DCT

2:22-cv-11405

Neo Wireless LLC v. Nissan Motor Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-11405, E.D. Mich., 07/20/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff originally filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging venue is proper because Defendants have a regular and established place of business there (including Nissan NA's headquarters and a vehicle assembly plant) and have committed acts of infringement in the district. The case appears to have been transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan as part of a multi-district litigation proceeding.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicles equipped with 4G/LTE and 5G/NR cellular technology infringe six patents related to managing and optimizing multi-carrier wireless communications.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to fundamental techniques for managing wireless resources, signals, and data transmission in Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) networks, a core technology underlying modern 4G/LTE and 5G cellular standards.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant on November 29, 2021, providing notice of the patents-in-suit and their alleged coverage of 3GPP wireless standards, which serves as the basis for the willful infringement allegation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-01-29 Earliest Priority Date ('512 Patent)
2004-01-30 Earliest Priority Date ('908 and '302 Patents)
2004-02-13 Earliest Priority Date ('941 Patent)
2004-03-09 Earliest Priority Date ('366 Patent)
2005-09-28 Earliest Priority Date ('450 Patent)
2013-06-18 '366 Patent Issued
2018-09-11 '941 Patent Issued
2019-10-15 '450 Patent Issued
2020-09-08 '302 Patent Issued
2020-11-10 '908 Patent Issued
2021-03-30 '512 Patent Issued
2021-11-29 Plaintiff sent notice letter to Defendant
2021-12-01 Defendant received notice letter (no later than)
2022-07-20 Complaint Filed

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 OFDM), mobile stations must perform a "random access" procedure to establish communication with a base station. The patent describes the challenge of designing "ranging signals" for this purpose that are reliable, have low interference with other signals, and can be efficiently detected by the base station receiver (U.S. Patent 8467366, col. 1:22-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes specific designs for these ranging signals and the "ranging subchannel" they are transmitted on. The solution involves forming the signal from a specific sequence, transmitting it over one or more OFDM symbol periods, and designing it to have a "low peak-to-average power ratio," which improves transmission efficiency (U.S. Patent 8,467,366, col. 2:45-53, Abstract). It also describes arranging the subchannel into blocks of subcarriers and setting the power levels at the edges of these blocks to zero to reduce interference (U.S. Patent 8,467,366, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: Efficient and reliable random access is fundamental to cellular network operation, as it is the first step a device takes to connect to the network, affecting call setup times and overall system capacity.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus): A mobile station apparatus configured to transmit data and a ranging signal, where the ranging signal has specific characteristics:
    • Formed from a ranging sequence selected from a set associated with the cell.
    • Lasts for one or more OFDM symbols.
    • Exhibits a low peak-to-average power ratio.
    • Transmitted on a ranging subchannel comprising at least one block of subcarriers.
    • The power levels of subcarriers at both ends of the block are set to zero.
  • The complaint also asserts infringement of claims 2-8, 17, and 19-24, but does not specify whether they are independent or dependent (Compl. ¶77, Exhibit 7).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Broadband wireless systems suffer from multi-path propagation, where signals travel along different paths and interfere with each other. This degrades spectral efficiency. The patent notes that Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) systems handle this well but have low efficiency, while Multi-Carrier (MC) systems like OFDM are more efficient but vulnerable to interference (U.S. Patent 10833908, col. 1:29-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an overlay system where a DSSS signal is intentionally transmitted on top of an MC/OFDM signal. The DSSS signal, which has properties that make it robust to interference, is used for special purposes like "channel probing" (measuring the channel characteristics) or initial random access, while the high-efficiency MC signal carries the main data payload (U.S. Patent 10,833,908, Abstract; col. 2:40-54). The power of the DSSS signal is kept lower than the MC signal to minimize mutual interference.
  • Technical Importance: Using a robust, low-power overlay signal for control functions allows the main data channel to operate more efficiently while still enabling reliable network operations like channel measurement and initial access.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 11 (Method): A method performed by a mobile station comprising:
    • 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 that frequency band.
    • The random access signal includes a sequence associated with the base station.
    • The combined time duration of the random access signal and guard period is greater than the duration of at least one OFDM symbol.
    • Receiving a response message from the base station.
  • The complaint also asserts infringement of claims 12-20, but does not specify whether they are independent or dependent (Compl. ¶84, Exhibit 8).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses adapting wireless transmissions to changing channel conditions. It discloses a method where a base station sends a control message to a mobile device specifying parameters for a subsequent data transmission, including an "antenna transmission scheme" (e.g., diversity or MIMO) and a "subchannel configuration" (e.g., using distributed or localized subcarriers), which are selected based on the channel conditions to optimize performance (U.S. Patent 10075941, Abstract, col. 1:32-48).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 13 (Compl. ¶91).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Nissan's Accused Products implement this technology by being configured to receive and process various Downlink Control Information (DCI) formats, which dictate transmission parameters in compliance with 3GPP standards (Compl. ¶¶90-91).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent seeks to reduce control channel overhead in wireless systems that handle diverse applications (like VoIP). It proposes organizing the time-frequency resource into "zones" dedicated to particular application types. This grouping allows for more efficient control messaging, as certain parameters can be assumed or simplified within a zone, reducing the number of bits needed to schedule transmissions (U.S. Patent 10447450, Abstract; col. 1:31-50).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 7 (Compl. ¶98).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges Nissan products infringe by being configured to receive and process all Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) formats, which are used to schedule resources in a manner that allegedly practices the claims (Compl. ¶¶97-98).

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 for using two types of pilot signals (known signals used for channel measurement) in a multi-cell network. "Cell-specific" pilots are unique to each cell and are used for functions like channel estimation, while "common" pilots are shared across all cells and are used for functions like frequency synchronization. This dual-pilot structure is designed to enable reliable receiver operation while managing inter-cell interference (U.S. Patent 10965512, Abstract; col. 1:37-52).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 15 (Compl. ¶105).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement through the use of various transmission modes, including those that use UE-specific reference signals, which are alleged to correspond to the claimed pilot structures (Compl. ¶¶104-105).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent appears to be related to the '450 Patent, also focusing on reducing control overhead. The provided excerpt of the '302 patent is identical to the '450 patent, suggesting a similar technological focus on efficient resource allocation and control messaging for different traffic types in a multi-carrier system.
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 23 (Compl. ¶112).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement through the support for simultaneous transmission of Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) and Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) signals, which are methods for channel measurement and control information transmission in LTE networks (Compl. ¶¶111-112).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: Nissan vehicles that implement 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR communications capabilities, including but not limited to the Titan, Pathfinder, and Armada models (Compl. ¶45). The specific instrumentality is the onboard telematics system, such as NissanConnect, that provides cellular connectivity (Compl. ¶43).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused functionality is the vehicles' ability to operate on 4G/LTE and 5G/NR cellular networks by implementing the 3GPP standards (Compl. ¶46). This connectivity enables features such as in-vehicle Wi-Fi hotspots, emergency assistance, stolen vehicle tracking, remote start, and diagnostics (Compl. ¶¶42, 44). The complaint alleges that in order for the vehicles to provide this functionality, they must practice the inventions of the patents-in-suit because the patented technologies are allegedly incorporated into the relevant 3GPP standards (Compl. ¶48).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts in its body, but alleges that such charts are provided in Exhibits 7-12, which were not available for this analysis (Compl. ¶¶77, 84, 91, 98, 105, 112). The complaint's infringement theory is that the accused Nissan vehicles are configured to operate according to 3GPP standards for 4G/LTE and 5G/NR (Compl. ¶46). It further alleges that practicing these standards necessarily requires practicing at least one claim of each of the Patents-in-Suit (Compl. ¶48). The complaint references its exhibits as illustrating how specific portions of the 3GPP LTE standard require the practicing of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶77, for example, describes Exhibit 7 as illustrating how implementing the standard requires practicing claim 1 of the '366 Patent). Because the claim chart exhibits are not provided, a tabular analysis is omitted and the narrative theory is summarized.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Standards-Essentiality Question: A primary question will be whether the asserted claims are truly essential to the 3GPP standards. The defense may argue that the standards can be practiced without infringing the claims, for instance, if the allegedly infringing functionality is optional within the standard or can be implemented in a non-infringing way.
    • Scope Questions: The patents have priority dates stretching back to 2004 and 2005. A central point of contention may be whether the terminology used in the claims, drafted in the context of early multi-carrier systems, can be properly construed to read on the specific implementations and terminology of the modern 4G/LTE and 5G/NR standards that the Accused Products implement.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on the capability to operate according to the standards. A factual question will be what the accused vehicle systems actually do in operation. The defense may argue that even if the standard maps to the claims, the specific hardware and software implementation in Nissan vehicles operates in a way that does not meet all claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’366 Patent

  • The Term: "a low peak-to-average power ratio" (from claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This is a relative term without an explicit numerical limit in the claim. Its construction is critical because the infringement allegation hinges on whether the ranging signal used in the accused vehicles, as defined by the 3GPP standard, meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its indefiniteness could be a basis for an invalidity challenge, or its scope could be disputed during infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide a specific numerical definition, which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of skill in the art in the context of the patent (U.S. Patent 8,467,366, col. 4:35-42).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses designing the ranging sequence so its time-domain signal can be "approximated with a binary sequence," which improves power efficiency (U.S. Patent 8,467,366, col. 4:39-42; FIG. 7). A defendant may argue this specific embodiment limits the scope of "low peak-to-average power ratio" to signals having this particular characteristic.

For the ’908 Patent

  • The Term: "random access signal" (from claim 11)
  • Context and Importance: The claim requires transmitting an OFDM signal and, separately, a "random access signal." The infringement theory alleges this maps to procedures in the 3GPP standard. The dispute will likely center on whether the specific uplink signals used for initial access in an LTE/5G system (e.g., the Physical Random Access Channel or PRACH) meet the full definition and context of "random access signal" as used in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract and background describe the signal in functional terms as being used for "initial random access, channel probing, or short messaging" (U.S. Patent 10,833,908, Abstract). This functional description could support a broad interpretation covering various types of initial access signals.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific "overlay system" where a DSSS signal is transmitted on top of an MC signal (U.S. Patent 10,833,908, col. 2:40-47). A defendant may argue that the term "random access signal" is limited to a DSSS signal used in such an overlay configuration, and that the accused LTE/5G signals are purely OFDM-based and do not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Nissan provides advertising, technical materials, instructions, and training that "invite, entice, lead on, influence, encourage... customers, and the public to directly infringe" by using the 4G/LTE and 5G/NR features of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶62-65).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Nissan had actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit and their alleged infringement no later than December 1, 2021, via a notice letter sent by Neo Wireless. The complaint alleges that Nissan continued its infringing conduct after receiving this notice (Compl. ¶¶70-72).

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

  • A core issue will be one of standards-infringement: can Plaintiff prove that compliance with the relevant 3GPP 4G/LTE and 5G/NR standards, as implemented in Nissan's vehicles, necessarily results in practicing every limitation of the asserted claims? Or, can Nissan demonstrate a commercially viable, non-infringing way to implement the standards?
  • A key legal question will be one of temporal scope and claim construction: can patent claims with priority dates from the mid-2000s, written to describe early multi-carrier systems, be construed to cover the specific technical implementations, protocols, and terminology adopted years later in the mature 4G/LTE and 5G standards? The interpretation of key technical terms will be central to resolving this question.
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of actual operation: beyond mere compliance with a standard, what is the specific structure and function of the hardware and software in Nissan's telematics systems? The case may turn on technical evidence demonstrating whether those specific instrumentalities perform the functions required by the claims in the manner described by the patents.