Be Labs Inc v. Securifi Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Be Labs, Inc (New York)
  • Defendant: Securifi, Inc (Nevada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; Borghese Legal, LTD.
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-01387, D. Nev., 08/12/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Nevada because Defendant is incorporated in the state, maintains an established place of business in the district, and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Securifi Products" infringe two patents related to wireless multimedia distribution systems.
• Technical Context: The technology involves a centralized hub that receives various media inputs (e.g., satellite, cable, internet) and wirelessly re-broadcasts content to multiple end-user devices within a building.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 9,344,183 is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,827,581. Both patents claim priority to the same 2000 provisional application, indicating a shared specification and a long-prosecuted patent family.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-02-29	Priority Date for ’581 and ’183 Patents (Provisional App. 60/185,862)
2010-11-02	U.S. Patent No. 7,827,581 Issued
2016-05-17	U.S. Patent No. 9,344,183 Issued
2019-08-12	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,827,581, "Wireless multimedia system," issued Nov. 2, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of distributing a growing number of multimedia sources (e.g., satellite, cable, terrestrial antenna, internet) to various end-user devices throughout a home or business without requiring extensive, dedicated wiring for each source and device (Compl. ¶8; ’581 Patent, col. 1:22-33).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a central "wireless multimedia center" (WMC) that acts as a unitary hub to receive all incoming signals (Compl. ¶8; ’581 Patent, col. 2:17-24). This WMC then wirelessly re-broadcasts the content to multiple "end units" (EUs) using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM). The patent specifies that the OFDM signal pulses should have "sufficiently long individual pulse widths to defeat multi-path, reflection and absorption phase induced losses," which are common problems for indoor wireless transmission (’581 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:21-28). The end units can communicate back to the WMC to select which content they receive (’581 Patent, col. 1:55-58).
• Technical Importance: The system aims to create a single, unified wireless distribution network for all forms of media within a premises, consolidating control and simplifying installation by replacing physical cables with a robust wireless protocol (’581 Patent, col. 1:39-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 28 (Compl. ¶13).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
  • A "wireless multimedia center (WMC)" for receiving signals from various sources and distributing segments of those signals.
  • The WMC broadcasts video signals using "orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM)" with specific characteristics to "defeat multi-path...losses."
  • Video signals are broadcast over "one or more separate and dedicated RF channels to one or more end units."
  • An optional "separate bi-directional wideband data pipe (WDP)" for communication between the end units and the WMC to control signal distribution.
• Independent Claim 28 recites a more detailed system that includes many elements from claim 1 and further adds features such as the system being encrypted, controlled by a remote, capable of high data transfer rates, and including capabilities for user-specific rules via smart cards, personalized advertising, and remote software maintenance.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claim 6 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶13).

U.S. Patent No. 9,344,183, "Wireless multimedia system," issued May 17, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '581 Patent, this patent addresses the same general problem of in-building multimedia distribution, with a refined focus on the challenge of reliably transmitting signals through physical barriers like walls (Compl. ¶10; ’183 Patent, col. 1:13-25, cl. 1).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a multimedia device comprising a "distribution box" in one room and an OFDM transceiver that "unidirectionally" broadcasts a signal to end units (Compl. ¶10; ’183 Patent, cl. 1). A key aspect is the physical separation, with at least one end unit being "in another room separated by a wall." The claim requires the signal packets to have a "width of sufficient duration to resist multi-path reflection and absorption phase induced losses" incurred by passing through the wall (’183 Patent, cl. 1).
• Technical Importance: This patent focuses more granularly on the physical implementation and signal characteristics required for a robust multi-room wireless system, emphasizing the one-way broadcast of media content through walls from a central point.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a multimedia device comprising:
  • A "distribution box" in one room for receiving a signal from a wireless or wired source.
  • An "OFDM transceiver" connected to the box.
  • The transceiver is operative for "wirelessly and unidirectionally broadcasting the signal" to a plurality of end units.
  • At least one end unit is in a different room, "separated by a wall."
  • This end unit receives the signal "through the wall via packets each having a width of sufficient duration to resist multi-path" losses.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities only as the "Exemplary Securifi Products" (Compl. ¶13, ¶23). It does not name any specific product models.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no technical description of how the accused products operate. It alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these products and that they "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶13, ¶19, ¶23, ¶29). The complaint further alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that induce infringement by end users (Compl. ¶16, ¶26). The substantive details of the infringement allegations are incorporated by reference from external exhibits that were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶20, ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement allegations in its body. Instead, it states that "Exhibit 3 includes charts comparing the Exemplary ’581 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Securifi Products" (Compl. ¶19) and that "Exhibit 4 includes charts comparing the Exemplary ’183 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Securifi Products" (Compl. ¶29). These exhibits were not provided. The complaint's narrative infringement theory is that the "Exemplary Securifi Products" practice the claimed technology and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶19, ¶29).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: A threshold issue for the case will be whether the Plaintiff can produce factual evidence demonstrating that the unnamed "Exemplary Securifi Products" practice each element of the asserted claims. For instance, what evidence will be offered to show that the accused products broadcast signals using packets with a "width of sufficient duration to resist multi-path reflection and absorption phase induced losses" as required by claim 1 of the ’183 Patent?
• Scope Question: For the ’183 Patent, a key dispute may arise over the term "unidirectionally broadcasting." The court may need to determine if this limitation can read on modern wireless networking devices that often rely on inherently bi-directional communication protocols for functions like mesh networking or beamforming.
• Technical Question: For the ’581 Patent, a point of contention may be whether the accused products broadcast video signals on "separate and dedicated RF channels" as claimed, or whether they utilize a single, unified IP-based data stream for all content types, which may present a mismatch with the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’581 Patent, Claim 1

• The Term: "wireless multimedia center (WMC)"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the central hub of the claimed system. Its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to a single physical device or could encompass more distributed or software-defined architectures. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether a standard wireless router, which may be part of a larger network of devices, meets this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, noting the WMC can be adapted with "modular plug-ins" to handle "any other future data or program sources" (’581 Patent, col. 1:45-49).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to the WMC as a "unitary distribution box 2," and the figures consistently depict a single, consolidated piece of hardware (’581 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 2:18-19). This may support an argument that the term requires a single, integrated physical housing.

’183 Patent, Claim 1

• The Term: "unidirectionally broadcasting"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical to distinguishing the claimed invention and may be central to the infringement analysis. The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether the accused products operate in a truly one-way broadcast mode, as many modern wireless protocols are fundamentally bi-directional.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition that deviates from the term’s plain and ordinary meaning of one-way transmission.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The parent '581 Patent, from which the '183 Patent derives, explicitly claims a system with a primary broadcast and an optional "separate bi-directional wideband data pipe" for control signals (’581 Patent, cl. 1). The focused use of "unidirectionally" in the ’183 Patent claim suggests a deliberate choice to describe the primary media transmission as one-way, potentially creating a sharp contrast with systems that use bi-directional protocols for all communications.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Securifi induces infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶16, ¶26). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that Securifi sells the products to customers for use in a manner that infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶18, ¶28).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that the "service of this Complaint upon Defendant constitutes actual knowledge" of infringement (Compl. ¶15, ¶25). It further alleges that Defendant’s continued infringing activities "despite such actual knowledge" support a claim for willful infringement, which appears to be based on post-suit conduct (Compl. ¶16, ¶26).

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

1. Evidentiary Foundation: Given that the complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory and rely entirely on non-proffered exhibits, a primary issue for the court will be one of evidentiary sufficiency. Can the Plaintiff, through discovery, produce concrete evidence mapping specific features of the accused Securifi products to the technically detailed limitations of the asserted claims?
2. Compatibility with Modern Architectures: The case will likely turn on a question of technological scope: can claim terms rooted in early-2000s technology, such as "wireless multimedia center" and "separate and dedicated RF channels," be construed to cover modern, IP-based wireless routers that may operate as part of a distributed, multi-function mesh network?
3. The "Unidirectional" Limitation: A critical infringement question will be one of operational mode: does the accused system's transmission of media content constitute "unidirectionally broadcasting" as required by the '183 patent, or is its operation so fundamentally reliant on bi-directional communication protocols that it falls outside the scope of the claim?