DCT
8:11-cv-00062
Tadayon v. Saucon Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Saied Tadayon and Bijan Tadayon (Maryland) (pro se)
- Defendant: Saucon Technologies, Inc. (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
- Case Identification: 8:11-cv-00062, D. Md., 01/07/2011
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper based on Defendant contributing to or inducing acts of infringement within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s Wi-Fi system, which provides internet access to passengers on intercity buses, infringes a patent related to a multi-stage wireless communication method designed to reduce radiation exposure.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses public health concerns about electromagnetic radiation from mobile devices by creating a low-power, short-range link to a user and a separate high-power, long-range link to the broader network.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiffs previously filed a lawsuit against the operators of the bus services (Coach USA, et al.) for their use of the accused system, which was settled and dismissed on January 3, 2011. The complaint alleges Defendant was aware of the patent-in-suit before the current lawsuit was filed. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, an inter partes reexamination of the patent-in-suit resulted in the cancellation of the asserted independent claims (Claims 1 and 2).
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-09-06 | ’657 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-04-18 | ’657 Patent Issue Date |
| c. 2008-04 | Defendant allegedly contracted to equip buses with the accused "System" |
| 2010-05-27 | Plaintiffs filed prior infringement lawsuit against bus operators |
| 2011-01-03 | Prior lawsuit against bus operators was dismissed |
| 2011-01-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,031,657 - Safe method and system for mobile or wireless computing or communication devices
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of power absorption and potential health risks (e.g., brain cancer) from electromagnetic fields radiated by wireless devices, such as cellular phones, that are used in close proximity to the human body (’657 Patent, col. 1:17-33). Conventional solutions like shielding were deemed ineffective because they could degrade reception, forcing the device to increase its power output and thereby increasing radiation absorption (’657 Patent, col. 1:55–col. 2:4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a multi-stage communication system to increase the distance between the user and the high-power antenna. A "first unit" (Unit A), close to the user, communicates over a short distance using an "extremely low power" signal. This first unit then relays the communication to a "last unit" (Unit B), positioned farther from the user, which transmits the data to the external network (e.g., a cell tower) at a relatively high power (’657 Patent, col. 3:20-39; Fig. 2). This architecture is intended to drastically reduce the amount of radiation absorbed by the user's body (’657 Patent, col. 3:16-19).
- Technical Importance: The described approach sought to mitigate a significant consumer safety concern without sacrificing the mobility and convenience of wireless technology.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 24, and 25, which includes independent claims 1 and 2 (Compl. ¶31).
- Independent Claim 2 (representative):
- A system for mobile or wireless communication or computation, comprising:
- a first unit comprising a first antenna, wherein said first unit is mobile or wireless;
- a last unit comprising a last antenna, wherein said last unit is mobile or wireless;
- said first unit transmits data to said last unit...from said first antenna to said last antenna;
- said last unit transmits said data to a location outside said system;
- wherein transmission between the first and last antenna is at a first frequency, and transmission from the last antenna to the outside location is at a second frequency, where the frequencies are different;
- wherein the first frequency is chosen from a range corresponding to low radiation power absorption for a human body;
- wherein transmission between the first and last antenna is at a first power, and transmission from the last antenna to the outside location is at a second power, where the second power is larger than the first power.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but its list is non-exclusive ("including (but not limited to)") (Compl. ¶31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is the "System" and related services provided by Saucon Technologies to equip Coach USA and Megabus motorcoaches with passenger Wi-Fi internet access (Compl. ¶¶9, 32).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Saucon provides, installs, and supports a system that creates a "WiFi (wireless) zone within Megabus motorcoach" (Compl. ¶¶16-18, 32). This system provides data transmission for passengers by connecting to an external cellular network (Compl. ¶32).
- Passengers access the internet by connecting their personal devices to the on-bus system, which requires them to accept an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) presented on an interactive web page provided by Saucon (Compl. ¶¶19, 22). The complaint alleges Saucon provides network management and content filtering for the system (Compl. ¶¶18, 27). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not include a claim chart. The following summary is constructed from the narrative allegations.
’657 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first unit comprising first antenna, wherein said first unit is mobile or wireless | The complaint's theory appears to construe a passenger's personal Wi-Fi enabled device (e.g., laptop, smartphone) as the "first unit." | ¶¶9, 25, 32 | col. 3:25-31 |
| a last unit comprising last antenna, wherein said last unit is mobile or wireless | The complaint's theory appears to construe the on-bus Saucon-provided equipment that connects to the cellular network as the "last unit." | ¶¶9, 16-17, 32 | col. 3:31-33 |
| said first unit transmits data to said last unit... | A passenger's device transmits data via Wi-Fi to the on-bus equipment. | ¶¶32 | col. 3:20-25 |
| said last unit transmits said data to a location outside said system | The on-bus equipment transmits data via a cellular network to the broader internet. | ¶32 | col. 3:31-33 |
| wherein transmission... is done at first frequency... and transmission... is done at second frequency, wherein said second frequency is different | The system allegedly uses Wi-Fi for the short-range link and a cellular network frequency for the long-range link. | ¶32 | col. 8:26-32 |
| wherein said second power is larger than said first power | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 8:47-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question is whether a passenger's independently owned device and the Defendant's on-bus infrastructure can together constitute a single infringing "system" that Defendant "mak[es], install[s] and/or us[es]" as alleged (Compl. ¶31). The definition of "mobile" as applied to the "last unit" (the on-bus equipment) may also be disputed, as the patent appears to contemplate personally portable units rather than vehicle-installed infrastructure.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide technical evidence that the accused system meets the power-level limitations of the claims (i.e., that the long-range transmission power is greater than the short-range transmission power) or the specific frequency selection requirements (i.e., that the short-range frequency is chosen for low absorption by a human body).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "first unit" / "last unit"
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement theory depends on mapping a passenger's personal device to the "first unit" and the bus's hardware to the "last unit." The defense may argue that these are two separate, non-integrated products from different manufacturers that do not form a single "system" as claimed. Practitioners may focus on whether the claims require the units to be sold or provided as a unitary product.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the broad term "system comprising" a first unit and a last unit, without explicitly requiring that they be sold or manufactured together. The specification discusses the units being attachable to a user's belt or briefcase, suggesting they can be separate physical components working in concert (’657 Patent, col. 5:56-61).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict "Unit A" and "Unit B" as components of a single conceptual invention designed to work together (e.g., ’657 Patent, Figs. 2-4). Language discussing pairing units with a specific code or ID, or attaching them to each other for carrying, implies they are intended to be supplied as a matched set (’657 Patent, col. 6:22-34, col. 5:54-56).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶31). The factual basis for inducement appears to rest on allegations that Saucon directs bus passengers to use the system and accept an AUP via a web page, thereby instructing them on how to complete the infringing system (Compl. ¶¶19, 22).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that "Saucon has been aware of '657 Patent well before filing of this lawsuit" (Compl. ¶29) and that acts of infringement occurred with knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Impact of Claim Cancellation: The most significant issue is the legal effect of the subsequent inter partes reexamination, which cancelled the asserted independent claims 1 and 2. A central question is whether the lawsuit can proceed based on claims that were valid at the time of filing but have since been rendered unenforceable.
- Definitional Scope: A core claim construction issue will be whether the combination of a passenger's third-party personal device and Defendant's vehicle-installed infrastructure constitutes a single infringing "system" under the patent's claims, and whether Defendant can be held liable for "making" or "using" a system it does not fully provide or control.
- Evidentiary Sufficiency: An evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate that the accused system meets the specific technical limitations of the claims, particularly the relative power levels of the short-range and long-range transmissions and the selection of the short-range frequency for low human-body absorption, as the complaint lacks detailed factual allegations on these points.