DCT

0:14-cv-04672

Regents Of University Of Minnesota v. Cellco Partnership

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:14-cv-04672, D. Minn., 01/30/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Minnesota because Defendant conducts continuous and systematic business in the state, operates an allegedly infringing 4G LTE network there, and employs local sales representatives.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 4G LTE wireless communications network and services infringe five patents related to error-control coding, linear precoding, and channel estimation techniques for wireless systems.
  • Technical Context: The patents concern foundational technologies for improving the speed and reliability of data transmission over wireless channels that suffer from fading and interference, which are critical for the performance of modern mobile networks like 4G LTE.
  • Key Procedural History: This filing is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the asserted patents as of November 6, 2014, a date preceding the complaint's filing, which may form a basis for allegations of willful and indirect infringement. One of the asserted patents, RE45,230, is a reissue patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-04-22 ’768 and ’230 Patent Priority Date
2003-05-21 ’317, ’185, and ’309 Patent Priority Date
2007-07-31 ’768 Patent Issue Date
2013-11-19 ’317 Patent Issue Date
2014-05-06 ’185 Patent Issue Date
2014-07-08 ’309 Patent Issue Date
2014-11-04 ’230 Reissue Patent Issue Date
2014-11-06 Alleged date Defendant knew of the Asserted Patents
2015-01-30 Complaint Filing Date

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"

  • Issued: July 31, 2007 (Compl. ¶13).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of signal degradation, or "fading," in wireless communications, which impairs performance at high data rates. While conventional error-control (EC) coding can mitigate fading, achieving a high degree of protection (diversity) often requires an exponential increase in decoding complexity. (’768 Patent, col. 1:29-41; col. 2:1-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a joint coding and precoding scheme where a standard error-control coder is followed by a "linear precoder" that operates on the coded symbols. This combination achieves a "multiplicative benefit" to diversity, providing robust protection against fading without the exponential complexity increase associated with relying on powerful error-control codes alone. (’768 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1; col. 2:16-31).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method to enhance the reliability of high-rate wireless transmissions, such as those using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), with manageable complexity at the receiver. (’768 Patent, col. 2:16-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶32). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted device technology.
  • Independent Claim 1: A wireless communication device comprising:
    • an error-control coder for applying an error correction code to produce an encoded data stream;
    • a bit interleaver to arrange data bits for mapping to different constellation symbols;
    • a mapping unit to map the data 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;
    • a symbol interleaver to process and permute blocks of the precoded symbols; and
    • a modulator to produce an output waveform based on the permuted blocks.

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

  • Issued: November 4, 2014 (Compl. ¶16).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In multicarrier systems like OFDM, frequency-selective fading can cause certain subcarriers to experience deep fades or "nulls," leading to significant data loss and poor performance. (’230 Patent, col. 2:1-5, referencing original patent specification).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a "linear encoder" to transmit "different linear combinations of information symbols" across the available subcarriers. This spreads each symbol's information across multiple subcarriers, ensuring that even if one subcarrier is lost to a deep fade, the information can be recovered from the others, thereby creating "signal space diversity." (’230 Patent, col. 2:45-67, referencing original patent specification; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This technique enables robust data transmission over frequency-selective fading channels without requiring the transmitter to have prior knowledge of the channel conditions (Channel State Information), which is often unavailable or costly to obtain in mobile environments. (’230 Patent, col. 2:13-24, referencing original patent specification).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶38). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted system.
  • Independent Claim 1: A wireless communication system comprising:
    • an encoder that linearly encodes a stream of information bearing symbols to produce an encoded data stream; and
    • a modulator to produce a multicarrier output waveform,
    • wherein the encoder operates such that the subcarriers carry different linear combinations of the information symbols from the stream.

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

  • Issued: November 19, 2013 (Compl. ¶19).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the dual challenge of estimating both channel conditions and carrier frequency offset (CFO) in advanced multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) OFDM systems. The invention uses a method of inserting training symbols across multiple data blocks and applying a "hopping code" to insert null subcarriers at different positions in each block, allowing the receiver to decouple and accurately estimate the CFO before estimating the channel. (’317 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶44).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the operation of Defendant's 4G LTE network, particularly its radio access portion, infringes the patent (Compl. ¶29, ¶44).

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

  • Issued: May 6, 2014 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Technology Synopsis: As part of the same family as the ’317 Patent, this patent also describes techniques for robust channel and CFO estimation in MIMO-OFDM systems. The solution involves forming transmission blocks with specific training symbols and hopping null subcarriers to enable reliable estimation at the receiver. (’185 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶44).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the operation of Defendant's 4G LTE network, particularly its radio access portion, infringes the patent (Compl. ¶29, ¶44).

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

  • Issued: July 8, 2014 (Compl. ¶25).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also from the family of the ’317 Patent, discloses methods for estimating CFO and channel conditions in MIMO-OFDM systems. The claimed techniques utilize training symbols and hopping null subcarriers to facilitate low-complexity and accurate estimation, thereby improving overall system reliability. (’309 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶44).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the operation of Defendant's 4G LTE network, particularly its radio access portion, infringes the patent (Compl. ¶29, ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant's wireless communications system, publicly referred to as its "4G LTE network," as well as methods performed with that network (Compl. ¶28, ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused instrumentality as a 4G LTE network used to provide communication services to customers with mobile devices (Compl. ¶28). The allegations focus on the technical operation of the radio access portion of this network, asserting that Defendant imports, makes, and uses LTE wireless communication systems that embody the patented inventions (Compl. ¶29). The complaint does not provide further technical detail regarding the specific hardware, software, or operational parameters of Defendant's network.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts or map specific functionalities of the accused 4G LTE network to the elements of the asserted claims. Instead, it makes general allegations that the systems and methods used by Defendant to operate its network directly infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶32, ¶38, ¶44). The underlying infringement theory appears to be that a network operating in compliance with the 4G LTE standard necessarily practices the claimed inventions.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether the signal processing methods mandated or implemented in the 4G LTE standard fall within the scope of the claims. For the ’768 Patent, a question is whether the term "linear precoder" can be construed to read on the specific transmission schemes used in LTE networks. For the '317 patent family, a question is whether the LTE standard's use of reference signals for channel estimation constitutes the claimed method of using "hopping" null subcarriers.
  • Technical Questions: A primary evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can prove that the actual operation of Defendant's network equipment performs each limitation of an asserted claim. As the complaint lacks specific factual support for this, discovery will be required to determine if there is a technical match between the accused network's functions and the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’768 Patent

  • The Term: "a precoder that applies a liner transformation to the constellation symbols to produce precoded symbols, wherein the precoded symbols are complex numbers that are not restricted to the finite alphabet of the constellation" (from Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core inventive step of adding a specific type of precoding after symbol mapping. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether signal processing within the accused LTE systems constitutes this type of transformation and whether the resulting signals meet the "not restricted to the finite alphabet" limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the precoder generally as operating over a "complex field with no restriction on the input symbol alphabet or the precoded symbol alphabet," which may support a broad definition not limited to specific mathematical properties beyond linearity. (’768 Patent, col. 2:29-32).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific embodiments of precoder matrices designed to achieve "full diversity and maximum coding gain." A party might argue that the term should be construed to require these performance-enhancing properties, not just any linear operation. (’768 Patent, col. 7:10-24).

For the ’230 Patent

  • The Term: "encoder linearly encodes the stream of information bearing symbols so that the subcarriers carry different linear combinations of information symbols of the stream" (from Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical as it describes the fundamental concept of spreading information across multiple subcarriers. The dispute may focus on whether the signal generation process in an LTE transmitter creates what can properly be defined as "linear combinations" in the context of the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the concept broadly as a way to "robustify[] multi-carrier wireless transmissions... against random frequency-selective fading by introducing memory into the transmission with complex field (CF) encoding across the subcarriers." (’230 Patent, col. 2:45-49, referencing original patent specification).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discloses specific mathematical structures for the linear encoder, including viewing zero-padding as a special case. A party could argue the claim term should be understood in light of these specific embodiments rather than covering any process that results in mixed signals on subcarriers. (’230 Patent, col. 8:1-9, referencing original patent specification).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendant knew of the patents no later than November 6, 2014 (Compl. ¶30). The inducement allegations are based on Defendant allegedly requiring devices on its network to operate in an infringing manner and promoting the use of its LTE network (Compl. ¶33, ¶39, ¶45). The contributory infringement allegations are based on Defendant providing components, such as mobile devices, adapted for use in its allegedly infringing network (Compl. ¶30).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks treble damages, implying a claim for willful infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶D). This is predicated on the allegation of pre-suit knowledge of the patents as of November 6, 2014, and an assertion that Defendant acted with willful blindness by taking "deliberate actions to avoid learning" of its infringement (Compl. ¶33).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical evidence: As the complaint relies on general allegations of infringement by a standards-compliant network, the case will likely depend on whether Plaintiff can produce specific evidence from discovery showing that the actual hardware and software in Defendant's 4G LTE network perform the precise methods required by the claim limitations.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope versus industry standards: The central dispute will likely involve claim construction and the subsequent mapping of the construed claims onto the technical specifications of the 4G LTE standard. The outcome may turn on whether practicing the standard is found to be a per se infringement of the patents as claimed.
  • A critical factual question will concern intent: For the claims of indirect and willful infringement to proceed, the sufficiency of the alleged pre-suit notice will be a key issue. The court will need to assess whether the facts alleged are adequate to support the specific intent required for inducement and the knowledge required for contributory and willful infringement.