LAA, falls within the claim scope.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description links this concept to LTE-specific "DVRB (Distributed Virtual Resource Block) resources" (’569 Patent, col. 3:48-52). Defendant may argue that the term should be limited by these embodiments to the specific DVRB structures and hopping patterns defined in the LTE standard, potentially excluding the different allocation scheme used for DRS in LAA.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on Verifone's alleged knowledge of the patents since at least June 3, 2024, and subsequent actions such as creating advertisements, providing user manuals and instructions, and offering technical support that allegedly encourage direct infringement by end-users. (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 53, 68, 83).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all four patents. The basis for this claim is Verifone's alleged continuation of infringing activities despite having received notice letters that included claim charts identifying the asserted patents and mapping them to the accused products. (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 37, 52, 54, 67, 69, 82, 84).

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

  • 1. Definitional Scope: A core issue across the asserted patents will be one of definitional scope: can terms and concepts from patents with 2007-2009 priority dates be construed to cover the specific implementations of later-developed standards like Licensed Assisted Access (LAA)? For example, does the ’152 patent's distinct "WLAN cell" model map onto the integrated LTE PCell/LAA SCell architecture, and does the ’569 patent’s "second communication system" read on the LAA extension to LTE?
  • 2. Technical Equivalence: The complaint relies on high-level descriptions of how 4G/5G standards operate. A central evidentiary question will be whether the specific software and hardware configurations in Verifone's products perform the exact functions required by each element of the asserted claims. The dispute may focus on subtle but material differences between the general operation of a standard and the actual functioning of the accused devices.
  • 3. Willfulness and Pre-Suit Conduct: Given the explicit allegations that Verifone received notice letters with claim charts well before the suit was filed, a key question will be Verifone's state of mind after June 2024. The viability of the willfulness claim, and the potential for enhanced damages, will likely depend on what steps, if any, Verifone took to assess infringement after being notified of Plaintiff's allegations.