DCT

1:19-cv-07397

EVS Codec Tech LLC v. LG Electronics Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: LG Electronics Inc](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/nysd/1:19-cv-07397/evs-codec-tech-llc-v-lg-electronics-inc), 2:18-cv-00343, E.D. Tex., 01/10/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper as to the foreign defendant, LG Electronics, Inc., under federal statute. As to the domestic defendants, Plaintiff alleges they have committed acts of infringement in the district and maintain regular and established places of business in Fort Worth, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile devices implementing the Enhanced Voice Services (EVS) codec standard for high-definition voice calls infringe five patents related to speech and audio compression technologies.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves digital speech and audio codecs, which are fundamental to providing high-quality, efficient voice communications over modern packet-switched wireless networks such as 4G/LTE.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that the patents-in-suit are essential to the EVS standard, for which the original patent owner made a commitment to license on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The complaint notes that the same patents have been the subject of prior litigation in the same court against other mobile device manufacturers, and that the court has previously issued claim construction rulings. Notably, Plaintiff and Defendant previously litigated these patents in a dispute concerning the AMR-WB codec, which was dismissed following a license agreement; the current complaint alleges infringement beyond the scope of that prior agreement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-10-27 Earliest Priority Date ('805, '524, '802, '521 Patents)
1999-11-18 Earliest Priority Date ('123 Patent)
2004-09-21 U.S. Patent No. 6,795,805 Issues
2004-10-19 U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524 Issues
2006-12-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,151,802 Issues
2007-03-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,191,123 Issues
2007-08-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,260,521 Issues
2013-03-08 Original Assignee (VoiceAge) submits IPR Declaration to ETSI
2016-01-01 T-Mobile launches EVS Codec on its network (on or before this date)
2018-09-24 Plaintiff makes FRAND license offer to Defendant
2019-01-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,795,805 - "Periodicity Enhancement in Decoding Wideband Signals"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes that prior art methods for enhancing the periodic (voiced) nature of speech signals were inefficient for wideband audio, as they introduced periodicity across the entire frequency spectrum, whereas the harmonic structure of wideband speech may only exist in the lower part of the spectrum (’805 Patent, col. 2:21-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a decoder that filters a component of the audio excitation signal, known as the "innovative codevector," through a specialized "innovation filter" (’805 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 2:36-42). This filter is designed to reduce the energy of the innovative codevector's low-frequency portion, thereby enhancing the periodicity of the overall excitation signal more at lower frequencies than at higher frequencies (’805 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This technique allows for more accurate and efficient synthesis of wideband voiced speech, which was a key challenge in moving beyond telephone-quality audio (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts representative claim 3, which depends from independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
  • The essential elements of asserted claim 3 are:
    • A device for enhancing periodicity of an excitation signal for synthesizing a wideband speech signal.
    • The device includes a "factor generator" for calculating a "periodicity factor" related to the wideband signal.
    • The device also includes an "innovation filter" that uses the periodicity factor to filter an "innovative codevector."
    • This filtering reduces the energy of the innovative codevector's low-frequency portion, thereby enhancing the periodicity of the excitation signal's low-frequency portion.
    • The innovation filter has a specific transfer function of the form F(z) = -az + 1 - az⁻¹, where 'a' is the periodicity factor.

U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524 - "Perceptual Weighting Device and Method for Efficient Coding of Wideband Signals"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent explains that standard perceptual weighting filters used in speech coders were not well-suited for wideband signals due to their wider dynamic range (’524 Patent, col. 2:15-24). These prior art filters had difficulty modeling both the vocal tract resonances ("formant structure") and the overall frequency slope ("spectral tilt") at the same time (’524 Patent, col. 2:50-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system that first applies a "preemphasis filter" to the input signal to enhance its high-frequency content before analysis (’524 Patent, Fig. 1). It then uses a modified perceptual weighting filter that has a "fixed denominator," a structure which the patent asserts "substantially decouples the formant weighting from the tilt" (’524 Patent, col. 10:15-20).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a more efficient and accurate method for perceptual weighting in wideband codecs, contributing to higher quality audio compression at low bit rates (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts representative claim 4, which depends from independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶63).
  • The essential elements of asserted claim 4 are:
    • A perceptual weighting device for producing a perceptually weighted signal from a wideband speech signal.
    • It comprises a "signal preemphasis filter" to produce a preemphasised signal.
    • It comprises a "synthesis filter calculator" that operates on the preemphasised signal to produce filter coefficients.
    • It comprises a "perceptual weighting filter" that uses the preemphasised signal and the filter coefficients, and has a "transfer function with fixed denominator."
    • This structure results in the weighting of the signal's "formant region" being "substantially decoupled from a spectral tilt."
    • The claim further specifies the mathematical forms for the transfer functions of the preemphasis filter and the perceptual weighting filter.

U.S. Patent No. 7,151,802 - "High Frequency Content Recovering Method and Device for Over-Sampled Synthesized Wideband Signal"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the loss of high-frequency audio content that occurs when a signal is down-sampled for efficient encoding and transmission (Compl. ¶81). The invention describes a decoder-side solution where a random noise sequence is generated, spectrally shaped using transmitted filter coefficients, and then injected into the up-sampled signal to reconstruct a full-spectrum, more natural-sounding wideband signal ('802 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Representative claim 1 (Compl. ¶80).
  • Accused Features: The EVS Codec in the accused products, which allegedly includes a decoder with a high-frequency content recovery device that performs the claimed steps of generating, shaping, and injecting noise to restore lost high-frequency content (Compl. ¶85-87).

U.S. Patent No. 7,260,521 - "Method and Device for Adaptive Bandwidth Pitch Search in Coding Wideband Signals"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge that the periodic, harmonic structure of voiced speech does not always extend across the full spectrum in wideband signals (’521 Patent, col. 11:35-44). The invention provides a pitch analysis device that evaluates at least two different "signal paths" to determine the best pitch parameters. At least one of these paths applies a filter to the pitch information, and the device selects the path that results in the lowest prediction error, thereby adapting the pitch analysis to the signal's characteristics (Compl. ¶97).
  • Asserted Claims: Representative claim 2 (Compl. ¶96).
  • Accused Features: The pitch analysis functionality within the EVS Codec, which allegedly uses at least two signal paths (one with a filter, one without) and selects the path with the lowest prediction error to determine pitch parameters (Compl. ¶103-106).

U.S. Patent No. 7,191,123 - "Gain-Smoothing in Wideband Speech and Audio Signal Decoder"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent aims to improve decoder performance when background noise is present in a signal, which can cause undesirable fluctuations in output energy (’123 Patent, col. 2:25-30). The invention describes a decoder that "smoothes" the gain applied to a component of the excitation signal. It calculates this smoothing gain based on factors indicative of signal stability and voicing, which reduces energy fluctuations during periods of stationary noise and improves perceived quality (Compl. ¶116).
  • Asserted Claims: Representative claim 102 (Compl. ¶115).
  • Accused Features: The decoder in the EVS Codec, which is alleged to include means for calculating a smoothing gain based on a voicing factor and using it to amplify a codevector, thereby performing the claimed gain-smoothing function (Compl. ¶121-124).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "LG EVS Products," which includes any LG mobile device, such as smartphones and tablets, that contains the Enhanced Voice Services (EVS) Codec (Compl. ¶44-45). The complaint lists numerous specific LG device models (e.g., LG V30, LG G7 ThinQ) and associated chipsets (e.g., Qualcomm Snapdragon, MediaTek Helio) (Compl. ¶45).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused functionality is the implementation of the 3GPP EVS Standard, which is used to provide high-definition voice services (marketed as "HD Voice+" or "Ultra HD Voice") over modern wireless networks like LTE (Compl. ¶25, ¶27, ¶32). The complaint alleges that by complying with the EVS Standard, the accused products necessarily practice the patented technologies (Compl. ¶50). The EVS Codec is presented as a commercially important technology that enables a premium user experience in the mobile communications market (Compl. ¶30, ¶32).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

6,795,805 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1 as modified by Dependent Claim 3) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a factor generator for calculating a periodicity factor related to the wideband speech signal The EVS Standard comprises a factor generator for calculating a periodicity factor. ¶53 col. 14:40-44
an innovation filter for filtering the innovative codevector...to thereby reduce energy of a low frequency portion...and enhance periodicity of a low frequency portion of the excitation signal The EVS Standard comprises an innovation filter that filters the innovative codevector to reduce its low-frequency energy and enhance the excitation signal's low-frequency periodicity. ¶53 col. 14:7-31
wherein the innovation filter has a transfer function of the form F(z) = -az + 1 - az⁻¹ where a is a periodicity factor derived from a level of periodicity of the excitation signal In the EVS Standard, the innovation filter has a transfer function of the form F(z) = -az + 1 – az⁻¹, where 'a' is a periodicity factor derived from the excitation signal's periodicity level. ¶54 col. 14:35-39
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether practicing the EVS Standard, as alleged, is sufficient to meet every limitation of the claim. A defendant might argue that the standard can be implemented in a non-infringing manner or that its specific implementation differs from the standard's requirements.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the "periodicity factor" as calculated in the EVS Standard (Compl. ¶53) corresponds in both function and derivation to the factor required by the claim, which must be "derived from a level of periodicity of the excitation signal" ('805 Patent, claim 3).

6,807,524 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1 as modified by Dependent Claim 4) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a signal preemphasis filter responsive to the wideband speech signal for enhancing a high frequency content...to thereby produce a preemphasised signal The EVS Standard comprises a signal preemphasis filter that enhances the high-frequency content of the wideband speech signal. ¶69 col. 9:41-48
a synthesis filter calculator responsive to said preemphasised signal for producing synthesis filter coefficients The EVS Standard includes a calculator that produces synthesis filter coefficients from the preemphasised signal. ¶69 col. 9:11-14
a perceptual weighting filter...having a transfer function with fixed denominator whereby weighting of said wideband speech signal in a formant region is substantially decoupled from a spectral tilt The EVS Standard comprises a perceptual weighting filter with a fixed denominator, which decouples the weighting of the formant region from the spectral tilt. ¶69 col. 10:15-20
wherein said signal preemphasis filter has a transfer function of the form P(z) = 1 - µz⁻¹... In the EVS Standard, the preemphasis filter has the transfer function P(z) = 1 – µz⁻¹, where µ is a factor between 0 and 1. ¶70 col. 9:43-43
and said perceptual weighting filter has a transfer function of the form W(z) = A(z/γ₁)/(1 - γ₂z⁻¹)... In the EVS Standard, the perceptual weighting filter has the transfer function W(z) = A(z/γ₁)/(1 – γ₂z⁻¹), with γ₁ and γ₂ as weighting control values. ¶71 col. 10:16-17
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The term of degree "substantially decoupled" will likely be a key point of contention. The dispute may turn on whether the accused filter's performance meets the level of decoupling required by the claim, and whether this term is sufficiently definite.
    • Technical Questions: A factual question may arise as to whether the specific filter coefficients and control values (µ, γ₁, γ₂) used in Defendant's implementation fall within the ranges specified by the claims and as described in the EVS Standard.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "periodicity factor" (’805 Patent, claim 3)
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the operation of the claimed "innovation filter" is defined by this factor. The infringement dispute may focus on whether the specific value calculated and used within the accused EVS codec meets the claim's requirement that it be "derived from a level of periodicity of the excitation signal."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses multiple methods for calculating the periodicity factor, including one based on the ratio of pitch contribution to total excitation energy (Method 1) and another based on the relative energies of the pitch and innovative codevectors (Method 2) (’805 Patent, col. 14:45-15:23). This may support a construction that is not limited to a single formula but rather covers the function of quantifying periodicity.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific exemplary equations for the factor 'a' (e.g., a = qRp and a = 0.125(1+rᵥ)) (’805 Patent, col. 15:1; col. 15:31). A party may argue that these specific mathematical relationships define the scope of the term.
  • The Term: "substantially decoupled" (’524 Patent, claim 4)
  • Context and Importance: This term describes the core technical advantage of the invention—separating the shaping of formants from the shaping of spectral tilt. Practitioners may focus on this term because its indefinite nature makes it a likely target for both non-infringement and invalidity arguments. The outcome of the case could depend on whether the court construes this term broadly or narrowly.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent links this "decoupling" directly to the claimed structure: using a pre-emphasis filter before LP analysis combined with a perceptual weighting filter having a "fixed denominator" (’524 Patent, col. 10:43-52). This may support an argument that any device using this structure inherently achieves the claimed decoupling.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not provide a quantitative metric or objective standard for what level of separation qualifies as "substantially decoupled." A party may argue that the term implies a very high degree of separation that the accused device does not achieve, or that the lack of an objective standard renders the claim indefinite.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all five patents-in-suit. It alleges inducement is based on Defendant marketing and selling products with user manuals and advertising that encourage use of the EVS codec functionality (Compl. ¶55, ¶72). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the EVS Codec has no substantial non-infringing uses and was especially made to comply with the infringing standard (Compl. ¶55, ¶72).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. This knowledge is purportedly based on a prior patent litigation between the parties involving the same patents, public information regarding the patents' relationship to the EVS standard, and related litigation in Germany (Compl. ¶37-38). The complaint further alleges that the patent owner explicitly notified Defendant that the EVS Codec infringes the patents-in-suit before the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶38).

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

  • A core issue will be one of standards-based infringement: does compliance with the 3GPP EVS Standard, as alleged, necessarily require the practice of every limitation of the asserted claims? The case will likely require a meticulous comparison of the standard's technical specifications against the specific language of the patent claims.
  • A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms of degree, such as "substantially decoupled" (’524 Patent), be construed with sufficient clarity to support a finding of infringement, or will they be found indefinite? The court's construction of such terms will be critical in defining the boundaries of the patented technology.
  • The case also presents a central question of FRAND obligations and damages: given the patents' alleged essentiality to the EVS standard and the parties' prior licensing negotiations, a key dispute will be whether Defendant is an "unwilling licensee," which would significantly impact the availability of injunctive relief and the methodology for calculating monetary damages.