DCT
2:17-cv-02463
Xcelis LLC v. Panasonic Corp Of North America
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Xcelis LLC (Nevada)
- Defendant: Panasonic Corporation of North America (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pisanelli Bice PLLC; Hill, Kertscher & Wharton LLP
Case Identification: [Xcelis LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/xcelis-llc) v. Panasonic Corp Of North America, 2:17-cv-02463, D. Nev., 09/21/2017
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Nevada because Defendant Panasonic has a regular and established place of business in the district, including a warehouse and distribution facility, employs people there, and directs its activities to customers in Nevada by selling the accused products through an interactive website.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Link2Cell line of cordless telephones infringes a patent related to systems for integrating landline and wireless cellular communications.
Technical Context: The technology addresses the convergence of traditional landline (PSTN) and cellular telephone networks, enabling a user to manage calls from both networks through a single, conventional home telephone system.
Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-07-09 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,565,115 |
| 2009-07-21 | U.S. Patent No. 7,565,115 Issues |
| 2017-09-21 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,565,115 - “Communication System for Landline and Wireless Calls”
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,565,115, issued on July 21, 2009 (the “`’115` Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a time when many consumers had both a landline and a cellular phone but faced practical limitations. These included poor indoor cellular signal strength, which hindered the use of often cheaper cellular calling plans at home, as well as the ergonomic and battery-life disadvantages of using a cell phone for long conversations. (’115 Patent, col. 1:21-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that uses "interface circuitry" to bridge a conventional landline telephone with a separate wireless communication device, such as a cell phone. (’115 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This integration allows a user to place and receive calls from both the landline network (PSTN) and the wireless network using the familiar handset of their landline phone, and also enables features like conferencing calls between the two networks. (’115 Patent, col. 2:48-65).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided a unified communications hub in the home, leveraging the superior ergonomics and reliability of landline hardware while providing access to the potentially more flexible or cost-effective calling plans of the burgeoning cellular market. (’115 Patent, col. 1:21-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint’s allegations focus on claim 4, an independent system claim. (Compl. ¶16). The complaint also alleges infringement of "one or more claims," suggesting other claims may be asserted later. (Compl. ¶19).
- Independent claim 4 requires:
- A landline communication device with circuitry to place and receive calls over a landline network.
- Interface circuitry connected to a single ring-tip line pair (the landline) and to a wireless communication device (the cell phone).
- The interface circuitry must be capable of selectively connecting the landline device to either the landline network or the wireless device so calls can be placed and received on both.
- The interface circuitry must determine whether to place a landline or a wireless call in response to a user input.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are Panasonic’s Link2Cell Phones, specifically identifying models KX-TGE463, KX-TG654SK, KX-TG684SK, and KX-TGE475. (Compl. ¶¶16, 16a).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Link2Cell phones are described as cordless telephone systems that function as standard landline phones by connecting to a telephone wall jack. (Compl. ¶16b).
- The core accused functionality is the system's ability to pair with a user’s cell phone via Bluetooth wireless technology. (Compl. ¶16c). This pairing allows the user to make and receive cellular calls using the Panasonic cordless handset, effectively routing cellular network calls through the Link2Cell base station. (Compl. ¶16c).
- The complaint includes a product image showing several handsets and a base station, identifying it as a "communication system". (Compl. ¶16a, p. 4).
- The complaint alleges that the user can choose which network to use for an outgoing call by providing a specific "user input." (Compl. ¶16d).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a narrative infringement theory for claim 4, which is summarized in the table below.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a landline communication device comprising circuitry adapted to place and receive calls over a landline communication network; | The Panasonic Link2Cell Phone system, including its base station and handsets, comprises a landline communication device with circuitry for making and answering landline calls. | ¶16b | col. 46:37-40 |
| and interface circuitry connected to a single ring-tip line pair of a landline communication network and to a wireless communication device for a wireless communication network, | The base unit of the Link2Cell Phone contains interface circuitry that connects to the landline network via a telephone cord (RJ11C) and connects to a user's cellular phone (a wireless communication device) via Bluetooth technology. | ¶16c | col. 46:41-44 |
| wherein the interface circuitry selectively connects the landline communication device to the ring-tip line pair so that calls are placed and received by the landline communication device over the landline communication network and to the wireless communication device so that calls are placed and received by the landline communication device over the wireless communication network via the wireless communication device, | The interface circuitry connects the handset to the landline for landline calls and connects the handset to the paired cellular phone for cellular calls, allowing calls on both networks to be handled by the landline device. | ¶16c | col. 46:45-53 |
| wherein the interface circuitry determines whether to place a landline or wireless call in response to a user input. | The user provides an input, such as pressing a dedicated "[CELL]" button, which causes the interface circuitry to make a cellular call. Making a landline call is the default or requires a different input. The complaint provides a user manual screenshot illustrating separate instructions for each call type. | ¶16d, p. 7 | col. 46:54-56 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The patent claims a "communication system" comprising both a "landline communication device" and a "wireless communication device." The complaint appears to allege that the accused system is formed by the combination of the Panasonic Link2Cell phone and a user's separately-owned, Bluetooth-paired smartphone. A potential point of dispute is whether a defendant who only manufactures and sells one part of that combination (the Link2Cell phone) can be liable for directly infringing a claim to the entire system.
- Technical Questions: Claim 4 requires that the "interface circuitry determines" the call type based on "a user input." The complaint points to the user pressing a dedicated "[CELL]" button. (Compl. ¶16d). A question for the court may be whether this direct user selection of a line constitutes the "determination" taught in the patent, which also describes embodiments that interpret special codes (e.g., "#") entered by the user to automatically route the call. (’115 Patent, col. 4:36-45).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "interface circuitry"
- Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the asserted claim, representing the novel component that connects the landline and wireless worlds. The outcome of the infringement analysis will heavily depend on how broadly or narrowly this term is construed, as it must be found within the accused Panasonic base station.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a high-level functional description, stating the circuitry "permits both landline calls and wireless calls to be placed and received using the landline communication device." (’115 Patent, col. 2:48-51). Plaintiff may argue this supports a broad definition covering any hardware/software combination that performs this bridging function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses specific embodiments in detail, including circuit diagrams (e.g., FIG. 2A) showing a Digital Signal Processor (DSP), a Data Access Arrangement (DAA), and other components. (’115 Patent, FIG. 2A; col. 5:21-6:51). Defendant may argue the term should be limited to these disclosed structures and their equivalents, potentially distinguishing them from the accused product's Bluetooth-based architecture.
The Term: "determines whether to place a landline or wireless call"
- Context and Importance: The complaint’s infringement allegation for this element rests on the user pressing a specific button to select a calling method. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could create a distinction between a simple user selection and a more complex, logic-based "determination" by the device itself.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the plain meaning of "determines...in response to a user input" is met when the circuitry acts upon any user command that resolves the choice of network, including the press of a dedicated button like "[CELL]".
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a more interpretive process, where the circuitry recognizes "a predetermined code" entered by the user (e.g., a "#" dialed after the phone number) to decide which network to use. (’115 Patent, col. 4:36-54). Defendant may argue this context narrows the meaning of "determines" to require such code-based logic rather than a direct line selection.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegation is based on Panasonic providing the Link2Cell Phones along with "documentation and technical information," such as user manuals, that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the products in an infringing manner (i.e., linking a cell phone and making calls over both networks). (Compl. ¶22). The contributory infringement allegation asserts the products are "especially made or adapted to infringe" and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶23).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Panasonic knew or should have known of the ’115 Patent and that its continued infringement is willful. (Compl. ¶25). This allegation is based on both alleged pre-suit knowledge and knowledge gained from the filing of the complaint itself. (Compl. ¶21, ¶25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "determines", which the patent specification illustrates with a system that interprets special codes dialed by a user, be construed to cover the accused product's function of responding to a press of a dedicated "[CELL]" button to select a network?
- A second central question will concern the definition of the infringing "system": for direct infringement, can the claim to a system comprising both a landline and a wireless device be met by the sale of the defendant's Link2Cell product, which requires a customer to supply their own separate cellular phone to perform the accused function?
- A key evidentiary question for indirect infringement will be one of intent and non-infringing use: does the complaint provide sufficient facts to suggest Panasonic specifically intended for its customers to infringe, and can Panasonic demonstrate that the Link2Cell phones have substantial non-infringing uses, for instance, as a standalone cordless landline telephone?