Bataan Licensing LLC v. Contemporary Control Systems Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bataan Licensing LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Contemporary Control Systems, Inc. (Illinois)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-06667, N.D. Ill., 11/29/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because the Defendant is incorporated in Illinois and therefore resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Automation Platform, which utilizes the LTE cellular standard, infringes a patent related to methods for adaptively selecting communication modes and modulation schemes.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns adaptive modulation in wireless communication systems, where a device selects from different schemes (e.g., QPSK, QAM) to optimize data transmission based on instructions from a network controller.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,423,982: "Adaptive Communication Modes" (Issued Sep. 9, 2008)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that in communication systems like cable television networks, downloading software or data to a set-top terminal (STT) can be slow or impaired, leading to user delays or a lack of functionality (’982 Patent, col. 1:37-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a communication terminal to adapt its mode of operation based on messages received from a central network control system. The terminal can be instructed to switch between different communication modes—such as one using Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) and another using Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM)—to efficiently handle different types of data, like broadcast and unicast traffic (’982 Patent, col. 5:23-34; Fig. 8). This allows the system to dynamically select an appropriate communication protocol or channel to improve performance (’982 Patent, col. 6:21-34).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a network operator to manage client device communications dynamically, potentially improving efficiency and reliability by using different modulation schemes optimized for different tasks or network conditions.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶12).
• The essential elements of independent claim 12 are:
  • A method for implementing a communication mode for a communication terminal, comprising:
  • receiving a message from a remotely located network control system;
  • responsive to the message specifying a first communication mode, implementing the first communication mode including communication with the network control system using a first type of modulation scheme, wherein the first type of modulation scheme is quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), and wherein implementing the first communication mode includes receiving broadcast data and transmitting and receiving unicast data using the first type of modulation scheme; and
  • responsive to the message specifying a second communication mode, implementing the second communication mode including communicating with the network control system using a second type of modulation scheme, wherein the second type of modulation scheme is quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Contemporary Controls Automation Platform ("Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Accused Instrumentality as a hardware platform for automation systems that offers various communication options, including Cellular LTE (Compl. ¶13; p. 4). A marketing image from Defendant's website shows the "Automation Platform" device and lists "LTE/3G Cellular" as an option (Compl. p. 4).
• The complaint alleges the device communicates with an LTE base station and utilizes different modulation schemes as dictated by the LTE standard (Compl. ¶13). Specifically, it is alleged to receive Downlink Control Information (DCI) messages that suggest which modulation scheme to use, including QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges the device's market importance stems from its ability to "communicate with almost any standard network device from LTE Cellular, to Ethernet IP, to Wi-Fi or EnOcean devices" (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’982 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement theory rests on mapping concepts from the patent’s cable television context to the accused product’s cellular LTE context. This raises the question of whether a "remotely located network control system" as described in the patent (e.g., a cable headend's Digital Network Control System) can be construed to read on an "LTE base station" as alleged in the complaint.
• Technical Questions: The patent describes a high-level configuration "message" (a "UNConfigIndication message") that sets the overall communication mode for a device. The complaint alleges that a low-level, real-time "DCI value" used for scheduling in LTE performs this function. A key question will be whether the function and nature of the DCI value in the LTE standard correspond to the "message" required by the claim, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation and protocol level.
• Technical Questions: Claim 12 requires that implementing the QPSK mode includes three distinct actions: receiving broadcast data, transmitting unicast data, and receiving unicast data, all "using the first type of modulation scheme." The complaint alleges the device "communicates broadcast and unicast messages utilizing QPSK modulation" (Compl. ¶15), but a central question will be whether the evidence shows that all three specific data operations are performed using QPSK as part of the single, accused "first communication mode."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "remotely located network control system"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical because the patent specification is grounded in the architecture of a cable television network, while the accused technology is part of a cellular LTE network. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome will determine if the patent's claims can reach beyond the cable context to the cellular context alleged in the complaint.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic. Plaintiff may argue that its plain and ordinary meaning is not limited to any specific type of network and should encompass any remote system that controls network communications, such as an LTE base station.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the system in the context of a cable television "headend" and a "Digital Network Control System (DNCS)" that manages set-top terminals (’982 Patent, col. 3:36-41, Fig. 2). This repeated contextualization may support an interpretation limiting the term to a controller within a cable or similar broadcast network architecture.

• The Term: "message"

  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory hinges on equating the claimed "message" with the "DCI value" of the LTE standard. The definition of "message" is therefore central to the dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not qualify the term "message", which could support an argument that any data transmission that specifies a communication mode meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to a specific type of message: a "UNConfigIndication message" that complies with the "Digital Storage Media Command and Control (DSM-CC) protocol" (’982 Patent, col. 3:41-48, col. 13:65-col. 14:2). This detailed description of a high-level configuration message may be used to argue that the term should be construed narrowly, potentially excluding the low-level physical layer DCI signal.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege willful or indirect infringement.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court’s interpretation of claim terms and the application of those terms to a different technological field than the one described in the patent. The central questions are:

1. A core issue will be one of technological translation: can the claim term "remotely located network control system", which is described in the patent as a cable television headend component, be construed broadly enough to cover the "LTE base station" of the accused cellular system?
2. A key question of functional and structural equivalence will be dispositive: is the low-level, physical-layer Downlink Control Information ("DCI") signal in the LTE standard equivalent to the high-level, session-management "message" (described as a DSM-CC UNConfigIndication message) contemplated by the patent?
3. An evidentiary question will focus on claim element satisfaction: does the evidence demonstrate that the accused platform, when operating in QPSK mode, performs all three functions required by Claim 12—receiving broadcast data, transmitting unicast data, and receiving unicast data—as part of a single, unified "first communication mode"?