DCT

2:22-cv-11406

Neo Wireless LLC v. Toyota Motor North America Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00093, E.D. Tex., 03/29/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of infringement and maintain a regular and established place of business, including their principal place of business, in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ vehicles equipped with 4G/LTE and 5G/NR cellular connectivity infringe six patents related to foundational technologies for multi-carrier wireless communication systems.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to methods for improving the efficiency, reliability, and management of data transmission in modern wireless networks, such as those standardized by 3GPP for 4G/LTE and 5G technologies used in connected vehicles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had actual notice of infringement as early as November 30, 2021, prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-01-29 Priority Date ('908', '512', '302' Patents)
2004-02-13 Priority Date ('941' Patent)
2004-03-09 Priority Date ('366' Patent)
2005-09-28 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
2021-11-30 Toyota allegedly received notice of infringement
2022-03-29 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”

Issued June 18, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge of performing random access in a wireless system, where a mobile station must establish initial communication with a base station. This process can be inefficient and prone to signal interference, particularly in multi-carrier systems. (U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366, col. 1:21-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a specially designed "ranging signal" for random access. This signal is transmitted over a dedicated "ranging subchannel" composed of one or more blocks of subcarriers. To reduce interference with adjacent channels, the patent teaches setting the power levels of the subcarriers at the ends of each block to zero. The signal is also designed to have a low peak-to-average power ratio, improving transmission power efficiency for the mobile device. (’366 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-13).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to make the critical random access process more robust and efficient, reducing collisions and interference in OFDM-based networks like LTE. (’366 Patent, col. 2:40-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Claim 1 requires, in part:
    • An apparatus configured to transmit a data signal over a data subchannel.
    • An apparatus configured to transmit a ranging signal over a ranging subchannel for random access.
    • The ranging signal is formed from a ranging sequence selected from a set associated with the cell.
    • The ranging signal lasts for one or more OFDM symbols and exhibits a low peak-to-average power ratio.
    • The ranging subchannel comprises at least one block of subcarriers where "power levels of subcarriers at both ends of a 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”

Issued November 10, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of integrating different types of signals in a single broadband system. While Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) is spectrally efficient for high-rate data, other signal types like Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) are better for tasks like initial access or channel probing but can cause mutual interference when used together. (’908 Patent, col. 1:26-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system where a DSSS signal (used for functions like random access) is intentionally overlaid in time with a primary OFDM signal. The DSSS signal is designed to have a duration greater than an OFDM symbol and is followed by a guard period to manage timing. This structure allows the robust DSSS signal to be used for initial access without disrupting the overall OFDM frame structure. (’908 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-5).
  • Technical Importance: This overlay technique allows a communication system to leverage the respective strengths of both OFDM (high data throughput) and DSSS (robustness for control functions) within the same frequency band. (’908 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶70).
  • Claim 11 requires, in part, a method comprising:
    • Transmitting a first uplink signal (an OFDM signal) utilizing a frame format of multiple timeslots, each with multiple OFDM symbols.
    • 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.
    • A time duration of the combined random access signal and guard period is "greater than a time duration of at least one of the plurality of OFDM symbols."
    • 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 Communication Systems With Adaptive Transmission and Feedback”

Issued September 11, 2018

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses dynamically adapting transmission parameters in a wireless system to match changing channel conditions. The invention proposes jointly adjusting the modulation and coding scheme (MCS), training pilot patterns, and power levels based on feedback (Channel Quality Information, or CQI) from the receiver to maximize system capacity and spectral efficiency. (U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941, Abstract; col. 2:33-44).

Asserted Claims & Accused Features

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 13 is asserted (Compl. ¶76).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Toyota's 4G/LTE/5G capable products operate as mobile stations that receive control messages specifying transmission parameters (such as an antenna scheme and subchannel configuration) and subsequently receive data packets transmitted in accordance with those parameters, as required by the 3GPP standards. (Compl. ¶¶ 75-76).

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

Issued October 15, 2019

Technology Synopsis

This patent discloses a method to reduce control signaling overhead in multi-carrier packet networks. It proposes partitioning the time-frequency resource into "zones" dedicated to specific applications (e.g., a zone for Voice-over-IP). This grouping allows for more efficient resource mapping and reduces the number of bits needed in control messages to direct traffic. (U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450, Abstract; col. 1:45-54).

Asserted Claims & Accused Features

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 7 is asserted (Compl. ¶82).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Toyota's 4G/LTE/5G products operate as mobile devices that receive information over a segment of a time-frequency resource that comprises multiple resource units, consistent with the 3GPP standards' methods for allocating resources. (Compl. ¶¶ 81-82).

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”

Issued March 30, 2021

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a pilot signal structure for multi-cell wireless networks using two types of pilots. "Cell-specific" pilots carry information unique to an individual cell (for channel estimation), while "common" pilots possess characteristics shared across all base stations (for functions like frequency synchronization), allowing a receiver to perform different system functions more effectively in a multi-cell environment. (U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512, Abstract).

Asserted Claims & Accused Features

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 15 is asserted (Compl. ¶88).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Toyota's 4G/LTE/5G products operate as mobile stations that receive and process both cell-specific pilot signals and other pilot signals as defined by the 3GPP standards. (Compl. ¶¶ 87-88).

U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302 - “Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband Communication System”

Issued September 8, 2020

Technology Synopsis

This patent, related to the ’908 patent, discloses a system where a spread spectrum signal is intentionally overlapped with an OFDM signal. The spread spectrum signal is designed with a high spread gain to overcome interference and is used for functions like channel probing or short messaging, while the spectrally efficient OFDM signal carries broadband data. (U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302, Abstract).

Asserted Claims & Accused Features

  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 23 is asserted (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Toyota's 4G/LTE/5G products operate as mobile devices that transmit probing signals that overlap in time with uplink signals transmitted by other mobile devices, consistent with the operation of a multi-user LTE network. (Compl. ¶¶ 93-94).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Products" are Toyota and Lexus vehicle models that implement 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR communications technologies. Specific models identified include the 4Runner, Avalon, Camry, C-HR, Corolla, Highlander, Mirai, Prius, Rav4, Sequoia, and Lexus RC (Compl. ¶44).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused functionality is the 4G/LTE connectivity provided via the Toyota Connected Services system integrated into the vehicles (Compl. ¶42). This system enables a variety of telematics and infotainment features, including SOS emergency assistance, automatic collision notification, remote vehicle start and control via the Toyota App, navigation map updates, and an in-vehicle Wi-Fi hotspot (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 43). The complaint alleges that these features rely on the implementation of 3GPP standards for 4G/LTE and 5G/NR, which are alleged to practice the patented inventions (Compl. ¶45).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement on a standard-essentiality theory. For each of the six Patents-in-Suit, it asserts that Toyota's Accused Products implement portions of the 3GPP LTE/4G and/or 5G/NR standard specifications, and that these portions of the standards read on the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 64, 70, 76, 82, 88, 94). The complaint references Exhibits 7 through 12, which are described as containing claim charts mapping the asserted claims to the 3GPP standards, but these exhibits were not attached to or provided with the complaint itself. The narrative infringement theory is that by manufacturing and selling vehicles that comply with these 3GPP standards, the Defendants directly and indirectly infringe the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 54).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether compliance with the cited 3GPP standards necessarily requires practicing every element of the asserted claims. Standards often permit multiple implementation options, raising the question of whether the specific implementation used in the Accused Products falls within the claim scope, or if it utilizes a non-infringing alternative allowed by the standard.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused cellular modems in Toyota's vehicles actually perform the specific functions required by the claims? For instance, for the ’366 Patent, what is the evidence that the power levels of subcarriers at the "ends of a block" are literally "set to zero" during random access transmissions, as opposed to being merely attenuated? For the ’908 Patent, does the structure of the LTE random access channel (PRACH) signal align with the claimed "random access signal followed by a guard period" whose combined duration is "greater than" an OFDM symbol?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’366 Patent (from Claim 1):

    • The Term: "power levels of subcarriers at both ends of a block are set to zero"
    • Context and Importance: This limitation is highly specific and quantitative. The infringement analysis will likely depend heavily on whether "set to zero" permits any non-zero energy level, however small, or if it requires a literal nulling of the signal power on those specific subcarriers. Practitioners may focus on this term because proving a signal's power is absolutely zero in a real-world transmission can be an evidentiary challenge.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader view might contend that in the context of RF engineering, "zero" implies a level below a noise floor or a level that is functionally equivalent to zero for purposes of avoiding interference. However, the patent itself does not provide explicit definitional support for this interpretation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim suggests a literal requirement. The specification discusses "attenuated boundary subcarriers" to "minimize the resulting interference," which supports the purpose of the limitation, but the claim's use of the explicit term "set to zero" suggests a complete nulling rather than just attenuation. (’366 Patent, col. 3:33-35).

  • For the ’908 Patent (from Claim 11):

    • The Term: "a time duration of a combination of the random access signal and the guard period is greater than a time duration of at least one of the plurality of OFDM symbols"
    • Context and Importance: This term defines a specific temporal relationship between the claimed random access signal structure and the underlying OFDM symbol structure. The dispute will likely focus on how the standardized LTE random access signals (e.g., PRACH preambles) are measured and whether their structure, including any guard time, meets this "greater than" requirement relative to the LTE OFDM symbol duration.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is a straightforward comparison, suggesting that any duration measurably longer than one OFDM symbol would satisfy the limitation. The patent's general discussion of overlaying signals could support flexibility in how this duration is achieved. (’908 Patent, col. 4:29-39).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as Figure 5, depict specific timing relationships between an overlaid DSSS signal and the OFDM symbols. A party might argue these embodiments inform the meaning of the claim term, suggesting it applies only to signals with a similar structural relationship to the OFDM frame. (’908 Patent, Fig. 5).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants encourage and instruct subsidiaries, distributors, dealerships, and end-user customers to use the infringing 4G/LTE and 5G/NR features of the Accused Products through advertising, sales materials, and technical manuals (Compl. ¶¶ 54-55).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' alleged actual notice of the Patents-in-Suit as of November 30, 2021, and at a minimum from the date of service of the complaint. It alleges that Defendants continued to infringe despite knowing of an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 58-60).

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

  • A core issue will be one of standard-essentiality and implementation: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the 3GPP standards require the specific methods claimed in the patents, and further, that the components used in Toyota's vehicles practice those specific methods, as opposed to permissible, non-infringing alternatives within the standards?
  • A key technical question will be one of definitional precision: Can the specific, quantitative limitations in the claims, such as the requirement in the '366 patent that power levels be "set to zero," be proven to read on the actual radio frequency signals transmitted by the accused vehicles, which may operate in a manner that is functionally similar but not literally identical?
  • The case will also present a question of structural correspondence: Does the architecture of standardized signals, such as the LTE Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH), map directly onto the structural elements recited in claims like Claim 11 of the '908 patent, or are there fundamental mismatches in their respective definitions of signals, guard periods, and timing?