DCT

2:22-cv-11402

Neo Wireless LLC v. Ford Motor Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-11402, E.D. Mich., 07/20/2022
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint alleges that venue is proper in the Western District of Missouri, based on Ford's alleged acts of infringement and its operation of a regular and established place of business, specifically a vehicle assembly plant, within that district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicles equipped with 4G/LTE and 5G/NR cellular connectivity infringe six patents related to multi-carrier wireless communication technologies.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for managing network access, channel quality feedback, and signaling efficiency in Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) systems, which are foundational to modern 4G/LTE and 5G cellular standards.
  • Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint was filed to address arguments raised in a motion to dismiss the original complaint. The complaint alleges that the patented inventions have been incorporated into the 3GPP standards for 4G/LTE and 5G/NR networks. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the patents-in-suit via a letter dated November 29, 2021, in an attempt to initiate licensing discussions, which it claims Defendant refused.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-01-29 Earliest Priority Date ('512 Patent)
2004-01-30 Earliest Priority Date ('908, '302 Patents)
2004-02-13 Earliest Priority Date ('941 Patent)
2005-09-28 Earliest Priority Date ('450 Patent)
2010-08-09 Earliest Priority Date ('366 Patent)
2013-06-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 Issues
2018-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 Issues
2019-10-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 Issues
2020-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302 Issues
2020-11-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 Issues
2021-03-30 U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 Issues
2021-11-29 Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letter to Defendant
2022-07-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 - “Methods and Apparatus for Random Access in Multi-Carrier Communication Systems”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In multi-carrier wireless systems like OFDMA, a mobile device must first perform a "random access" or "ranging" procedure to establish communication with a base station. The patent’s background section notes that this process can be hampered by interference from other users and poor detection performance at the base station, leading to inefficiency and delays (Compl. ¶31; ’366 Patent, col. 1:23-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes designing specific "ranging signals" that are transmitted over a dedicated "ranging subchannel." This subchannel is composed of distinct blocks of subcarriers, and the power levels of the subcarriers at the edges of these blocks are reduced or set to zero. This configuration is intended to reduce interference with adjacent channels and improve the base station's ability to reliably detect the random access attempt, even when the signal arrives misaligned in time (’366 Patent, col. 3:4-11, Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: Efficiently managing how a large number of devices initiate connections with a cellular network is a fundamental challenge, and this invention purports to improve the reliability and reduce the overhead of this critical process (Compl. ¶31, ¶34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶70).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Transmitting a data signal over a data subchannel.
    • Transmitting a ranging signal over a ranging subchannel for random access.
    • The ranging signal is formed from a sequence selected from a set associated with the cell.
    • The ranging signal lasts for one or more OFDM symbols and has a low peak-to-average power ratio.
    • The ranging subchannel comprises at least one block of subcarriers.
    • The power levels of subcarriers at both ends of the block are set to zero.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 - “Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband Communication System”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent family describes combining two different types of wireless signals: high-efficiency multi-carrier (MC) signals (like OFDM) for data, and robust spread-spectrum (DSSS) signals for system functions. The technical problem is how to overlay these signals in the same frequency band without causing significant mutual interference that degrades the performance of both (’302 Patent, col. 1:38-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system where a DSSS signal is intentionally overlapped with an OFDM signal. The OFDM signal carries high-rate data, while the lower-power DSSS signal is used for system functions like initial random access or "channel probing" to measure channel quality. The system uses techniques, such as transmitting the DSSS signal at a much lower power level, to ensure the two signals can coexist and be detected successfully by a receiver (’302 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-61).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a network to perform robust control and measurement functions using a DSSS signal while simultaneously transmitting high-throughput data via an OFDM signal, aiming to achieve both reliability and spectral efficiency (Compl. ¶34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶77).
  • The essential elements of claim 11 include:
    • Transmitting a first uplink OFDM signal in a frequency band.
    • Transmitting a random access signal followed by a guard period in only a portion of the frequency band.
    • The random access signal includes a sequence associated with the base station.
    • The time duration of the random access signal and guard period combined is greater than the duration of at least one OFDM symbol.
    • Receiving a response message from the base station.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 - “Methods and Apparatus for Multi-Carrier Communications with Adaptive Transmission and Feedback”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes dynamically adjusting transmission parameters—such as modulation and coding schemes (MCS), pilot patterns, and power levels—in response to changing channel conditions. This "adaptive transmission" is guided by feedback from the receiver, aiming to maximize system capacity and spectral efficiency without compromising reliability (’941 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-41).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 13 is asserted (Compl. ¶84).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are configured to receive and process various Downlink Control Information (DCI) formats, which contain transmission parameters for configuring the mobile device for accurate signal reception based on network characteristics (Compl. ¶83, ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 - “Method and System for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with Reduced Overhead”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the significant control overhead in multi-carrier systems, particularly for applications like Voice-over-IP (VoIP). The invention proposes reducing this overhead by grouping applications of a similar type into designated "zones" within the time-frequency resource, which simplifies the mapping of packet streams and reduces the amount of control information needed (’450 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-17).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 7 is asserted (Compl. ¶91).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products are configured to receive and process Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) formats, including those comprising 2, 4, or 8 Control Channel Elements (CCEs), which relate to recovering control information with reduced overhead (Compl. ¶90, ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 - “Method and Apparatus Using Cell-Specific and Common Pilot Subcarriers in multi-Carrier, Multi Cell Wireless Communication Networks”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system using two different types of pilot signals (subcarriers): "cell-specific" pilots that are unique to an individual cell, and "common" pilots that share characteristics across all cells in a network. This dual-pilot structure enables a receiver to perform different functions, such as distinguishing individual cells or combining signals from multiple cells for improved synchronization (’512 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 15 is asserted (Compl. ¶98).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products operate in cells supporting various transmission modes, including transmission mode 7, which uses UE-specific reference signals for downlink data reception, a feature allegedly related to maintaining accurate signaling in mobile environments (Compl. ¶97, ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302 - “Method and System for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with Reduced Overhead”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the '450 patent, also focuses on reducing control overhead. The technology involves intentionally overlapping a spread-spectrum signal (used for functions like channel probing) with a primary OFDM signal (used for data), with methods to minimize the mutual interference between them (’302 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 23 is asserted (Compl. ¶105).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products are configured to support simultaneous transmission of Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) and Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) signals, which relates to reference signaling for channel measurement and resource allocation (Compl. ¶104, ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies a wide range of Ford and Lincoln vehicle models as the "Accused Products," including the Ford F-150, Explorer, Mustang, and Bronco, and the Lincoln Navigator and Aviator, among others (Compl. ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused functionality resides in the vehicles’ cellular connectivity systems, identified as "FordPass Connect, SYNC Connect, and/or Lincoln Connect" (Compl. ¶40). These systems provide 4G/LTE and 5G/NR connectivity, enabling features such as in-vehicle Wi-Fi hotspots, remote vehicle control via the "FordPass App," and vehicle health alerts (Compl. ¶39, ¶41). The core technical allegation is that these systems are configured to operate in compliance with 3GPP standards from Release 8 through at least Release 17, thereby implementing the patented technologies (Compl. ¶43, ¶45). The complaint alleges the Ford F-Series are the best-selling vehicles in the United States, suggesting significant market positioning for the accused technology (Compl. ¶6).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim chart exhibits. Instead, it advances an infringement theory based on the Accused Products’ necessary compliance with the 3GPP 4G/LTE and 5G/NR standards.

Infringement Theory Summary ('366 and '908 Patents)

  • The central infringement allegation is that the Asserted Patents cover technologies that are essential to the 3GPP standards (Compl. ¶45). The complaint alleges that for the Accused Products to provide 4G/LTE connectivity, they must implement certain functionalities defined in those standards (Compl. ¶70, ¶77). Plaintiff asserts that these "covered functionalities" require practicing at least one claim of each of the Patents-in-Suit (Compl. ¶70, ¶77). For both the ’366 and ’908 patents, the allegedly infringing functionality is related to the random-access procedure, which the complaint describes as a core and integral part of establishing any connection on an LTE network (Compl. ¶71, ¶23). The complaint states that industry experts consulted by the plaintiff have confirmed that the Accused Products are configured to practice this functionality (Compl. ¶70, ¶77).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be whether compliance with the cited 3GPP standards necessarily requires practicing every element of the asserted claims. Ford may argue that the standards allow for non-infringing alternative implementations or that its specific implementation of the standard does not map onto a particular claim limitation.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies heavily on the assertion that certain patented features are integral to the LTE standard. A potential point of contention will be the factual evidence required to demonstrate this link. For example, regarding the ’366 Patent, the analysis may focus on whether the LTE Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) technically meets the claim 1 limitation that "power levels of subcarriers at both ends of a block are set to zero."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '366 Patent

  • The Term: "ranging subchannel" (from claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: The claim defines this subchannel with specific structural limitations (e.g., comprising blocks of subcarriers where power at the ends is zero). The construction of this term will be critical for determining whether the standardized random access channels used in the Accused Products fall within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes subchannels generally as "groups" of data subcarriers arranged "to support scalability and multiple-access" (’366 Patent, col. 3:5-8), which may support a broad definition not limited to a specific structure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 specifically depicts "Ranging Subchannel i" and "Ranging Subchannel j" as being composed of distinct, spaced-apart "Subcarrier block[s]," suggesting a more structured definition than just any group of subcarriers used for ranging (’366 Patent, Fig. 4).

For the '908 Patent

  • The Term: "random access signal" (from claim 11).
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent family it belongs to describes a specific technical environment of overlaying a spread-spectrum (DSSS) signal onto an OFDM signal. Whether a standard LTE random access signal, which may not be a DSSS signal, can be considered a "random access signal" as contemplated by the patent will be a central issue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic, and parts of the specification discuss random access in general terms without exclusively tying it to a DSSS signal, which could support an interpretation covering any signal used for that purpose (’302 Patent, col. 7:65-8:2).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and background of the patent family heavily frame the invention in the context of a DSSS signal being used for functions like "initial random access" while overlaid on an MC signal (’302 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-51). This context may be used to argue that the claimed "random access signal" is limited to the specific type of signal disclosed.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Ford provides technical documentation, advertising, and user manuals that instruct and encourage end-users to utilize the accused 4G/LTE and 5G/NR features of their vehicles (Compl. ¶57, ¶59).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Ford received a letter on or before December 1, 2021, that identified the patents-in-suit and their alleged relevance to the 3GPP standards. Plaintiff alleges that Ford refused to engage in good-faith licensing negotiations and continued its allegedly infringing activities, thereby constituting willful infringement (Compl. ¶64, ¶65).

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

This dispute appears to center on the intersection of patent claims and industry standards. The key questions for the court will likely be:

  1. A core issue will be one of standard essentiality versus implementation: can Neo Wireless provide sufficient evidence to establish that the 3GPP LTE and 5G/NR standards, as implemented by Ford, mandate the use of every limitation recited in the asserted patent claims, or can Ford demonstrate that the standards allow for non-infringing design choices?
  2. A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in the specific technical disclosures of the patents, such as the "ranging subchannel" of the '366 patent or the signals described in the '908 patent family, be construed broadly enough to read on the functionally similar but potentially distinct structures and signals defined by the 3GPP standards?