DCT
3:22-cv-50402
Bataan Licensing LLC v. Donaldson Co Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bataan Licensing LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Donaldson Company, Inc. (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-50402, N.D. Ill., 09/27/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining a place of business in the district at 815 W Progress Dr., Dixon, IL, where at least a portion of the alleged infringements occurred.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s industrial sensor gateway infringes a patent related to adaptive communication modes in communication systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for a communication terminal to switch between different communication modes, such as those using different modulation schemes, based on instructions from a network controller.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-09-09 | ’982 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-09-09 | ’982 Patent Issue Date |
| 2008-12-01 | LTE Release 8 standard frozen (as per complaint) |
| 2022-09-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,423,982 - "Adaptive Communication Modes"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,423,982, "Adaptive Communication Modes", issued September 9, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in subscriber television networks where set-top terminals (STTs) download software and data. It notes that using a specific communication channel (e.g., one compliant with the DAVIC protocol) can sometimes be slow or become impaired, leading to user-facing delays or a loss of functionality (’982 Patent, col. 1:40-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for an STT to adapt its communication mode based on a message received from a central network controller (e.g., a headend) (’982 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 8). This allows the STT to switch between different communication channels or protocols (e.g., from a DAVIC channel to a DOCSIS channel) to receive data, thereby overcoming impairments on one channel by using another (’982 Patent, col. 8:35-55). This adaptability is intended to ensure service continuity.
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a mechanism for maintaining robust STT functionality and a consistent user experience in the face of variable network conditions by enabling dynamic, centrally-controlled switching between available communication standards.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶14).
- Claim 12 requires:
- 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’s prayer for relief, which references "one or more claims," suggests a reservation of the right to assert additional claims (Compl. p. 31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Donaldson iCue Sensor Integrated Gateway ("Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality is a communication terminal that supports the Cellular LTE standard (Compl. ¶15). A technical specifications table provided in the complaint confirms the product uses "LTE" for its "Cellular Technologies" (Compl. p. 5).
- It is alleged to communicate with a base station by utilizing different modulation schemes (Compl. ¶15). Specifically, the complaint alleges the device receives Downlink Control Information (DCI) messages from an LTE base station, and the DCI value indicates which modulation scheme to use (Compl. ¶16).
- The complaint alleges the device uses Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) and Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) for uplink and downlink communication based on these DCI messages (Compl. ¶¶17, 18). A screenshot from a technical document shows a table mapping a "Modulation Order" index to different modulation methods, including QPSK and QAM (Compl. p. 19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’982 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a message from a remotely located network control system; | The Accused Instrumentality allegedly receives a message, specifically a Downlink Control Information (DCI) message, from a remotely located LTE base station. | ¶16 | col. 6:26-30 |
| 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, | When the DCI value indicates a QPSK modulation scheme, the Accused Instrumentality allegedly implements a first communication mode by communicating with the base station using QPSK. | ¶17 | col. 16:13-17 |
| wherein the first type of modulation scheme is quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK), | The complaint alleges the first type of modulation scheme used by the Accused Instrumentality is QPSK. A table from a technical standard is provided to show that QPSK is a supported modulation scheme in LTE (Compl. p. 19). | ¶17 | col. 16:19-21 |
| and wherein implementing the first communication mode includes receiving broadcast data and transmitting and receiving unicast data using the first type of modulation scheme; | The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality communicates broadcast and unicast messages utilizing QPSK modulation for both uplink and downlink communication. A product photo shows the "Donaldson™ iCue™ Sensor Integrated Gateway" (Compl. p. 4). | ¶17 | col. 6:39-43 |
| 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, | When the DCI value indicates a QAM modulation scheme, the Accused Instrumentality allegedly implements a second communication mode by communicating with the base station using QAM. A table shows that QAM is a supported modulation scheme (Compl. p. 26). | ¶18 | col. 16:22-28 |
| wherein the second type of modulation scheme is quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM). | The complaint alleges the second type of modulation scheme used by the Accused Instrumentality is QAM. The complaint asserts that when the device determines the modulation order is other than 2 (i.e., not QPSK), it utilizes QAM (Compl. p. 22). | ¶18 | col. 16:30-32 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The patent’s specification is written in the context of set-top boxes operating on DAVIC and DOCSIS networks. A primary dispute may concern whether the patent’s claims, particularly the term "communication mode", can be construed to read on the operation of a modern industrial sensor gateway operating on a cellular LTE network. The defense may argue the claimed invention is limited to the specific set-top box context disclosed.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that an LTE base station functions as the claimed "remotely located network control system" for the purpose of specifying distinct "communication modes," as opposed to dynamically managing modulation and coding as a routine part of radio link maintenance? The infringement theory appears to equate a change in modulation scheme (e.g., QPSK to QAM) with a change in "communication mode." The court will need to determine if this mapping is technically and legally sound based on the patent's disclosure.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "communication mode"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central pillar of the infringement case. Its construction will determine whether the accused product's alleged switching between QPSK and QAM modulation schemes constitutes an infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples (DAVIC, DOCSIS, MDD) are technologically distinct from the accused LTE standard, making the breadth of "communication mode" a dispositive issue.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 12 itself defines the "modes" in terms of using different modulation schemes (QPSK vs. QAM). Plaintiff may argue this express definition within the claim itself controls, and that the term should not be limited to the specific DAVIC/DOCSIS embodiments described elsewhere. The specification also refers to implementing a mode by "communicating in accordance with one or more corresponding set(s) of communication specifications" (’982 Patent, col. 4:59-63), which could be argued to be a broad definition not tied to any single standard.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description consistently frames the invention in the context of a set-top terminal switching between DAVIC and DOCSIS protocols to receive different types of data (’982 Patent, col. 6:31-62). The "Problem Addressed" section focuses exclusively on issues with DAVIC channels in cable television systems (’982 Patent, col. 1:11-48). Defendant may argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have understood "communication mode" to mean a switch between these larger protocol frameworks, not merely a routine, physical-layer change in modulation.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement. It alleges direct infringement (Compl. ¶14) and constructive notice (Compl. ¶20) but does not plead facts to support inducement, contributory infringement, or willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "communication mode", which is rooted in the patent's disclosure of switching between comprehensive protocols like DAVIC and DOCSIS on a 2002-era set-top box, be construed to cover the routine, physical-layer switching between modulation schemes (QPSK and QAM) within a single, unified protocol (LTE) on a modern industrial sensor?
A key evidentiary and technical question will be whether the function of a Downlink Control Information (DCI) message in the LTE standard is equivalent to the claimed "message from a remotely located network control system specifying a... communication mode." The court will likely need to determine if LTE's dynamic link adaptation is the same inventive concept as the patent's system for selecting between distinct, pre-defined operational modes.