DCT
1:22-cv-01718
Stormborn Tech LLC v. Sigmatek US Automation Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Sigmatek U.S. Automation, Inc. (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01718, N.D. Ohio, 09/26/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Ohio because the Defendant is incorporated in this District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless communication solutions infringe a patent related to dynamically adjusting data transmission rates based on receiver feedback.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns adaptive data rate control in spread-spectrum communication systems, a method used to maintain signal quality and efficiency in environments with variable interference.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in a prior case involving the same patent, Stormborn Tech LLC v. Topcon Positioning Systems Inc, a court held that representative Claim 11 was not directed to an abstract idea and provided a specific technological solution, potentially addressing patent eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-06-14 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. RE44,199 |
| 2013-05-07 | U.S. Patent No. RE44,199 Issues |
| 2020-03-17 | Court Order in Stormborn v. TopCon regarding patent eligibility |
| 2022-09-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. RE44,199, "Variable throughput reduction communications system and method," issued May 7, 2013.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: In spread-spectrum wireless systems, a remote station near the edge of a cell can experience significant interference from adjacent cells, which degrades the signal and increases error rates (’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Prior methods to combat this, such as increasing processing gain, came at the cost of reducing the data rate and requiring changes to the receiver's architecture (’199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a closed-loop feedback system where a receiver actively manages the data rate of a transmitter. The receiver decodes incoming signals, calculates an error rate (referred to as a "syndrome"), and uses a "command processor" to generate a "data-rate control signal" based on this error rate (’199 Patent, col. 2:62-67). This control signal is sent back to the transmitter, which then adjusts its data rate to maintain a desired level of signal quality, for instance by reallocating how data is sent across multiple parallel channels (’199 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 4:61-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows a communication system to dynamically adapt to changing channel conditions, improving reliability and efficiency without requiring static, over-engineered hardware designed for worst-case scenarios.
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent claims 11 (a receiver) and 13 (a method) (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 20).
- Independent Claim 11 (receiver) includes:
- demodulator circuitry for detecting transmitted signals.
- decoder circuitry for FEC (Forward Error Correction) decoding and de-interleaving, providing multiple decoded channels, each having an error rate.
- command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels for generating a data-rate control signal to the transmitter.
- transmitting circuitry for sending the control signal back to the transmitter.
- multiplexer circuitry for combining the decoded channels into a single data stream.
- Independent Claim 13 (method) includes:
- detecting the transmitted signals.
- FEC decoding and de-interleaving to provide decoded channels with an error rate.
- using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate to generate a data-rate control signal for the transmitter.
- transmitting the control signal back to the transmitter.
- multiplexing the decoded channels into a received data stream.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claim 14, which adds the limitation that the decoding step includes decoding FEC codes of different rates (Compl. ¶ 21).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint names the Sigmatek "RAR 2405 and RAR2415" solutions as the "Accused Product" (Compl. ¶ 56).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products are solutions that "practice a method for recovering wireless data" (Compl. ¶ 56). The pleading does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the Accused Products. Instead, it alleges in a conclusory manner that the products perform each step of the asserted claims, referencing an external claim chart (Exhibit C) that was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 57-63). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not include its referenced claim chart exhibit. The following table summarizes the infringement theory for Claim 13 as constructed from the narrative allegations in paragraphs 57-63 of the complaint.
RE44,199 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for recovering wireless data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality of different subchannel signals transmitted over a wireless channel, comprising the steps of: | The complaint alleges the Accused Product practices a method for recovering wireless data conveyed by sub-channel signals. | ¶57 | col. 11:47-51 |
| detecting the transmitted signals in a plurality of demodulated channels; | The complaint alleges the Accused Product practices detecting transmitted signals in a plurality of demodulated channels. | ¶58 | col. 11:52-53 |
| FEC decoding and de-interleaving the plurality of demodulated channels, providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate; | The complaint alleges the Accused Product practices FEC decoding and de-interleaving the demodulated channels, which results in decoded channels each having an error rate. | ¶59 | col. 11:54-57 |
| using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels to generate a data-rate control signal to produce a desired data rate to be sent by the data symbol transmitter of the signals, | The complaint alleges the Accused Product uses command processor circuitry that is responsive to the error rate of decoded channels to generate a data-rate control signal for the transmitter. | ¶60 | col. 11:58-62 |
| transmitting the error rate dependent data-rate control signal back to the data symbol transmitter; and | The complaint alleges the Accused Product practices transmitting the error rate dependent data-rate control signal back to the transmitter. | ¶61 | col. 11:63-65 |
| multiplexing the multiplicity of decoded channels into a single stream of received data. | The complaint alleges the Accused Product practices multiplexing the decoded channels into a single stream of data. | ¶62 | col. 12:1-3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question will be whether the Accused Products actually perform the closed-loop feedback recited in the claims. The complaint provides no evidence that the Sigmatek system (1) calculates an "error rate" specifically from "FEC decoding," (2) uses a "command processor" responsive to that specific metric, and (3) transmits a "data-rate control signal" back to the transmitter to control its operation.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of "error rate." Does this term require a specific metric, such as the "syndrome" described in the patent (USRE044199E1, col. 2:57-62), or could it read on more general channel quality indicators (CQI) common in modern wireless systems?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels"
Context and Importance: This term is the inventive core of the claims, defining the specific feedback mechanism. Its construction will determine whether the patent covers only systems using the particular error feedback method disclosed, or a broader range of adaptive communication technologies. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegations are conclusory, suggesting the actual mechanism in the accused product may differ from the patent's specific teachings.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language uses the general term "error rate" without explicitly limiting it to the "syndrome signal" mentioned in the detailed description. A party could argue this term should encompass any metric reflecting the rate of errors in the decoded data.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently links the command processor's function to a "syndrome signal" generated by "FEC decoders" (’199 Patent, col. 2:57-62; col. 8:8-14). The patent summary describes the system as determining a desired data rate "in response to the syndrome signal" (’199 Patent, col. 2:62-63). This could support an interpretation limiting the "error rate" to this specific, explicitly disclosed mechanism.
The Term: "data-rate control signal"
Context and Importance: This term defines the output of the command processor and the input to the transmitter. The nature of this "signal" is critical to infringement. If it must be an explicit command (e.g., "set rate to X"), the claim is narrower than if it could be an implicit indicator of channel quality from which the transmitter infers a rate.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the signal "to produce a desired data rate," which could be read to include any signal that has the effect of controlling the data rate, even indirectly.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes generating a "data-rate command signal having the desired data rate" (’199 Patent, col. 4:63-65), which suggests a more direct instruction. Claim 11 also describes the signal as "controlling operation of circuitry at the transmitter," which may imply a direct command rather than an informational metric.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes boilerplate allegations of induced and contributory infringement "upon information and belief," asserting that Defendant encourages infringement and that the accused products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 69-70). No specific facts supporting these allegations are provided.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶ 67). This allegation, if proven, could only support a finding of post-filing willfulness, as no pre-suit knowledge is alleged. The prayer for relief includes a request for enhanced damages (Compl. p. 14, ¶f).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the accused Sigmatek system in fact implement the specific closed-loop feedback architecture required by the claims? The case will likely depend on discovery revealing whether the accused products generate a control signal based on an "error rate" derived from "FEC decoding" and transmit that signal back to the transmitter to control its data rate.
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate", which the patent repeatedly ties to an "FEC syndrome signal," be construed broadly enough to cover other, more common forms of channel quality feedback used in modern wireless systems?
- A third question will be one of proof: Given the conclusory nature of the infringement allegations and the absence of any technical evidence in the complaint, a key challenge for the Plaintiff will be to develop factual support for its theory that the accused products function in the specific manner recited by the patent claims.