DCT

2:22-md-03034

Neo Wireless LLC v. American Honda Motor Co Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-11407, E.D. Mich., 07/20/2022
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint asserts that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas, where it was originally filed, because Defendants allegedly have a regular and established place of business there, including an Austin IT Innovation Center and other facilities, and have committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicles equipped with 4G/LTE and 5G/NR cellular capabilities infringe six patents related to foundational wireless communication technologies, particularly concerning Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) networks.
  • Technical Context: The patents address methods for improving efficiency, reliability, and performance in modern cellular networks, such as those compliant with 4G/LTE and 5G standards, which are increasingly integral to connected vehicle platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The case caption indicates this action is part of a Multi-District Litigation (MDL), suggesting the consolidation of multiple similar lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff against various defendants for centralized pre-trial proceedings.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-01-29 Earliest Priority Date (’908, ’512, ’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
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, the "random access" process—where a mobile device first establishes communication with a base station—is critical but faces challenges. These include signal collisions when multiple devices attempt access simultaneously and interference between the random access signals and other ongoing communications. (’366 Patent, col. 1:22-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes designing specific "ranging signals" for the random access procedure. These signals are transmitted over a dedicated "ranging subchannel" composed of specific blocks of subcarriers. The invention proposes particular arrangements of these subcarrier blocks and the use of specific signal sequences (e.g., Hadamard sequences) to improve detection at the base station and minimize interference with other uplink signals. (’366 Patent, col. 3:5-24, col. 4:15-25).
  • Technical Importance: By creating more robust and less-interfering random access signals, the invention enables more reliable initial network connections for mobile devices, a foundational requirement for stable cellular communication. (Compl. ¶75).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶75).
  • Essential elements of claim 1, a method performed by a mobile station, 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 for identifying the mobile station.
    • 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, where 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. ¶52).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of combining two different types of wireless signals in the same system: Multi-Carrier (MC) signals (like OFDM), which are spectrally efficient for high-speed data, and Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) signals, which are robust against interference and well-suited for system functions like initial access or channel probing. Simply using them together can create mutual interference that degrades the performance of both. (’908 Patent, col. 1:26-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes intentionally overlaying a lower-power DSSS signal with a higher-power MC signal in the same time and/or frequency resources. The system is designed to minimize the mutual interference so that both signals can be detected. For example, the DSSS signal is used for channel probing or random access, while the MC signal carries broadband data. (’908 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:38-54).
  • Technical Importance: This overlay technique allows a network to gain the benefits of both signal types—the data capacity of MC and the robustness of DSSS for control functions—within the same spectrum, leading to a more efficient and reliable communication system. (Compl. ¶82).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 11. (Compl. ¶82).
  • Essential elements of claim 11, a method performed by a mobile station, include:
    • Transmitting a first uplink signal (an OFDM signal utilizing a frame format of timeslots and 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 combination of the random access signal and the guard period is greater than a time duration of at least one of the OFDM symbols.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶52).

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

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a system where multiple transmission parameters—not just modulation and coding scheme, but also training pilot patterns and signal power—are jointly and adaptively adjusted in response to changing channel conditions. This holistic adaptation, based on feedback from the receiver, aims to maximize system capacity and spectral efficiency beyond what is possible by adjusting only one or two parameters. (’941 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 13. (Compl. ¶89).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are configured to receive and process different Downlink Control Information (DCI) formats, which contain instructions for configuring the mobile device to accurately receive subsequent signals based on network characteristics. (Compl. ¶¶88-89).

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

Technology Synopsis

The patent discloses a method to reduce control signaling overhead in packet-based multi-carrier networks. It proposes designating specific "zones" within the time-frequency resource for particular applications (e.g., a zone for Voice-over-IP). By grouping similar applications, the system can use more efficient mapping and control messages, reducing the number of bits required for scheduling and resource allocation. (’450 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 7. (Compl. ¶96).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are configured to receive and process various Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) formats, including those comprising different numbers of Control Channel Elements (CCEs), which relate to the efficient recovery of control information. (Compl. ¶¶95-96).

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

The invention describes a wireless system using two distinct types of pilot signals (subcarriers). "Cell-specific" pilots carry information unique to an individual cell (e.g., for channel estimation), while "common" pilots have characteristics shared across all cells in the network (e.g., for frequency synchronization). This dual-pilot structure allows a receiver to perform different system functions more efficiently and with less interference. (’512 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 15. (Compl. ¶103).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are configured to operate using various transmission modes, including at least transmission mode 7 which uses UE-specific reference signals, a functionality related to the use of pilot signals for maintaining accurate communication. (Compl. ¶¶102-103).

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

Technology Synopsis

This patent, similar to the ’908 Patent, relates to a hybrid system that overlays a spread spectrum signal with an OFDM signal. The robust spread spectrum signal is used for system functions like channel probing or initial access, while the high-efficiency OFDM signal carries data. The system is designed to minimize mutual interference between the two signal types, leveraging the advantages of both. (’302 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 23. (Compl. ¶110).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges the Accused Products support simultaneous transmission of Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) and Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH), which relates to the use of reference signaling for channel measurement and resource allocation. (Compl. ¶¶109-110).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Products" are identified as General Motors vehicle models that implement 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR communications, including but not limited to the Blazer, Bolt, Equinox, Sierra, Cadillac XT5, and Encore models. (Compl. ¶46).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products provide 4G/LTE connectivity through an integrated OnStar system. (Compl. ¶44). This connectivity enables a range of features such as in-vehicle Wi-Fi hotspots, emergency assistance, remote vehicle controls via the myGMC App, navigation updates, and live traffic data. (Compl. ¶¶43, 45). The complaint asserts that these products are configured to operate on cellular networks that implement 3GPP standards from release 8 through at least release 17, and that by doing so, they practice the patented inventions. (Compl. ¶¶47, 49).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that by making, using, and selling vehicles that are compliant with 4G/LTE and 5G/NR cellular standards (specifically, 3GPP releases 8 through 17), GM necessarily infringes the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶49). The infringement theory is that the functionality covered by the asserted claims of each patent is a "core part of communications on an LTE network, and would be required in any device operating on said network." (Compl. ¶¶75, 82, 89, 96, 103, 110). The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 8-13) for each patent, but these exhibits were not attached to the filed complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • ’366 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the random-access procedure defined in the 3GPP LTE standard, which is implemented in the Accused Products to establish connections with base stations, practices the method of at least claim 1 of the ’366 Patent. (Compl. ¶75).
  • ’908 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, in performing the random-access procedure required by the 3GPP LTE standard, transmit a random access signal in only a portion of the available frequency band, thereby practicing the method of at least claim 11 of the ’908 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶81-82).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Standard-Essentiality: A primary dispute may be whether compliance with the cited 3GPP standards necessarily requires infringement of the specific claim limitations. The defense could argue that the standards allow for non-infringing design choices or that its specific implementation is a non-infringing alternative.
    • Evidentiary Basis: The complaint relies on "information and belief" and consultations with "industry experts" to connect the 3GPP standards to the functionality of the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶75). A point of contention may be the factual evidence supporting the assertion that GM's specific implementation of the standards maps onto every element of the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • 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" (from claim 11 of the ’908 Patent).
  • Context and Importance: This limitation recites a specific temporal relationship between the random access signal structure and the standard OFDM symbol structure. The infringement analysis will depend on how the "time duration" of these respective signals is defined and measured within the accused LTE system. Practitioners may focus on this term because it presents a quantitative, measurable constraint that must be met for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "time duration," which could be interpreted broadly to include various measurement methodologies of signal timing, potentially encompassing different 3GPP-compliant random access preamble formats. The specification may describe the functional purpose of this timing relationship in a way that supports a broader application.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures, such as FIG. 5, illustrate specific timing diagrams of an overlay system with DSSS signals and OFDM symbols. (’908 Patent, FIG. 5). A party might argue that these specific embodiments limit the term "time duration" to the precise timing structures and measurement points depicted, potentially excluding certain variations in the accused products.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that GM encourages and instructs customers and dealerships to use the infringing 4G/LTE and 5G/NR features through advertising, user manuals, technical documentation, and training materials. (Compl. ¶¶62-64).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on GM having received "actual notice of its infringement at least as early as the date of service of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶69). This frames the willfulness contention as arising from post-suit conduct.

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

  • A central issue will be one of necessary infringement: does the implementation of the 3GPP 4G/LTE and 5G/NR standards in GM’s vehicles require the practice of every element of the asserted claims, or do the standards permit non-infringing alternatives that may have been utilized?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: what specific, concrete evidence demonstrates that the actual operation of the accused communication systems—particularly the random-access procedures, pilot signal structures, and control channel processing—maps onto the detailed technical limitations recited in the asserted claims?
  • A significant legal question will be one of claim construction: how will the court define key technical terms, such as the specific timing relationships in the ’908 Patent, and will that definition, based on the patent’s intrinsic evidence, be broad enough to read on the accused 3GPP-compliant functionalities?