DCT

5:23-cv-00714

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo United States Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:23-cv-00714, E.D.N.C., 12/12/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of North Carolina because Defendant Lenovo USA maintains its principal place of business, offices, and employees in the district; has committed acts of infringement there; and has previously argued for venue in the district in prior litigation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s computers and similar products infringe four patents essential to the HEVC/H.265 video coding standard.
  • Technical Context: The High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC/H.265) standard enables efficient compression and decoding of high-resolution video, a critical technology for streaming, video conferencing, and other data-intensive video applications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the asserted patents are essential to the HEVC/H.265 standard and that Ericsson has committed to license them on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms. It further alleges that licensing negotiations with Lenovo have been ongoing for over a decade and that Ericsson provided Lenovo with lists of relevant HEVC patents, including those asserted, in April 2022.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-01-14 ’659 Patent Priority Date
2011-03-01 ’841 Patent Priority Date
2011-06-30 ’618 Patent Priority Date
2011-10-24 ’613 Patent Priority Date
2012-08-01 Ericsson launches SVP 5500, an HEVC/H.265 encoder (approximate date)
2013-01-25 International Telecommunications Union (ITU) recognizes Ericsson's early HEVC implementations
2013-02-15 Ericsson submits its RAND declaration to the ITU for the HEVC/H.265 standard
2017-05-02 ’841 Patent Issued
2018-11-27 ’659 Patent Issued
2020-07-07 ’618 Patent Issued
2020-07-07 ’613 Patent Issued
2022-04-05 Ericsson sends HEVC patent lists to Lenovo, allegedly notifying it of the asserted patents
2023-10-11 Ericsson offers Lenovo a license to its HEVC/H.265 portfolio
2023-12-12 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,641,841 - Deblocking filtering control

  • Issued: May 2, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The independent coding of adjacent blocks in a compressed video stream can create visible discontinuities, or "blocking artifacts," at the block boundaries, which reduces the subjective quality of the decoded video (Compl. ¶40; ’841 Patent, col. 1:12-23). Prior art methods applied deblocking filtering without sufficiently accounting for differences in the video content structure on either side of a boundary (Compl. ¶40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides an improved method for controlling deblocking filters by applying independent filtering decisions for each side of a block boundary (Compl. ¶41). It calculates separate "filter decision values" based on the pixel values on each side of the boundary, allowing the filter to adapt to the different visual content and apply a different amount of filtering to each side as needed (’841 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:45-57).
  • Technical Importance: This adaptive, asymmetric filtering control improves the efficiency and quality of video decoding and has been incorporated into the H.265/HEVC standard (Compl. ¶41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 9, and 14 (Compl. ¶42, ¶48).
  • Claim 1, a method claim, includes the following essential elements:
    • calculating a first filter decision value for a block of pixels based on pixel values in a first line of pixels in the block;
    • calculating a second filter decision value for the block based on pixel values in a corresponding line of pixels in a neighboring block;
    • determining how many pixels in the first line of pixels to filter based on the first filter decision value; and
    • determining how many pixels in the corresponding line of pixels to filter based on the second filter decision value.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, and 10-11, and 14-16 (Compl. ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. 10,142,659 - Deblocking filtering

  • Issued: November 27, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Previous video codecs, including early versions of HEVC, used deblocking filters that could exhibit poor low-pass characteristics, failing to effectively remove high-frequency artifacts that appear near block boundaries and sometimes introducing ringing artifacts (’659 Patent, col. 3:19-34). The method of calculating a primary offset and then simply halving it for adjacent pixels did not adapt well to the local signal structure (Compl. ¶51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses an improved deblocking filter that calculates a specific "first offset" using a formula based on the pixel values closest to and next-closest to the block boundary on both sides (Compl. ¶52). This calculated offset is then added to the pixel on one side of the boundary and subtracted from the pixel on the other, resulting in a filter with better low-pass characteristics that can more effectively smooth artifacts without introducing new ones (’659 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:54-65).
  • Technical Importance: This improved offset calculation for deblocking filters enhances video quality and was incorporated into the H.265/HEVC standard (Compl. ¶52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 10, and 15 (Compl. ¶53, ¶59).
  • Claim 1, a method claim, includes the following essential elements:
    • calculating a first offset to be equal to "(9x(q0-p0)-3x(q1-p1)+8)>>4", where p0 and p1 are pixel values on one side of a boundary and q0 and q1 are pixel values on the other;
    • modifying the pixel value of the pixel closest to the boundary (p0) by adding the first offset; and
    • modifying the pixel value of the pixel closest to the boundary in the corresponding line (q0) by subtracting the first offset.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-7, and 10-16 (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 10,708,618 - Reference picture signaling

  • Issued: July 7, 2020
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses problems in prior art video codecs where the loss of picture data could disrupt the process of updating the decoded picture buffer, which stores reference frames for decoding subsequent frames (Compl. ¶62). The patented solution is an improved method for signaling reference pictures by including "buffer description information" in the encoded data, which allows a decoder to robustly determine reference picture identifiers and update its buffer even if some data is lost (Compl. ¶63).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-19 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: Computers, such as the Lenovo ThinkPad X1, that practice the HEVC standard for video decoding (Compl. ¶65).

U.S. Patent No. 10,708,613 - Encoder and decoder and methods thereof for encoding/decoding a picture of a video sequence

  • Issued: July 7, 2020
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also relates to improved reference picture handling. The invention describes decoding multiple Picture Order Count (POC) values from a slice header and using those values to update which pictures in a decoded picture buffer are included in long-term or short-term reference sets (Compl. ¶73). The buffer is then updated to mark any pictures not in those sets as unused, which improves the reliability and performance of the video coding process (Compl. ¶73).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-9 (Compl. ¶74).
  • Accused Features: Computers, such as the Lenovo ThinkPad X1, that practice the HEVC standard for video decoding (Compl. ¶75).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses Lenovo’s "computers and similar products and services" that practice the HEVC/H.265 standard (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶16). The Lenovo ThinkPad X1 is identified as a specific, exemplary accused product (Compl. ¶43).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused functionality is the capability of the Accused Products to decode video streams compliant with the HEVC/H.265 standard (Compl. ¶43, ¶54). The complaint provides a visual from a Lenovo ThinkPad X1 datasheet that advertises a high-resolution display with Dolby Vision™, which is used to support the allegation that Lenovo advertises and encourages the use of HEVC decoding on its products (Compl. ¶43, Ex. 4 at 3). This datasheet for the ThinkPad X1 Titanium Yoga 2 in 1 laptop highlights its 2K display with Dolby Vision™ for video-conferencing and browsing online (Compl. Ex. 4 at 3). The complaint alleges that all four asserted patents contain functionality that has been incorporated into the HEVC/H.265 standard, which the Accused Products practice (Compl. ¶41, ¶52, ¶63, ¶73).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include the claim chart exhibits it references. The infringement theory articulated in the complaint is that the Accused Products infringe because they are compliant with the HEVC/H.265 standard, and the inventions of the asserted patents are essential to that standard (Compl. ¶7, ¶41, ¶52, ¶63, ¶73). The following charts summarize this theory of infringement for the lead patents.

’841 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for filtering control applicable to a block of multiple pixels in a video frame... comprising: calculating a first filter decision value for said block, by only using pixels p2, p1, and p0... HEVC-compliant decoders in the Accused Products calculate a filter decision value for a pixel block to determine how to apply a deblocking filter. ¶16, ¶41, ¶43 col. 3:45-51
calculating a second filter decision value for said neighboring block, by only using pixels q2, q1, and q0... HEVC-compliant decoders in the Accused Products calculate a corresponding filter decision value for the adjacent pixel block. ¶16, ¶41, ¶43 col. 3:52-57
determining how many pixels in said first line of pixels in said block to filter relative to said block boundary based on a comparison of said first filter decision value to a first threshold value... Based on the first calculated value, HEVC-compliant decoders determine the strength or extent of filtering to apply to the pixels on one side of the boundary. ¶16, ¶41, ¶43 col. 4:39-44
determining how many pixels in said corresponding first line of pixels in said neighboring block to filter relative to said block boundary based on a comparison of said second filter decision value to a second threshold value. Based on the second calculated value, HEVC-compliant decoders independently determine the strength or extent of filtering to apply to the pixels on the other side of the boundary. ¶16, ¶41, ¶43 col. 4:49-54

’659 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of reducing blocking artifacts at a block boundary... said method comprises: calculating a first offset to be equal to (9×(q0-p0)−3×(q1-p1)+8)>>4... HEVC-compliant decoders in the Accused Products calculate a deblocking filter offset using the specified formula based on pixel values (p0, p1, q0, q1) adjacent to the block boundary. ¶16, ¶52, ¶54 col. 11:50-65
modifying said pixel value p0 of said pixel closest to said block boundary... by adding said first offset... The HEVC-compliant decoders modify the pixel value on one side of the boundary by adding the calculated offset. ¶16, ¶52, ¶54 col. 12:1-2
modifying said pixel value q0 of said pixel closest to said block boundary... by subtracting said first offset... The HEVC-compliant decoders modify the pixel value on the other side of the boundary by subtracting the calculated offset. ¶16, ¶52, ¶54 col. 12:4-5

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the asserted claims are, in fact, essential to the HEVC/H.265 standard as alleged. A defendant may argue that the standard can be practiced using non-infringing alternatives or that its specific implementation deviates from the standard in a way that avoids one or more claim limitations. The dispute may focus on whether compliance with the standard requires practicing the claimed methods, or merely permits it.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis will likely focus on the specific mathematical operations and decisions required by the claims versus what is performed by the Accused Products. For the ’841 patent, a question may be whether the calculations performed in the accused decoders constitute a "filter decision value" used to "determine how many pixels... to filter" in the manner claimed. For the ’659 patent, the question may be whether the accused decoders calculate and apply an "offset" in a way that strictly maps to the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’841 Patent

  • The Term: "filter decision value"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the first two steps of independent claim 1. Its construction is critical because it defines the nature of the calculation that must be performed on each side of the block boundary. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether any calculation based on pixel values qualifies, or if it must be a specific type of calculation used for a specific filtering purpose as described in the specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not impose a specific mathematical formula, stating only that the value is "based at least on |p2i−2p1i+p0i|" (Claim 2) or "|q2i−2q1i+q0i|" (Claim 6), which suggests any value derived from these pixel relationships could suffice.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the value as part of a specific condition for determining whether strong or weak filtering is performed (’841 Patent, col. 2:36-41). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to values used in that specific decision-making context, not just any intermediate calculation.

For the ’659 Patent

  • The Term: "first offset"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the result of the calculation in claim 1 and is the value added to and subtracted from the pixels at the block boundary. While the claim provides a precise formula, the interpretation of the term "offset" itself is important for understanding the scope of the invention and its relationship to other filtering operations. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish the claimed invention from other methods of pixel modification in video processing.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention in the general context of computing an offset and adding it to an original pixel value to create a filtered output (’659 Patent, col. 2:58-62). This could suggest "offset" carries its general meaning of a value used to shift another value.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Abstract and Summary emphasize that the invention is a "deblocking filter" for reducing "blocking artifacts" (’659 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:39-42). A party could argue the "first offset" must be construed as a value calculated and used specifically for the purpose of deblocking, as opposed to other types of pixel adjustments.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Lenovo encourages and instructs end-users to infringe by advertising the video decoding capabilities of the Accused Products and providing user manuals and technical support (Compl. ¶¶ 86, 97). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that Lenovo sells products containing components (e.g., HEVC decoders) that are a material part of the patented inventions and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 87, 98).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Lenovo’s purported knowledge of the asserted patents since at least April 5, 2022, when Ericsson allegedly sent Lenovo lists of its HEVC patents that covered Lenovo's products (Compl. ¶¶ 85, 88, 96, 99). The claim is that Lenovo's continued infringement after this date has been willful and in disregard of Ericsson's patent rights.

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim essentiality: Can Ericsson prove that the asserted patent claims are truly essential to the HEVC/H.265 standard, such that any standards-compliant product, including Lenovo’s, necessarily practices every limitation of the claims? The case may turn on whether Lenovo can demonstrate a commercially viable, non-infringing way to implement the HEVC standard.
  • A second key issue will be the application of RAND principles to damages: As this is a standards-essential patent case, the dispute will likely involve extensive analysis of Ericsson’s obligation to license its patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The court will need to determine what constitutes a RAND-compliant royalty for the asserted patents, which will be central to the calculation of any potential damages award.
  • A third question will be one of pre-suit knowledge and willfulness: The determination of willful infringement will depend on the nature and sufficiency of the April 5, 2022 notice. The court will likely examine what information was provided to Lenovo and whether Lenovo’s subsequent actions constituted objective recklessness in disregarding a known risk of infringement.