Stoic Ventures LLC v. Le Technology Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stoic Ventures LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Le Technology, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00062, E.D. Tex., 01/19/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant conducting substantial business in the district, committing acts of infringement in the district, and being registered with the Texas Secretary of State to conduct business in Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphone, by implementing standard LTE wireless protocols, infringes a patent related to efficiently managing data transmission timers.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for managing data packet transmission and acknowledgement in wireless communication systems to reduce computational overhead and resource usage in a transceiver.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of an earlier patent in its family.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,356,763, Timer Management in Wireless Communication, issued May 31, 2016.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes prior art wireless communication protocols, such as WiMAX, that use error-control methods requiring a large number of timers to manage the transmission and re-transmission of individual data fragments. This approach is described as "expensive, both in terms of data memory and the operation of the timers" (’763 Patent, col. 2:26-33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more efficient method using a single timer to manage multiple data fragments for a given connection. This single timer is assigned to the un-terminated data fragment with the "lowest processing index" (i.e., the one earliest in the transmission sequence). When the processing for that fragment terminates (e.g., an acknowledgement is received), the timer is then reassigned to the next fragment in the sequence, thereby conserving system resources (’763 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:1-14; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: By reducing the number of required timers from many to one per connection, this technique sought to lower the memory and processing demands on wireless transceivers, a key design consideration for mobile devices and base stations (’763 Patent, col. 4:36-40).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A transceiver comprising a first module and a second module.
    • The first module processes a data unit according to a processing index until a predefined condition is met (e.g., timer times out or an acknowledgement is received).
    • The second module initiates a timer assigned to the data unit.
    • The timer runs until the data unit's processing is terminated.
    • The timer is then "repeatedly initiated and assigned to a next one of the data units" until all data units for the connection are processed.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The LeEco Le Pro3 Ecophone (Compl. ¶11).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the accused product is a transceiver that provides LTE connectivity (Compl. ¶12). Its infringing functionality is alleged to be its implementation of industry-standard wireless communication protocols, specifically the LTE Radio Link Control (RLC) and Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocols as defined by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges these standards dictate a method of processing data units with a timer that infringes the ’763 patent (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide detail regarding the product's market position. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

• '763 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary factual question is whether the timer management functions specified in the cited ETSI LTE standards operate in the manner required by the claims. Specifically, the court will need to determine if the LTE protocols use a single timer that is serially and "repeatedly initiated and assigned to a next one of the data units" as claimed, or if the standard specifies a different architecture (e.g., multiple concurrent timers, a single timer per connection rather than per-data unit, etc.) that does not map onto the claim limitations.
  • Scope Questions: The patent’s background focuses on the WiMAX standard (’763 Patent, col. 1:13-14). A potential issue is whether the claim terms, understood in light of a specification written with WiMAX in mind, can be properly construed to read on the accused LTE protocol, which may use similar but technically distinct mechanisms.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "module"

• Context and Importance: The claim recites a "first module" and a "second module." The construction of this term is critical because if it is deemed a generic structural term, it may have a broad scope. However, if it is construed as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), its scope would be limited to the specific algorithms or structures disclosed in the patent specification for performing the recited functions (e.g., the flowcharts in Figs. 3, 5, 6a/b). Practitioners may focus on this term because a means-plus-function construction could significantly narrow the path to proving infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "module" is not explicitly defined in the specification, which may support an argument that it should be given its ordinary meaning as a general-purpose functional unit.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily relies on flowcharts and procedural descriptions to explain the invention's operation (’763 Patent, Figs. 3, 5, 6a-b, col. 7:36-42). A party could argue that "module" is a nonce word for the functions described, triggering a means-plus-function analysis that ties the claim scope to these specific disclosed algorithms.

The Term: "repeatedly initiated and assigned to a next one of the data units"

• Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core of the purported invention—the one-by-one, serial reuse of a single timer. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused LTE protocol's timer mechanism operates in this specific sequential manner.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this language covers any system where one timer is reused for multiple data units in a connection, even if the assignment logic differs from the patent's preferred embodiment.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific sequence: the timer is assigned to the "un-terminated FR that has the lowest processing index," and upon its termination, the timer is reassigned to the "next un-terminated FR having the lowest processing index" (’763 Patent, col. 7:3-6, col. 8:36-41). This suggests a strict, ordered, one-at-a-time process that a defendant could argue is a required limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶11). It does not contain factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege that Defendant had pre- or post-suit knowledge of the ’763 patent. The prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but the complaint body lacks the specific factual allegations of egregious conduct typically required to support a claim for willful infringement (Prayer for Relief ¶C).

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

• A central issue will be one of technical interpretation: Does the timer management protocol described in the ETSI LTE standards, which the accused product allegedly implements, function in the specific sequential manner required by Claim 1? The outcome will likely depend on expert testimony regarding the operation of these complex standards.
• The case will also turn on a question of claim construction: Will the term "module" be given a broad, plain-meaning construction, or will it be limited as a means-plus-function element tied to the specific algorithms disclosed in the patent's specification? This determination will define the scope of the patent and the evidentiary burden for proving infringement.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused device uses a single timer that is "repeatedly initiated and assigned to a next one of the data units" in an ordered sequence, as opposed to using a different architecture, such as multiple timers operating concurrently, that would fall outside the claim language?