DCT
1:24-cv-07646
TP Link Systems Inc v. InnoMemory LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: TP-Link Systems Inc. (California)
- Defendant: InnoMemory, LLC (Texas, with a principal place of business in New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
- Case Identification: TP-Link Systems Inc. v. InnoMemory, LLC, 1:24-cv-07646, S.D.N.Y., 10/08/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff TP-Link alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant InnoMemory maintains its principal place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its AC1200 Wi-Fi router does not infringe Defendant's patent related to reducing power consumption during memory refresh operations.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for selectively refreshing portions of a computer's memory to conserve power, a feature particularly relevant for battery-operated electronics.
- Key Procedural History: This action follows a patent infringement complaint filed by InnoMemory in the Eastern District of Texas against a "non-existent company" that InnoMemory named "TP-LINK Technology Co., Ltd." The complaint alleges InnoMemory is a patent assertion entity that has filed over fifty lawsuits asserting the same patent since 2022. Plaintiff asserts that InnoMemory's prior Texas lawsuit was an attempt to avoid proper venue requirements.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-03-04 | ’960 Patent Priority Date |
| 2006-06-06 | ’960 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-11-30 | ’960 Patent assigned to InnoMemory, LLC |
| 2022-03-04 | ’960 Patent Expiration Date |
| 2024-08-19 | InnoMemory files suit in E.D. Tex. against "TP-LINK Technology Co., Ltd." |
| 2024-10-08 | TP-Link Systems Inc. files this Declaratory Judgment Complaint |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,057,960 - "Method and Architecture for Reducing the Power Consumption for Memory Devices in Refresh Operations," issued June 6, 2006
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of high power consumption in conventional dynamic random access memories (DRAMs) during standby mode (Compl. ¶30). Conventional devices refresh all memory cells periodically to prevent data loss, which consumes significant power even if only a small portion of the memory holds critical data that needs to be retained ('960 Patent, col. 1:36-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and architecture to reduce power consumption by refreshing only specific, selected sections of the memory array while leaving the support circuits for unselected sections inactive ('960 Patent, col. 2:49-54). This is achieved by controlling background operations (like refresh) in each memory section using control signals that are generated in response to a "programmable address signal," allowing for independent and simultaneous operations in different sections of the memory array ('960 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶30). The complaint references Figure 1 of the patent as an example of a "conventional memory device" that the invention seeks to improve upon (Compl. ¶31).
- Technical Importance: This approach was designed to lower standby power current, which is critical for extending the battery life of portable electronic devices such as mobile telephones ('960 Patent, col. 1:31-35, col. 2:32-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for all claims, with a focus on independent claims 1, 9, 10, 25, 26, and 27 (Compl. ¶48-54).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- A method for reducing power consumption during background operations in a memory array with a plurality of sections, comprising:
- controlling said background operations in each of said plurality of sections...in response to one or more control signals, wherein said one or more control signals are generated in response to a programmable address signal
- said background operations can be enabled simultaneously in two or more of said plurality of sections independently of any other section
- presenting said one or more control signals and one or more decoded address signals to one or more periphery array circuits of said plurality of sections
- Independent Claim 10 (Apparatus):
- An apparatus comprising a memory array with sections and a control circuit.
- The control circuit is configured to present control and decoded address signals to the periphery array circuitry.
- The control signals are generated in response to a programmable address signal.
- A background operation is controlled in each section in response to the control signals.
- The background operation can be enabled simultaneously in two or more sections independently of any other section.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- TP-Link AC1200 Gigabit Smart WiFi Router ("AC1200") (Compl. ¶4). A picture of the AC1200 router is provided in the complaint to identify the product at issue (Compl. p. 13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The AC1200 is a wireless router that provides a Wi-Fi network for a home or office by creating and communicating with the network and transmitting information to the internet (Compl. ¶36). The complaint alleges the product is highly praised, has received industry awards, and has been recognized by publications like The New York Times and PC Magazine (Compl. ¶37). The complaint asserts that the sole basis for InnoMemory's infringement allegation is the mistaken belief that the AC1200 router uses DDR4 memory, an assertion TP-Link denies (Compl. ¶39-40). The complaint includes a diagram to illustrate the actual supply chain for the AC1200 product sold in the U.S. market, distinguishing it from a separate, unaffiliated Chinese entity (Compl. ¶24, p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Its analysis rebuts infringement allegations presumably made by InnoMemory in pre-suit communications or its Texas complaint. The core of TP-Link's argument is twofold: (1) the AC1200 router does not use the DDR4 memory that is the sole basis of the infringement allegation, and (2) even if it did, the DDR4 standard does not meet the limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶39, 41).
’960 Patent Infringement Allegations (as rebutted in the Complaint for Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (based on DDR4 Standard) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| controlling said background operations...wherein said one or more control signals are generated in response to a programmable address signal | The complaint alleges InnoMemory's theory relies on the DDR4 standard's Low-Power Auto Self-Refresh (LPASR) bits (A6 and A7). TP-Link argues these are not "programmable address signals" because they determine the mode of self-refresh based on temperature, not memory addresses. A table from the DDR4 standard is presented to show that bits A6 and A7 select between manual and automatic modes for different temperature ranges (Compl. p. 15). | ¶42-43 | col. 11:48-50 |
| said background operations can be enabled simultaneously in two or more of said plurality of sections independently of any other section | The complaint asserts that the DDR4 standard requires the self-refresh operation to be applied to "all [memory] banks" simultaneously. It cites DDR4 standard language stating that "All banks of the SDRAM must be precharged and idle" before a refresh command and "all banks of the SDRAM will be in the precharged (idle) state" after completion. | ¶44 | col. 11:50-53 |
| presenting said one or more control signals...to one or more periphery array circuits | The complaint states that InnoMemory fails to identify any specific "control signals" in the DDR4 standard that meet the claim limitations, particularly signals generated "in response to a programmable address signal." | ¶45 | col. 11:54-58 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question: A threshold factual dispute is whether the accused AC1200 router uses DDR4 memory. The complaint alleges that InnoMemory's belief is based on an incorrect third-party Amazon listing and that the product does not, in fact, use DDR4 memory (Compl. ¶39-40).
- Scope Question: A central claim construction dispute concerns the meaning of "programmable address signal." The case may turn on whether this term can be interpreted to cover signals that select an operational mode (e.g., based on temperature), as allegedly present in the DDR4 standard, or if it is limited to signals that specify a memory block address for targeted refreshing, as described in the patent's embodiments ('960 Patent, col. 5:1-10).
- Technical Question: Does the DDR4 standard's self-refresh operation, which the complaint alleges applies to "all banks" simultaneously, satisfy the claim requirement that sections be enabled "independently"? This raises the question of whether "independently" requires the ability to refresh a subset of sections while leaving others dormant.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "programmable address signal"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because TP-Link's primary technical non-infringement argument is that the accused DDR4 standard lacks any such signal. The complaint alleges InnoMemory equates this term with the DDR4 standard's LPASR bits, which select temperature-based operating modes (Compl. ¶42). The viability of the infringement theory may depend entirely on whether those mode-selection bits can be construed as a "programmable address signal."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined. A party might argue that any programmable signal that ultimately results in the control of memory sections, even indirectly, falls within its plain meaning.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly links this concept to selecting which sections to refresh. The specification describes a "refresh address register" storing a "block address" to control which portion of an array is refreshed ('960 Patent, col. 2:1-6, col. 8:3-4). This suggests the signal must relate to a memory address or location, not an operational mode like temperature.
The Term: "independently"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's purported power-saving advantage. TP-Link argues that the DDR4 standard's "all bank" refresh operation is the antithesis of enabling sections "independently" (Compl. ¶44). The definition of "independently" will determine whether refreshing all sections at once falls outside the claim scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "independently" merely means the control mechanism for each section is distinct, even if all are activated simultaneously in a particular mode.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification suggests "independently" implies selectivity. It describes activating support circuits for sections "being refreshed" while leaving circuits for sections "not being refreshed" inactive ('960 Patent, col. 2:51-54). Claim 1 links independence to enabling operations in "two or more...sections," which may imply that not all sections need to be enabled.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement. As a declaratory judgment action, its focus is on non-infringement by the Plaintiff. However, the complaint makes allegations regarding Defendant InnoMemory's litigation conduct, including filing over 50 "cut-and-paste lawsuits" and suing a "non-existent company" in a different district, which may form the basis for a future motion for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, as requested in the prayer for relief (Compl. ¶16, ¶19, Prayer for Relief (c)).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to center on three fundamental questions for the court:
- A dispositive factual question: Does the accused TP-Link AC1200 router actually contain the DDR4 memory upon which the infringement allegations are entirely based? A negative finding would likely end the case.
- A core definitional question: Can the claim term "programmable address signal," which the patent links to selecting memory blocks, be construed to cover the "LPASR" bits in the DDR4 standard, which select operational modes based on temperature?
- A key operational question: Does the DDR4 standard's "all bank" refresh methodology meet the claim requirement that refresh operations in memory sections be enabled "independently," or does that term require the ability to refresh a subset of sections while others remain inactive?