DCT

1:24-cv-01258

Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Nikon Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01258, E.D.N.Y., 06/06/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of New York because Defendant's corporate headquarters and principal place of business are located in Melville, New York, within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital cameras, which incorporate wireless communication functionalities, infringe seven patents related to methods for improving performance and managing data transmission in wireless networks.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to foundational techniques in wireless data communication, particularly within systems using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) technologies, which are central to modern standards like Wi-Fi.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff notified Defendant of its infringement allegations via letters sent in April 2023 and August 2023, establishing a basis for pre-suit knowledge.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-02-21 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,549,583 and 6,633,616
2001-09-21 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,058,040, 7,656,845, and 8,005,053
2002-09-09 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,260,153
2003-04-15 U.S. Patent No. 6,549,583 Issues
2003-10-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,633,616 Issues
2004-07-20 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388
2006-06-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,058,040 Issues
2007-08-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,260,153 Issues
2010-02-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845 Issues
2010-06-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388 Issues
2011-08-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,005,053 Issues
2023-04-01 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement (First Letter)
2023-08-01 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement (Second Letter)
2024-06-06 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,549,583 - “Optimum Phase Error Metric for OFDM Pilot Tone Tracking in Wireless LAN”

  • Issued: April 15, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) wireless systems, phase noise from inexpensive, highly-integrated local oscillators (LOs) can corrupt the signal, degrading performance and limiting data rates, particularly for complex modulation schemes like 64-QAM. Correcting this issue with high-performance analog radio components is difficult and costly. (Compl. ¶21; ’583 Patent, col. 1:15-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to compensate for this radio-level deficiency through digital processing in the baseband portion of the receiver. Instead of relying on expensive hardware, the system determines reference points from known "pilot tones" in a transmission's preamble. It then uses a "maximum likelihood estimation" approach to calculate an "aggregate phase error" for subsequent data symbols by considering all available pilot tones, rather than just the strongest one. This aggregate estimate is then used to correct the phase of incoming signals. (Compl. ¶27; ’583 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-17).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled the use of cheaper, more integrated chipsets for high-speed wireless standards by shifting the burden of phase noise correction from specialized analog hardware to more flexible digital signal processing. (’583 Patent, col. 1:50-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶27).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • A method of pilot phase error estimation in an OFDM receiver.
    • Determining pilot reference points corresponding to a plurality of pilots of an OFDM preamble waveform.
    • Estimating an aggregate phase error of a subsequent OFDM data symbol relative to the pilot reference points using complex signal measurements from each of the pilots.
    • The estimating step comprises performing a maximum likelihood-based estimation using these complex signal measurements. (’583 Patent, col. 14:52-65).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 6,633,616 - “OFDM Pilot Tone Tracking for Wireless LAN”

  • Issued: October 14, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses performance limitations in pilot tracking loops used for phase correction in OFDM receivers. A key issue is the processing delay introduced by the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), which must typically complete its operation on an entire data symbol before a phase error can be calculated. This latency limits the responsiveness and maximum bandwidth of the tracking loop, making it less effective at correcting for rapid phase changes. (’616 Patent, col. 17:55-col. 18:10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a new receiver architecture where the pilot phase error estimation is conducted in a separate processing path that runs in parallel to the main data path containing the FFT. This parallel architecture allows the phase error estimate for a given symbol to be calculated and made available before the FFT processing for that same symbol is finished. This reduction in latency allows for a wider bandwidth, more responsive tracking loop. (’616 Patent, Abstract; col. 19:1-26).
  • Technical Importance: By decoupling the phase error calculation from the main data FFT, the invention enabled the design of faster and more robust phase correction systems, improving the reliability of wireless communications in the presence of phase noise and dynamic channel conditions. (’616 Patent, col. 19:20-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 12. (Compl. ¶36).
  • The essential elements of claim 12 are:
    • A method of pilot phase error estimation in an OFDM receiver.
    • Determining pilot reference points from an OFDM preamble waveform.
    • Processing, in a parallel path, the preamble waveform with a fast Fourier transform.
    • Determining a phase error estimate of a subsequent OFDM symbol.
    • Processing, in the parallel path, the subsequent OFDM symbol with the fast Fourier transform.
    • The determining of the phase error estimate step is completed prior to the completion of the processing of the subsequent OFDM symbol with the FFT in the parallel path. (’616 Patent, col. 31:58-col. 32:14).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,058,040

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,058,040, “Channel Interference Reduction,” issued June 6, 2006.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for managing data transmission over two different wireless media that may operate in overlapping frequency bands. The invention computes and allocates time-division multiple access (TDMA) time-slots between the two media and dynamically adjusts the allocation to maintain a desired level of service, thereby reducing interference. (Compl. ¶45; ’040 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, in performing wireless communications, implement a method for data transmission over first and second media that includes computing and allocating TDMA time-slots and dynamically adjusting this allocation. (Compl. ¶45).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,260,153

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,260,153, “Multi Input Multi Output Wireless Communication Method and Apparatus Providing Extended Range and Extended Rate Across Imperfectly Estimated Channels,” issued August 21, 2007.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) wireless systems. It discloses a method for evaluating the communication channel by defining a channel matrix metric, performing a singular value decomposition (SVD) on an estimate of that metric to calculate singular values, and then using both to calculate a crosstalk measure for the data sub-streams. (’153 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to perform a method for evaluating a MIMO channel that involves defining and estimating a channel matrix metric, performing an SVD, and using the results to calculate a crosstalk measure. (Compl. ¶60).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845, “Channel Interference Reduction,” issued February 2, 2010.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a wireless communication system with two transceivers for communicating over two different media. The system is configured to dynamically allocate data channels between the media based on a desired level of service and to retry transmission of an unacknowledged packet at a lower data rate. (’845 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 12. (Compl. ¶76).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to provide a system with first and second transceivers that dynamically allocates data channels and is configured to retry packet transmission at a lower rate upon failure. (Compl. ¶76).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388, “Packet Generation Systems and Methods,” issued June 22, 2010.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for generating data packets for network transmission. The method involves increasing the size of a standard packet, which has a preamble with first and second training symbols, by adding subcarriers to the second training symbol to create an "extended packet" where the second symbol has more subcarriers than the first. (’388 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶93).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to perform a method of generating a packet with a preamble, increasing its size by adding subcarriers to the second training symbol, and transmitting the resulting extended packet. (Compl. ¶93).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,005,053

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,005,053, “Channel Interference Reduction,” issued August 23, 2011.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a communication device having multiple wireless transceivers, each corresponding to a different wireless protocol. The device can select one protocol, encode data from an unselected protocol into the selected protocol, and transmit the encoded data using the corresponding transceiver. (’053 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 10. (Compl. ¶107).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to perform a method of storing data for multiple protocols, selecting one, encoding data from another protocol into the selected one, and transmitting the encoded data. (Compl. ¶107).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendant’s digital cameras, including but not limited to the Z9, Z fc, Z7 II, Z6 II, Z 30, Z50, Z5, Z7, Z6, D6, D850, D7500 and D5600, are identified as the "Accused Products." (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these devices perform wireless communications pursuant to various standards, including Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi), and LTE. (Compl. ¶15). The accused functionality involves fundamental wireless operations such as transmitting data, generating network packets, performing error estimation in OFDM receivers, and processing OFDM symbols. (Compl. ¶16).
  • The complaint frames the accused devices as "computing devices" whose wireless communication capabilities are central to the infringement allegations. (Compl. ¶14). These products are consumer and professional cameras for which wireless connectivity is a feature for data transfer and remote operation. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As the complaint references but does not include the claim chart exhibits (Exhibits A-G), the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the narrative descriptions provided in the complaint body.

'583 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, when performing wireless communications, practice a method of pilot phase error estimation in an OFDM receiver consistent with claim 1. (Compl. ¶27). The alleged method includes determining pilot reference points from an OFDM preamble waveform and then estimating an "aggregate phase error" for a subsequent data symbol. (Compl. ¶27). The core of the allegation is that this estimation step is a "maximum likelihood-based estimation" that uses complex signal measurements from a plurality of the pilots in the data symbol. (Compl. ¶27).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical & Scope Question: A primary point of contention may be whether the error estimation algorithms implemented in the standard-compliant chipsets used by Nikon's cameras perform a "maximum likelihood-based estimation" as that term is understood in the patent. The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused functionality meets the specific mathematical and functional requirements of this claim element, or if it employs a different, non-infringing estimation technique.

'616 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products practice a method of pilot phase error estimation as recited in claim 12. (Compl. ¶36). The infringement theory centers on the device's architecture, alleging that it determines pilot reference points and subsequently determines a phase error estimate for a data symbol. (Compl. ¶36). Crucially, this is alleged to occur in a processing path that is parallel to the main Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) processing path. (Compl. ¶36). The allegation hinges on the temporal requirement that the phase error estimation for a symbol is "completed prior to the completion of the processing" of that same symbol by the FFT. (Compl. ¶36).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical & Evidentiary Question: The central dispute will likely be factual and evidentiary, requiring a detailed technical analysis of the accused chipsets. The key question is whether the devices' hardware and software architecture performs phase error calculation in a truly parallel path and whether that calculation provably finishes before the corresponding FFT operation, as strictly required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "maximum likelihood-based estimation" (’583 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central technical limitation of claim 1. Its construction will likely determine whether the error correction methods used in standard Wi-Fi chipsets fall within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a specific mathematical concept, and the dispute will turn on whether the accused devices' algorithms meet this definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the process as using complex signal measurements for all pilots to produce an estimate of the "aggregate phase error," suggesting the term could cover any method that collectively processes multiple pilots to derive a composite error metric rather than relying on a single pilot. (’583 Patent, col. 4:10-14, col. 12:35-44).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific equations (e.g., Eq. 6, 13, 14) that embody the maximum likelihood approach. A defendant may argue that the claim term should be construed as being limited to implementations that perform the specific mathematical operations disclosed in these embodiments, or their direct equivalents. (’583 Patent, col. 9:1-10; col. 10:39-54).

The Term: "completed prior to the completion of the processing" (’616 Patent, claim 12)

  • Context and Importance: This temporal limitation defines the point of novelty for the claimed method. The entire infringement analysis for this patent rests on establishing this specific timing relationship within the accused devices' operation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to offer language supporting a broader interpretation beyond the plain meaning of the words. The focus is on the sequential completion of two distinct processes.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes that the parallel path architecture is a solution to the latency problem of waiting for the FFT to finish. This context suggests a strict interpretation where the phase error calculation must be fully concluded before the FFT concludes its own processing on the same symbol's data, without overlap in their completion times. (’616 Patent, col. 17:55 - col. 18:10; FIG. 8).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for the ’040, ’153, ’845, and ’388 patents. The allegations state that Defendant induces infringement by providing instructions and advertising that guide end-users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 61, 77, 94). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the Accused Products contain special features designed for infringing use that are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 62, 78, 95).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willful infringement for the ’040, ’153, ’845, and ’388 patents. The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents stemming from notice letters sent in April 2023 and August 2023. (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 63, 79, 96). The complaint further alleges that Defendant maintains a policy of not reviewing the patents of others, constituting willful blindness. (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 64, 80, 97).

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

  • A core technical issue will be one of algorithmic correspondence: Does the phase error estimation used in Defendant’s standard-compliant wireless chipsets perform the specific "maximum likelihood-based estimation" required by the '583 patent, or does it utilize a materially different, non-infringing algorithm?
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of architectural timing: Can Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the internal processing of the accused devices calculates phase error in a path parallel to the main FFT and that this calculation is "completed prior to" the completion of the FFT for the same data symbol, as strictly mandated by the '616 patent?
  • A key legal question will be the intersection with industry standards: Given that the patents claim fundamental techniques used in modern wireless communications, the case will likely explore whether practicing mandatory or optional elements of standards like IEEE 802.11 inherently infringes the asserted claims, and to what extent such a finding is permissible.