RecepTrexx LLC v. Wink Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Wink Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-03674, S.D.N.Y., 05/02/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for routing data packets in a wireless ad hoc network.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns ad hoc wireless networking, a method for creating decentralized networks often used in environments where central infrastructure is unavailable, such as military operations or emergency response.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,909,706 - "Multicast wireless ad hoc packet routing"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,909,706, “Multicast wireless ad hoc packet routing,” issued June 21, 2005.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In hierarchical organizations like the military, individuals need to communicate with others based on their specific roles (e.g., squad leader, team member) or as part of defined subgroups. Prior art ad hoc routing protocols were often designed for one-to-many multicast messages and did not efficiently support the bi-directional, role-based communications needed in such environments (’706 Patent, col. 2:36-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a tiered method for routing messages in a wireless network of LAN radios. For devices within direct range, messages are sent directly. For devices that are not in direct range but are reachable through a single intermediary device (i.e., two "hops" away), the system uses periodic update messages and role-based IP addresses to build and maintain routing tables automatically (’706 Patent, col. 4:46-54). For devices further than two hops away, the system falls back on more conventional (but modified) ad hoc routing protocols that require a route discovery process (’706 Patent, col. 5:1-8).
• Technical Importance: This tiered approach aims to optimize network traffic by handling the most common, short-range communications with a low-overhead method, reducing the need for network-wide "route discovery" messages that can cause congestion (’706 Patent, col. 2:61-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '706 Patent Claims" in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core method.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • providing at least a first, second, and third LAN radio, where the first and second are not in range of each other but both are in range of the third;
  • broadcasting a periodic update message from the first LAN radio comprising information that the second LAN radio is not within its range;
  • receiving that periodic update message with the third LAN radio;
  • determining that the first and second LAN radios are within range of the third LAN radio;
  • updating a database on the third LAN radio with route information to indicate a route between the first and second LAN radio through itself.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products in its body. It alleges infringement by "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts referenced as Exhibit 2, which is not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '706 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). This suggests the products are wireless devices capable of forming an ad hoc network and routing messages between devices that may not be in direct communication range of each other. The complaint does not provide further detail on the specific functionality or market positioning of the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an unattached document (Exhibit 2) and does not provide a narrative claim-by-claim breakdown of its infringement theory (Compl. ¶17). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The general allegation is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16).

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the language of claim 1, the infringement analysis will likely raise several technical and legal questions.

• Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products perform the specific five-step method recited in claim 1. Specifically, what evidence demonstrates that a first accused device broadcasts a "periodic update message" that explicitly contains "information that [a] second LAN radio is not within range", as required by claim 1(b)? The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.
• Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the accused system’s method for discovering neighbors and routes is functionally equivalent to the claimed method. For example, does the accused system's routing table or data structure meet the definition of a "database" being "updat[ed]... with route information to indicate a route", or does it operate on a different principle?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "periodic update message"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, as it is the mechanism for the low-overhead, two-hop routing that distinguishes the invention. The content, timing, and function of this message will be critical to determining infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties could argue that any regularly broadcast status message that allows a node to infer routes qualifies. Claim 1 itself only requires the message to contain "information that said second LAN radio is not within range of said first LAN" (’706 Patent, col. 6:57-59), which is a relatively general requirement.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this as a "periodic broadcast mode update message (PUM)" that "contains the global positioning system (GPS) location of a given LAN radio and the corresponding RBIP [Role-Based IP]" and "IP Address information revealing which LAN radios are within range" (’706 Patent, col. 4:22-28). A defendant may argue that to qualify as a "periodic update message", the accused message must contain this specific combination of information (GPS, RBIP, and a list of neighbors).

The Term: "database"

• Context and Importance: The final step of claim 1 requires "updating a database" on the intermediary radio. Whether the accused device’s data structure for storing routing information qualifies as a "database" will be a key point of dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "database" is a general one, and a plaintiff could argue it covers any organized collection of data, including simple tables or lists used for routing.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification refers to using the update message "to update internal router forwarding tables or route information databases" (’706 Patent, col. 4:39-41). A defendant might argue that the term should be limited to these specific structures, potentially excluding more dynamic or ephemeral data structures.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '706 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge. It asserts that Defendant has had "actual knowledge of infringement" since the service of the complaint and that any continued infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the Plaintiff provide evidence that the accused products perform the specific, ordered steps of the asserted method claim? In particular, discovery will likely focus on the precise content of the accused system’s network broadcast messages to determine if they meet the "periodic update message" limitation of claim 1.

2. The case may also turn on a question of claim construction: How narrowly will the court define the term "periodic update message"? A construction requiring the specific contents described in the preferred embodiment (e.g., GPS and Role-Based IP data) could present a higher bar for proving infringement than a broader construction covering any periodic message from which network topology can be inferred.

3. A final key question will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused system's method for establishing routes between non-adjacent devices operate on the same principle as the claimed invention, or does it rely on a different, non-infringing routing protocol that achieves a similar result through a distinct technical pathway?