DCT
2:17-cv-00045
Traxcell Tech LLC v. Samsung Electronics America Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Traxcell Technologies, LLC. (Texas)
- Defendant: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey & Schwaller, LLP; Hicks Thomas, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00045, E.D. Tex., 01/12/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant conducts substantial business in the district, a portion of the alleged infringement occurred there, and Defendant derives substantial revenue from goods and services provided in Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless network management products and services infringe two patents related to using the geographic location of mobile devices to dynamically monitor and tune network performance.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the optimization of wireless cellular networks by using device location and performance data as inputs for automated adjustments, aiming to improve service quality and manage network load.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the application for the ’284 Patent was cited by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during the prosecution of a Samsung patent application, which may be used to support an allegation of pre-suit knowledge of that patent. For the ’320 Patent, knowledge is alleged as of the date of service of the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-01-30 | Earliest Priority Date for ’284 and ’320 Patents |
| 2015-03-10 | U.S. Patent No. 8,977,284 Issues |
| 2016-11-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,510,320 Issues |
| 2017-01-12 | Complaint Filed |
| 2019-05-07 | Certificate of Correction issues for U.S. Patent No. 8,977,284 |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,510,320 - "Machine for Providing a Dynamic Database of Geographic Location Information for a Plurality of Wireless Devices and Process for Making Same"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,510,320 (“the ’320 Patent”), entitled “Machine for Providing a Dynamic Database of Geographic Location Information for a Plurality of Wireless Devices and Process for Making Same,” issued November 29, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of managing wireless network performance and preventing overload situations, which is complicated by the mobility of users and environmental factors that affect signal quality (’320 Patent, col. 2:31-41, col. 37:1-8).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "tuning system" that routinely locates mobile devices on the network, collects performance data associated with those locations, and compares it to expected performance data to determine and suggest "corrective action" for the network, such as adjusting radio tower parameters (’320 Patent, Abstract; col. 129:10-22). This creates a dynamic feedback loop to optimize the network based on real-time conditions.
- Technical Importance: This technology allows network operators to automate the process of diagnosing problems and optimizing network performance based on live data, which the patent suggests is a more efficient alternative to manual analysis and fieldwork by engineers (’320 Patent, col. 7:1-3).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-6 (Compl. ¶8). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- A system with a radio-frequency transceiver for communicating with a mobile wireless device.
- A first computer configured to locate the device, generate a location indication, and store performance data of the connection along with the location.
- The first computer references the performance data against expected performance data to determine a "suggested corrective action."
- The system includes a second computer, and the first computer uses an "access flag" to grant or deny the second computer access to the location indication.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶8).
U.S. Patent No. 8,977,284 - "Machine for Providing a Dynamic Database of Geographic Location Information for a Plurality of Wireless Devices and Process for Making Same"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,977,284 (“the ’284 Patent”), entitled “Machine for Providing a Dynamic Database of Geographic Location Information for a Plurality of Wireless Devices and Process for Making Same,” issued March 10, 2015.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a centralized, universal system to obtain and use wireless device location data for various applications, including network tuning, without requiring costly and inefficient manual processes or new hardware on the device itself (’284 Patent, col. 2:6-23; col. 7:14-22).
- The Patented Solution: The patented invention describes a wireless network with a computer programmed to locate wireless devices, forecast their performance based on known parameters, and routinely store performance data with corresponding locations (’284 Patent, col. 125:19-28). The system uses this data, along with error codes from radio towers, to "selectively suggest a corrective action" to improve communication (’284 Patent, col. 126:40-50).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a pro-active network tuning system that can diagnose and correct problems, thereby improving service quality for wireless devices based on their specific locations and conditions (’284 Patent, col. 37:1-8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1 and 4 (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1, as corrected, is representative.
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 (as corrected) include:
- A wireless network with at least two wireless devices.
- A first computer programmed to locate at least one of the wireless devices and forecast its performance.
- The computer routinely stores performance data and a corresponding location for at least one device in a memory.
- A radio tower receives an error code based on the device's operation.
- The first computer receives the error code and selectively suggests a corrective action for the radio tower to improve communication.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "Samsung's Smart SON, Smart Scheduler, and CognitiV Analytics and related servers, computers, storage devices, and wireless-network components" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶8, 13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these are components and services for wireless networks that "use identified locations of wireless devices to perform adjustments" (Compl. ¶¶8, 13). The functionality described is for the automated management and optimization of wireless network performance. The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused products or any allegations regarding their specific market position beyond their sale and use throughout the U.S. (Compl. ¶2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint does not contain claim charts; the following tables summarize the narrative infringement allegations against the representative independent claim of each patent.
’320 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first computer coupled to the at least one radio-frequency transceiver, said first computer is configured to locate the at least one mobile wireless device and generate an indication of location... | Samsung's systems, including Smart SON, Smart Scheduler, and CognitiV Analytics, are alleged to use identified locations of wireless devices. | ¶8 | col. 18:40-45 |
| wherein the first computer is to receive and store performance data of connections between the at least one mobile wireless device and the radio-frequency transceiver along with the indication of location... | Samsung's systems are alleged to use identified locations of wireless devices to perform adjustments, which implies the use of performance data tied to location. | ¶8 | col. 17:20-31 |
| wherein the first computer references the performance data to expected performance data and determines at least one suggested corrective action in response to a difference... | Samsung's systems are alleged to perform adjustments based on the identified locations. | ¶8 | col. 37:1-8 |
| and a second computer coupled in communication with the first computer, wherein the first computer...sets an access flag...and...provides access to the indication of location to the second computer if the access flag is set... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶8 | col. 18:46-52 |
’284 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, as corrected) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first computer programmed to perform the steps of: 1) locating at least one of said at least two wireless devices on said wireless network... | Samsung's systems are alleged to use identified locations of wireless devices. | ¶13 | col. 29:9-13 |
| and forecasting performance of said at least one wireless device with said wireless network based on known parameters; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | ¶13 | col. 38:52-58 |
| 2) routinely storing performance data and a corresponding location for at least one wireless device in a memory; | The allegation that the systems use location to perform adjustments implies the storage and use of location-based performance data. | ¶13 | col. 29:14-16 |
| said radio tower receives an error code based upon operation of said at least one wireless device; and, said first computer is further programmed to...receive said error code...and, selectively suggest a corrective action for said radio tower... | Samsung's systems are alleged to "perform adjustments," which the plaintiff maps to the claim's requirement of suggesting corrective actions. | ¶13 | col. 39:20-40 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the general allegation that Samsung's products "perform adjustments" (Compl. ¶¶8, 13) is sufficient to meet the specific claim limitations. For the ’320 Patent, this includes comparing performance data to "expected performance data." For the ’284 Patent, this includes "forecasting performance" and suggesting actions in response to a specific "error code."
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not allege any facts corresponding to the "second computer" and "access flag" limitations of ’320 Patent Claim 1. This raises a significant question of whether the accused systems contain such a structure or a technical equivalent. Similarly, it is unclear what evidence will show that Samsung's systems perform "forecasting" as required by the ’284 Patent, rather than simply reacting to current network conditions.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "access flag" ('320 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term appears in a limitation describing a two-computer architecture where access to location data is controlled by setting a flag. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides no facts alleging such a specific mechanism in the accused systems, making its interpretation critical to the infringement analysis for Claim 1 of the ’320 Patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses a "privacy flag" that can be set to prevent a user's location from being monitored, which could be argued as a related, functional concept of controlling access to data based on a set condition (’320 Patent, col. 23:1-10).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a specific sequence: "sets an access flag," "if the access flag is set," and "if no access flag is set," which may support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, programmable binary state rather than a general permissions or policy-based system (’320 Patent, col. 129:30-37).
The Term: "forecasting performance" ('284 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term requires the accused system to have a predictive capability, not just a reactive one. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether the "adjustments" performed by Samsung's products are based on a prediction of future network states or merely a response to current or past data.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's emphasis on creating a "pro-active" tuning system could support an argument that any non-reactive, trend-based analysis constitutes "forecasting" (’284 Patent, col. 37:1-8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes complex "fault diagnosis/correction software" that applies "standard error detecting techniques" and analyzes "trend data" (’284 Patent, Fig. 38-A; col. 39:20-30). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific algorithmic or modeling-based prediction of future performance.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Samsung induces infringement by "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers)" on how to use the accused products and services in a way that infringes both patents (Compl. ¶¶9, 14).
- Willful Infringement: For the ’320 Patent, the complaint alleges knowledge only from the date of service of the complaint, supporting a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶9). For the ’284 Patent, the complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge, asserting that Samsung knew of the patent because its underlying application was cited by the USPTO during the prosecution of one of Samsung's own patent applications (Compl. ¶14).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: The complaint's allegations are high-level. The case will likely depend on whether discovery shows that Samsung’s accused products, in their actual operation, implement the specific and detailed steps recited in the asserted claims, such as the two-computer "access flag" architecture of the ’320 Patent or the "forecasting performance" step of the ’284 Patent.
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: The dispute may turn on whether broad terms like "perform adjustments" can meet more specific claim limitations. A central question for the court will be how to construe terms like "forecasting performance" and "access flag," as the scope of these terms could be dispositive of infringement.
- A third pivotal question will concern willfulness: For the ’284 Patent, the allegation of pre-suit knowledge based on a citation in Samsung's own patent prosecution file raises the question of whether this act is sufficient to establish the subjective intent required for willful infringement under Halo, potentially exposing the defendant to enhanced damages.