DCT
2:22-cv-11770
Neo Wireless LLC v. FCA US LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Neo Wireless, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: FCA US, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-01252, N.D. Ohio, 07/15/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business, specifically the FCA US Toledo Assembly Complex.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicles equipped with 4G/LTE and 5G/NR cellular functionality infringe six patents related to wireless communication technologies foundational to those standards.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for managing network access, data transmission, and signaling in Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) systems, the core technology underlying 4G/LTE and 5G cellular networks.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the asserted patents via a letter sent on December 14, 2021, which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-01-29 | U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 Priority Date |
| 2004-01-30 | U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 Priority Date |
| 2004-01-30 | U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302 Priority Date |
| 2004-02-13 | U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 Priority Date |
| 2005-09-28 | U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 Priority Date |
| 2011-08-08 | U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 Application Filing Date |
| 2013-06-18 | U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 Issue Date |
| 2018-09-11 | U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 Issue Date |
| 2019-10-15 | U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 Issue Date |
| 2020-09-08 | U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302 Issue Date |
| 2020-11-11 | U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 Issue Date |
| 2021-03-30 | U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 Issue Date |
| 2021-12-14 | Pre-suit notice letter sent to Defendant |
| 2022-07-15 | 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 complaint alleges the technology covered by the ’366 Patent relates to the random-access procedure, which it describes as "integral to the establishment of connections" between a mobile device and a base station in an LTE network (Compl. ¶70).
- The Patented Solution: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail from the patent's specification to explain the patented solution. It asserts that compliance with the 3GPP LTE standard requires practicing the invention (Compl. ¶70).
- Technical Importance: The invention is alleged to be a "core part of communications on an LTE network" necessary for any device to establish a connection (Compl. ¶70).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶70).
- The complaint does not provide the language of claim 1 and refers to an external exhibit not included with the complaint. Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the claim elements.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶51).
U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 - Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband Communication System, Issued November 11, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses challenges in wireless systems that must balance the need for high-efficiency data transfer with the need for robust, interference-resistant signaling for critical functions like initial network access. Multi-carrier (MC) systems like OFDM are highly efficient for data but can be vulnerable to interference, while spread spectrum (DSSS) systems are robust but less spectrally efficient (’302 Patent, col. 1:33-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a DSSS signal is intentionally overlaid on an MC (OFDM) signal. The robust DSSS signal is used for functions like initial random access and channel probing, while the high-capacity MC signal is used for broadband data. The system is designed to minimize mutual interference, for instance by transmitting the DSSS signal at a lower power level (’302 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:59-62).
- Technical Importance: This hybrid approach allows a network to gain the robustness of spread spectrum signaling for essential control functions without sacrificing the high data throughput of OFDM that modern applications require.
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts at least independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶77).
The essential elements of claim 11 are:
- A mobile station performing a method comprising:
- transmitting a first uplink signal that is an OFDM signal;
- 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 the duration of at least one OFDM symbol; and
- receiving a response message from the base station.
The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶51).
Multi-Patent Capsules for Additional Patents-in-SuitU.S. Patent No. 10,075,941, Methods and Apparatus for Multi-Carrier Communications With Adaptive Transmission and Feedback, Issued September 11, 2018
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes methods for adaptively adjusting transmission parameters—such as modulation scheme, coding rate, and power levels—in response to feedback on channel conditions. This adaptation aims to maximize system capacity and spectral efficiency without compromising performance (’941 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-41).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶84).
- Accused Features: The accused functionality involves the vehicles' alleged configuration to receive and process various Downlink Control Information (DCI) formats, which are used in LTE to manage adaptive data transmission (Compl. ¶83).
U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450, Method and System for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with Reduced Overhead, Issued October 15, 2019
- Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method to reduce control signaling overhead in a multi-carrier network by designating specific "zones" within the time-frequency resource map for particular application types, such as Voice-over-IP. Grouping similar applications simplifies the resource mapping process and reduces the number of bits required for control messages (’450 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-54).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶91).
- Accused Features: Infringement allegations center on the accused products' ability to receive and process Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) formats, which are used to convey resource allocation information to mobile devices (Compl. ¶90).
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: The invention describes a wireless system that employs two distinct types of pilot signals: "cell-specific" pilots that are unique to an individual cell for functions like channel estimation, and "common" pilots that are shared across all cells for system-wide functions like frequency synchronization. This dual-pilot structure allows a receiver to efficiently perform different tasks in a multi-cell environment (’512 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶98).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the vehicles' configuration to operate in various transmission modes, including those that use user equipment-specific (UE-specific) reference signals, which are a form of pilot signal used for downlink data reception (Compl. ¶97).
U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302, Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband Communication System, Issued September 8, 2020
- Technology Synopsis: As a parent to the ’908 patent, this patent similarly describes a system overlaying a spread spectrum signal on an OFDM signal. The spread spectrum signal is used for robust system functions like channel probing (measuring channel quality) or initial network access, while the OFDM signal carries high-rate data (’302 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 23 (Compl. ¶105).
- Accused Features: The accused functionality includes the alleged support for simultaneous transmission of Sounding Reference Signals (SRS), used for channel probing, and the Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) (Compl. ¶104).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Accused Products" are identified as certain vehicle models sold by Defendant that are equipped with 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular connectivity (Compl. ¶45). Specific models named include, but are not limited to, Jeep Cherokee, Compass, Wagoneer, and RAM 1500/2500/3500 series trucks (Compl. ¶45).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused functionality is the 4G/LTE and 5G/NR capability provided through telematics systems marketed as Uconnect, SiriusXM Guardian, Jeep Connect, RAM Connect, and Wagoneer Connect (Compl. ¶43). This technology enables features such as in-vehicle Wi-Fi hotspots, remote vehicle controls, diagnostics, and location services (Compl. ¶42). The complaint alleges these products are configured to operate according to 3GPP standards releases 8 through 17 (Compl. ¶46).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s infringement theory for the ’366 Patent is based on an assertion that practicing the 3GPP LTE standard for the random-access procedure necessarily infringes claim 1 (Compl. ¶70). However, the complaint does not provide the claim language or a detailed mapping of claim elements to the accused functionality, instead referencing an external exhibit not attached to the pleading.
'908 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method performed by a mobile station, the method comprising: transmitting, to a base station, a first uplink signal...wherein the first uplink signal is an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) signal... | The Accused Products implement 4G/LTE and 5G/NR cellular functionality, which use OFDM-based transmissions for the uplink. | ¶¶45, 48 | ’302 Patent, col. 1:40-45 |
| transmitting, to the base station, a random access signal followed by a guard period in only a portion of the frequency band... | The complaint alleges the Accused Products operate in frequency bands corresponding to more than 6 resource blocks and thus "transmit a random access signal in only a portion of the frequency band." | ¶76 | ’302 Patent, Fig. 16 |
| wherein the random access signal includes a sequence associated with the base station... | This functionality is alleged to be part of the integral random-access procedure required by the 3GPP LTE standard implemented by the Accused Products. | ¶77 | ’302 Patent, col. 8:30-32 |
| wherein 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... | This timing structure is alleged to be a required component of the 3GPP LTE standard that the Accused Products implement to establish network connections. | ¶77 | ’302 Patent, Fig. 5 |
| and receiving, from the base station, a response message. | Receiving a response is a necessary step in the standard random-access procedure, which the complaint alleges the Accused Products perform. | ¶77 | ’302 Patent, col. 8:46-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the term "random access signal" as used in the claim can be construed to read on the specific type of signal used for random access in the LTE standard (a PRACH preamble based on Zadoff-Chu sequences). The patent specification frequently describes this signal in the context of a DSSS or spread spectrum signal (’302 Patent, Abstract), which may support a narrower construction than what Plaintiff alleges.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation relies on the theory that compliance with the 3GPP standard necessarily results in infringement. A point of contention will be whether the standard allows for non-infringing alternatives or whether Defendant’s specific implementation of the standard practices every element of the asserted claim. For example, a factual dispute may arise over whether the specific timing and structure of the accused PRACH transmission meet the "greater than a time duration of at least one...OFDM symbol" limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "random access signal" (from claim 11 of the ’908 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is central to the infringement analysis. The specification of the patent family repeatedly discusses the use of a DSSS (spread spectrum) signal for random access. The accused LTE standard, however, uses a different signal structure (PRACH preamble). Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the claim can cover the accused technology.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the "random access signal" to being a "spread spectrum" or "DSSS" signal. A party could argue that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as a functional description of any signal used for random access.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract states that "The spread spectrum signal...is used for facilitating system functions such as initial random access" (’302 Patent, Abstract). This language, along with numerous similar statements in the detailed description, suggests that the inventors may have defined the invention in the context of a spread spectrum signal, potentially limiting the scope of the claimed "random access signal" to that specific embodiment.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant's advertising, user manuals, and technical materials that allegedly instruct and encourage end-users to use the infringing 4G/LTE and 5G/NR features of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶57-59).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents. The complaint cites a notice letter sent to Defendant on December 14, 2021, which allegedly identified the patents and their relevance to 3GPP wireless standards used in the Accused Products (Compl. ¶64).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of standards-based infringement: the case relies heavily on the assertion that compliance with the 3GPP standards necessarily leads to infringement. A key question for the court will be whether the patent claims are truly essential to the standard as alleged, or if the standard allows for non-infringing implementations that the Defendant's products may practice.
- The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term "random access signal," which is described in the patent specification primarily as a spread spectrum signal, be construed broadly enough to cover the distinct PRACH signal structure used in the accused LTE systems? The outcome of claim construction for this and other key terms will be a critical determinant of liability.