Stormborn Tech LLC v. Carlson Software Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Carlson Software, Inc. (Kentucky)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Henderson Dantone, P.A.; Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
• Case Identification: 2:20-cv-00065, E.D. Ky., 04/30/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Kentucky and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ruggedized tablet products infringe a patent related to dynamically adjusting the data rate in a wireless communication system based on a feedback signal from the receiver.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the field of spread-spectrum wireless communications, where managing interference and maintaining data throughput are critical for reliable performance, especially in mobile and cellular environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a representative claim of the asserted patent (Claim 11) was previously found by another district court to be tied to a concrete structure (the command processor) and not directed to an abstract idea, a ruling that may influence subject matter eligibility arguments in this case. The complaint also references the prosecution history, where the original applicant distinguished the invention based on its unique command processor circuitry that generates a data-rate control signal to control the transmitter.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-06-14	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. RE44,199 Patent
2013-05-07	U.S. RE44,199 Patent Issued
2020-03-17	Prior court ruling in Stormborn v. TopCon (N.D. Cal.)
2020-04-30	Complaint Filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in conventional multi-cell, spread-spectrum communication systems where a remote device near a cell boundary suffers from significant signal interference from adjacent cells (’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Prior methods to combat this interference, such as increasing the system's "processing gain," required reducing the data rate and making inflexible changes to the receiver's hardware architecture (’199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a closed-loop feedback system to dynamically manage data throughput. A receiver monitors the "error rate" of the data it decodes from various subchannels and, in response, its "command processor" generates a "data-rate command signal" (’199 Patent, col. 4:62-67). This signal is transmitted back to the original transmitter, instructing it to adjust the data rate—for example, by sending redundant data over more channels to improve robustness—thereby adapting to changing signal conditions without requiring physical changes to the receiver's design (’199 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 8:1-14).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a communication system to maintain a desired quality of service by intelligently trading data rate for reliability in real-time, offering more flexibility than prior static systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 11 and 13.
• Independent Claim 11 (Apparatus): Recites a receiver comprising:
  • "demodulator circuitry" for detecting transmitted signals.
  • "decoder circuitry" for Forward Error Correction (FEC) decoding and providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an "error rate".
  • "command processor circuitry" responsive to the channel error rates for generating a "data-rate control signal" to be sent to the transmitter.
  • "transmitting circuitry" for sending the control signal back to the transmitter.
  • "multiplexer circuitry" for combining the decoded channels into a single data stream.
• Independent Claim 13 (Method): Recites a method for recovering wireless data comprising the steps of:
  • "detecting" the transmitted signals.
  • "FEC decoding and de-interleaving" the signals to provide 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.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 12 and 14, which add limitations related to decoding FEC codes of different rates (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 22, 56).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Carlson RT3 Ruggedized Tablet" is identified as the "Accused Product" (Compl. ¶57).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a wireless device that "practices a method for recovering wireless data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality of different sub-channel signals" (Compl. ¶57). The complaint asserts in a conclusory manner that the product performs the steps of the patented method, including decoding channels, determining an error rate, and generating and transmitting a data-rate control signal based on that rate (Compl. ¶¶ 59-62). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the specific operation of the accused functionality or its market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart exhibit that was not provided with the filing. The following summary is based on the narrative allegations for method claim 13.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

RE44,199 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
detecting the transmitted signals in a plurality of demodulated channels	The Accused Product allegedly detects transmitted signals in a plurality of demodulated channels.	¶59	col. 10:51-53
FEC decoding and de-interleaving the plurality of demodulated channels, providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate	The Accused Product allegedly performs FEC decoding and de-interleaving, resulting in multiple decoded channels that each have an error rate.	¶60	col. 10:58-62
using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels to generate a data-rate control signal to produce a desired data rate to be sent by the data symbol transmitter of the signals	The Accused Product allegedly uses command processor circuitry that is responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels to generate a data-rate control signal.	¶61	col. 10:62-65
transmitting the error rate dependent data-rate control signal back to the data symbol transmitter	The Accused Product allegedly transmits the generated data-rate control signal back to the transmitter.	¶62	col. 3:7-9
and multiplexing the multiplicity of decoded channels into a single stream of received data.	The Accused Product allegedly multiplexes the decoded channels into a single stream of data.	¶63	col. 4:47-48

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary: what proof demonstrates that the Accused Product’s rate adaptation mechanism is specifically "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels," as required by the claim? The complaint itself notes that other non-infringing methods exist, such as using a known pilot signal to control the data rate (Compl. ¶47). The defense may argue the accused system uses such an alternative metric (e.g., general signal-to-noise ratio) rather than the claimed error rate of decoded user data channels.
  • Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory, stating the Accused Product "practices" each step without detailing how (Compl. ¶¶ 59-63). A central dispute will likely be whether the actual software and hardware implementation of the Carlson RT3 tablet falls within the scope of the claims, or if there is a functional mismatch between the accused system and the patented method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "command processor circuitry"

• Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the asserted claims. The complaint emphasizes this element as the source of the invention's improvement over the prior art (Compl. ¶24). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a wide range of modern processors in wireless devices are covered, or only those with a specific architecture. Plaintiff will likely rely on the prior court ruling that this term is tied to a "concrete structure" to argue against indefiniteness (Compl. ¶55).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the more general term "command means" in some places, which could support a construction not limited to the exact processor shown in the figures (’199 Patent, col. 4:47).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where the processor (59) responds to a "syndrome signal" from the FEC decoder to generate a "data-rate command signal," an "adder-control signal," and a "multiplexer signal" (’199 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 8:8-14). This detailed description could support a narrower construction tied to these specific inputs and outputs.

• The Term: "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels"

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the specific trigger for the invention's feedback loop. Its definition is critical to distinguishing the patented method from other forms of adaptive modulation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it creates a potential line between infringement and non-infringement based on the specific metric a system uses for rate adaptation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue this language covers any system where the measured bit or packet error rate is a factor, even if not the sole factor, in the rate-control decision.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently links the "error rate" to the "syndrome signal" generated by the "FEC decoder" (’199 Patent, col. 4:58-59; col. 8:5-7). This suggests the term requires a direct link to the output of the error correction process, potentially excluding systems that rely on more general metrics like signal strength or pilot signal degradation, which the complaint itself presents as an alternative (Compl. ¶47).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement. It asserts that Defendant encouraged infringement but does not specify the acts of encouragement (e.g., providing user manuals or marketing materials) (Compl. ¶70). It further alleges the Accused Products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶71).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege "willful" infringement but does request enhanced damages. It alleges Defendant had knowledge of the ’199 Patent "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶68), which would only support a claim for post-suit, not pre-suit, willful infringement.

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

This case appears to hinge on the specific technical implementation of the accused data rate adaptation feature. The central questions for the court will likely be:

1. A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the Carlson RT3 tablet’s rate control system is, in fact, "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels," as the claims require, or does it operate based on a different, non-infringing metric such as overall signal strength or pilot signal quality?

2. A key legal question will be one of claim scope: How broadly will the court construe the term "command processor circuitry"? The outcome of this construction will likely determine whether Carlson's potentially general-purpose processing hardware is captured by a claim term that Plaintiff has previously argued, and a court has found, is tied to a "concrete structure."