DCT

0:14-cv-04669

Regents of The University of Minnesota v. Sprint Solutions, Inc.

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:14-cv-04669, D. Minn., 01/30/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants conduct continuous business in Minnesota, operate a wireless communication network in the state, and have committed the alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 4G LTE wireless communications network and services infringe five patents related to advanced error-control coding, linear precoding, and channel estimation techniques for wireless systems.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern methods for improving the reliability and efficiency of high-speed data transmission over wireless channels that are subject to fading and interference, forming a foundational component of modern 4G LTE mobile networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-04-22 Earliest Priority Date (’768, ’230 Patents)
2003-05-21 Earliest Priority Date (’317, ’185, ’309 Patents)
2007-07-31 '768 Patent Issues
2013-11-19 '317 Patent Issues
2014-05-06 '185 Patent Issues
2014-07-08 '309 Patent Issues
2014-11-04 '230 Reissue Patent Issues
2014-11-06 Alleged date of Sprint’s knowledge of Asserted Patents
2015-01-30 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,251,768 - "Wireless Communication System Having Error-Control Coder and Linear Precoder"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,251,768, “Wireless Communication System Having Error-Control Coder and Linear Precoder,” issued July 31, 2007 (Compl. ¶14).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes how wireless communications suffer from “fading” caused by multipath propagation, which can severely impair system performance, especially at high data rates. It notes that increasing resilience to fading (i.e., “diversity”) through conventional error-control coding alone can lead to an exponential increase in decoding complexity (’768 Patent, col. 1:29-41, col. 2:1-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention combines standard error-control (EC) coding with a subsequent “linear precoder” that operates on the complex-number data symbols. This joint coding-precoding scheme is designed to achieve a “multiplicative benefit to the diversity” without the prohibitive complexity increase of relying solely on EC coding, by creating what the patent calls “signal space diversity” to make transmissions more resilient (’768 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-31; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method to achieve maximum resilience against fading in high-rate multicarrier wireless systems, such as Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), which is a core component of 4G LTE technology (’768 Patent, col. 2:25-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶33). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:

  • An error-control coder that applies an error correction code to produce an encoded data stream.
  • A bit interleaver to produce an interleaved data stream where neighboring bits are positioned to be mapped to different constellation symbols.
  • A mapping unit to map the interleaved data stream to constellation symbols from a finite alphabet.
  • A precoder that applies a linear transformation to the constellation symbols to produce precoded symbols, which are complex numbers not restricted to the finite alphabet of the constellation.
  • A symbol interleaver to process the precoded symbols to produce permuted blocks.
  • A modulator to produce an output waveform for transmission.

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE45,230 - "Wireless Communication System Having Linear Encoder"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE45,230, “Wireless Communication System Having Linear Encoder,” issued November 4, 2014 (Compl. ¶17).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the vulnerability of multicarrier systems like OFDM to frequency-selective fading, where deep fades (or nulls) on specific subcarrier frequencies can cause significant data loss and corrupt the entire transmission (’230 Patent, col. 1:40-45, col. 2:5-9).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a “linear encoder” that processes an input data stream of symbols. The encoder ensures that the individual subcarriers of the resulting multicarrier waveform each carry a different “linear combination” of the original information symbols. This technique spreads the information from any one symbol across multiple subcarriers, thereby building in redundancy and making the transmission resilient even if some subcarriers experience a deep fade (’230 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-53).
  • Technical Importance: This method of encoding across frequency subcarriers provides a direct way to build diversity into multicarrier systems, enhancing their robustness against the frequency-specific fading inherent in wireless channels, a critical feature for reliable high-speed mobile data services (’230 Patent, col. 2:45-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶39). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:

  • An encoder that linearly encodes an input data stream of information bearing symbols to produce an encoded data stream, where the encoded symbols are complex numbers not restricted by the finite alphabet of the input symbols.
  • A modulator that produces a multicarrier output waveform.
  • The encoder’s linear encoding is performed such that the subcarriers of the waveform carry different linear combinations of the information bearing symbols.

U.S. Patent No. 8,588,317 - "Estimating Frequency-Offsets and Multi-Antenna Channels in MIMO OFDM Systems"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,588,317, “Estimating Frequency-Offsets and Multi-Antenna Channels in MIMO OFDM Systems,” issued November 19, 2013 (Compl. ¶20).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical challenge of accurately estimating both channel conditions and carrier frequency offset (CFO) in complex multi-antenna (MIMO) wireless systems. The proposed solution involves inserting specific training symbols and "hopping" null subcarriers (unused frequencies) across different transmission blocks, a design which allows the receiver to decouple the CFO estimation from the channel estimation process for improved accuracy (’317 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The operation of Sprint's 4G LTE network, which relies on MIMO OFDM technology and requires the estimation of channel conditions and frequency offsets to function (Compl. ¶29-30, 45).

U.S. Patent No. 8,718,185 - "Estimating Frequency-Offsets and Multi-Antenna Channels in MIMO OFDM Systems"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,718,185, “Estimating Frequency-Offsets and Multi-Antenna Channels in MIMO OFDM Systems,” issued May 6, 2014 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Technology Synopsis: As part of the same patent family as the ’317 Patent, this invention also describes methods for robust channel and frequency offset estimation in MIMO OFDM systems. It discloses techniques using structured training symbols and strategically placed null subcarriers to enable a receiver to accurately determine transmission parameters critical for decoding data in complex, fading environments (’185 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The operation of Sprint's 4G LTE network (Compl. ¶29-30, 45).

U.S. Patent No. 8,774,309 - "Estimating Frequency-Offsets and Multi-Antenna Channels in MIMO OFDM Systems"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,774,309, “Estimating Frequency-Offsets and Multi-Antenna Channels in MIMO OFDM Systems,” issued July 8, 2014 (Compl. ¶26).
  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the technology family of the ’317 and ’185 patents, this patent details further techniques for channel and frequency offset estimation. The invention focuses on transmitting blocks of symbols that embed known training symbols and hopping null subcarriers in a way that allows a receiver to reliably separate the estimation tasks and maintain communication link integrity (’309 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: One or more claims (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The operation of Sprint's 4G LTE network (Compl. ¶29-30, 45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Sprint's "4G LTE network," the wireless communication systems that constitute the network, and the communication services provided over that network (Compl. ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Sprint owns and operates a 4G LTE wireless network to provide communication services to its customers, whose mobile devices operate on the network (Compl. ¶29). The complaint asserts that these systems embody the claimed inventions, particularly in the "operation of the radio access portion" of the network (Compl. ¶30). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the operation of Sprint's network, instead alleging that its use of LTE technology inherently incorporates the patented inventions (Compl. ¶9, 30).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or sufficient technical detail to construct a detailed mapping of accused functionalities to specific claim elements. The infringement theory is presented in broad, conclusory terms, alleging that Sprint's LTE systems and methods directly infringe the asserted patents because they incorporate the claimed technical contributions (Compl. ¶9, 33, 39, 45). The central allegation is that by building and operating a 4G LTE network, Sprint necessarily uses the patented methods for error control, encoding, and channel estimation (Compl. ¶30).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: A primary point of contention will likely be evidentiary. The complaint alleges infringement based on Sprint's use of 4G LTE technology but does not specify which parts of the LTE standards or which specific equipment functionalities map to the patent claims. The dispute may therefore center on whether the actual technical operation of Sprint's network meets the specific limitations of the asserted claims.
    • Technical Question (’768 Patent): For the ’768 Patent, a key question may be whether Sprint's systems practice the specific architectural sequence recited in claim 1, which includes a bit interleaver, mapping unit, precoder, and symbol interleaver in a particular order. The analysis will depend on whether the accused systems perform these distinct functions or achieve a similar result through a different technical pathway.
    • Scope Question (’230 Patent): For the ’230 Patent, the dispute may focus on whether the signal processing in Sprint's LTE network constitutes a "linear encoder" that causes subcarriers to "carry different linear combinations" of symbols as claimed. The analysis will raise the question of whether the methods used in the LTE standard fall within the scope of this claim language or represent a distinct, non-infringing technology.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: “linear precoder” (’768 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the invention of the ’768 Patent, as it describes the component that works in conjunction with the error-control coder to provide enhanced diversity. The construction of this term will be critical for determining whether the symbol processing operations within Sprint's LTE systems fall within the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the precoder "operates over a complex field with no restriction on the input symbol alphabet or the precoded symbol alphabet," suggesting it is not limited to a specific type of input (’768 Patent, col. 3:31-34).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed examples of specific unitary matrices that can function as the precoder (’768 Patent, col. 7:9-25, eq. 5-6). A party could argue that these embodiments define and limit the scope of the claimed "linear precoder."

  • The Term: “linearly encodes ... so that the subcarriers carry different linear combinations of the information bearing symbols” (’230 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core functionality of the ’230 Patent’s invention: spreading information across frequency subcarriers. The case may turn on whether the signal processing methods mandated by the LTE standard and used by Sprint meet this functional requirement as understood in the context of the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract explains the invention as generating an output waveform where "subcarriers carry different linear combinations of information symbols," framing the invention in broad functional terms (’230 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that the linear encoding can be performed using an "encoder matrix," suggesting a specific structural implementation (’230 Patent, col. 5:20-25). A party could argue that the claim should be construed to require such a matrix-based implementation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is alleged based on Sprint encouraging its customers to use the infringing LTE network and services and requiring that mobile devices operate in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶34, 40, 46). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that Sprint provides components, such as mobile devices, that are especially adapted for infringing the patents and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶31).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Sprint had knowledge of the asserted patents "no later than November 6, 2014" (Compl. ¶31). This specific date suggests pre-suit notice. The complaint further alleges that Sprint acted despite a high probability of infringement and took "deliberate actions to avoid learning of these facts," which may support a claim of willful blindness (Compl. ¶34, 40, 46). Plaintiff seeks treble damages for the alleged willful infringement (Prayer for Relief, ¶D).

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

  • A core issue will be one of standards-essentiality and evidence: does compliance with the 4G LTE standard, as implemented in Sprint's network, necessarily require infringement of the asserted patent claims? The complaint makes this assertion broadly, setting up a central dispute that will likely depend on expert testimony to map the technical requirements of the LTE standard to the specific limitations recited in the claims.
  • A key technical question will be one of architectural and functional scope: do the signal processing operations in the accused LTE systems perform the specific, multi-step functions required by the claims—such as the discrete "linear precoder" of the '768 patent—or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical architecture and operation that places the accused systems outside the bounds of the patent claims?