DCT

2:17-cv-00123

Optis Wireless Technology LLC v. Huawei Device Shenzhen Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00123, E.D. Tex., 02/10/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district, is subject to personal jurisdiction, and Defendant Huawei Device USA, Inc. maintains its principal place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile devices, such as smartphones and tablets, that comply with the 4G LTE wireless standard and/or are capable of decoding picture and audio data, infringe five U.S. patents.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to fundamental aspects of modern mobile communications, including error correction and channel quality reporting for the Long Term Evolution (LTE) standard, and efficient video compression under the H.264/AVC standard.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that four of the five patents-in-suit are essential to practicing the LTE standard and that Plaintiff is obligated to license them on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Plaintiff alleges it engaged in licensing negotiations with Defendant for nearly three years, beginning in April 2014 and including at least ten face-to-face meetings, before filing suit. The complaint includes a count for declaratory judgment that Plaintiff has complied with its FRAND obligations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-12-10 ’216 Patent Priority Date
2002-04-15 ’238 Patent Priority Date
2003-06-12 ’569 Patent Priority Date
2003-08-05 ’216 Patent Issue Date
2004-04-30 ’851 Patent Priority Date
2007-12-20 ’284 Patent Priority Date
2009-01-01 Ericsson (original assignee) declares '216 patent essential to LTE standard (approx. date)
2010-08-03 ’238 Patent Issue Date
2011-05-10 ’851 Patent Issue Date
2012-06-26 ’569 Patent Issue Date
2013-02-26 ’284 Patent Issue Date
2014-04-01 Plaintiff initiates licensing correspondence with Defendant (approx. date)
2014-07-18 Defendant allegedly receives actual notice of Patents-in-Suit
2017-02-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,769,238 - "Picture Coding Method and Picture Decoding Method"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,769,238, “Picture Coding Method and Picture Decoding Method,” issued August 3, 2010 (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of inefficient video compression when using a single, fixed variable-length coding (VLC) table, noting that coding efficiency can differ greatly depending on the quality of the picture being coded (’238 Patent, col. 1:40-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to improve coding efficiency by adaptively selecting the optimal VLC table for encoding or decoding a given block of a picture. It does this by calculating a "predictive value" based on the number of non-zero transform coefficients in neighboring, previously processed blocks and using that value to select the most appropriate table from a plurality of available tables (’238 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-11).
  • Technical Importance: This adaptive approach allows a video codec to apply more efficient compression tailored to the local complexity of the image, which is a critical feature for versatile video standards like H.264/AVC that must operate across a wide range of devices and network conditions (Compl. ¶44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A receiving apparatus with demultiplexing, audio processing, and picture decoding units.
    • The picture decoding unit includes a block decoding unit, which in turn includes a coefficient number decoding unit, a unit to obtain coefficients, a unit to obtain a residual block image via inverse quantization/transformation, and a reproducing unit.
    • The coefficient number decoding unit is further defined as including:
      • A determining unit to determine a predictive value for non-zero coefficients based on the number of non-zero coefficients in a decoded block on the "periphery" of the current block.
      • A selecting unit to select a variable length code table based on the predictive value.
      • A variable length decoding unit that uses the selected table to perform decoding.

U.S. Patent No. 6,604,216 - "Telecommunications System and Method for Supporting an Incremental Redundancy Error Handling Scheme Using Available Gross Rate Channels"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,604,216, “Telecommunications System and Method for Supporting an Incremental Redundancy Error Handling Scheme Using Available Gross Rate Channels,” issued August 5, 2003 (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a problem with prior art Incremental Redundancy (IR) error handling schemes that use fixed-size subblocks of data for retransmissions. This approach is described as unsuitable and inefficient for transmission over modern wireless channels where the available data rate ("gross rate") can vary significantly (’216 Patent, col. 3:59-col. 4:2).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a flexible IR method where an entire data block is first encoded into a single "mother code word." This mother code word is then reordered according to an "ordering vector." For transmission, a subsequence of bits is taken from the reordered word, with the length of the subsequence precisely tailored to fill the currently available bandwidth of the channel. If retransmission is needed, subsequent, different subsequences are sent until the receiver can successfully decode the data, thereby avoiding the waste associated with fixed-size packets on variable-rate channels (’216 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:30-45).
  • Technical Importance: This technique enables more efficient use of the radio spectrum by dynamically matching the amount of transmitted data to the channel's capacity, a foundational concept for high-speed mobile data standards like LTE (Compl. ¶56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A transmitter for transmitting a digital data block.
    • A coding circuit that codes the data block to generate a "mother code word."
    • A reordering circuit that reorders the mother code word based on an "ordering vector" to generate a "reordered mother code word."
    • A modulating circuit that modulates at least one subsequence, where the subsequence has a desired number of bits taken from the reordered mother code word specifically to fill the available bandwidth of at least one available gross rate channel.

U.S. Patent No. 7,940,851 - "Radio Communication Apparatus and Radio Communication Method"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,940,851, “Radio Communication Apparatus and Radio Communication Method,” issued May 10, 2011 (Compl. ¶11).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of excessive feedback overhead in MIMO wireless systems. The solution involves calculating an absolute Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) value for a primary data stream and then calculating only a relative CQI value for secondary data streams with respect to the primary stream, thereby reducing the amount of information that must be sent back to the transmitter (’851 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: LTE-compliant devices are accused of infringing by implementing the CQI reporting procedures for spatial-multiplexing MIMO as defined in the 3GPP LTE standard (Compl. ¶¶66-69).

U.S. Patent No. 8,385,284 - "Control Channel Signaling Using a Common Signaling Field for Transport Format and Redundancy Version"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,385,284, “Control Channel Signaling Using a Common Signaling Field for Transport Format and Redundancy Version,” issued February 26, 2013 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need to reduce overhead on control channels in mobile communication systems. The described solution uses a common signaling field to jointly encode two distinct pieces of information: the "transport format" (e.g., modulation scheme, data block size) and the "redundancy version" (used for HARQ retransmissions), which is more efficient than signaling them separately (’284 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
  • Accused Features: LTE-compliant devices are accused of infringing by processing control channel signals where the transport format and redundancy version are jointly encoded in a control information field, as required by the 3GPP LTE standard (Compl. ¶¶76-78).

U.S. Patent No. 8,208,569 - "Method and Apparatus for Multicarrier Communication"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,208,569, “Method and Apparatus for Multicarrier Communication,” issued June 26, 2012 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for mapping different types of encoded data onto a time-frequency grid in a multicarrier communication system. The solution specifies mapping first data to symbols in one part of the domain and second data to groups of symbols in another part, with specific rules for ordering symbols by frequency and time indices to optimize reception (’569 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 11 (Compl. ¶85).
  • Accused Features: LTE-compliant devices are accused of infringing by receiving and decoding signals where encoded data is mapped to symbols across a time-frequency domain according to the rules specified in the 3GPP LTE standard (Compl. ¶¶87-91).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies two categories of accused products: the “’238 Accused Products,” which include devices capable of decoding picture and audio data (e.g., Huawei Nexus 6P, Huawei MediaPad M3), and the “LTE Accused Products,” which include devices compatible with the 3GPP LTE standard (Compl. ¶¶30, 39, 54). The lists of devices for both categories are substantially overlapping.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The relevant functionality for the ’238 patent is the products’ capability to receive and decode media streams compliant with standards such as H.264/AVC, a common function for modern smartphones and tablets (Compl. ¶¶41, 44).
  • The relevant functionality for the '216, '851, '284, and '569 patents is the products' operation in compliance with the 3GPP LTE standard for high-speed mobile data communication (Compl. ¶¶56-60). The complaint alleges that these patents are essential to the LTE standard, meaning any device practicing the standard necessarily uses the patented technology (Compl. ¶¶56, 64, 73, 85).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendant advertises the LTE network and picture/audio decoding capabilities of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶32). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’238 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a determining unit configured to determine a predictive value for the number of non-zero coefficients included in the current block based on the number of non-zero coefficients included in a decoded block located on a periphery of the current block The Accused Products’ H.264/AVC decoders determine a predictive value (nC) based on the number of non-zero coefficients in adjacent blocks to the left (nA) and above (nB). ¶49 col. 2:1-6
a selecting unit configured to select a variable length code table based on the determined predictive value The Accused Products’ H.264/AVC decoders select a specific variable length code table (a column in Table 9-5 of the standard) based on the predictive value nC. ¶50 col. 2:6-8
a variable length decoding unit configured to perform variable length decoding on a coded stream...by using the selected variable length code table The Accused Products’ H.264/AVC decoders perform variable length decoding of the total number of non-zero coefficients (TotalCoeff) using the code table selected based on the predictive value. ¶51 col. 2:8-11

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A question may arise as to whether the H.264/AVC standard's use of only left and upper adjacent blocks (Compl. ¶49) for prediction falls within the scope of the claim term "a decoded block located on a periphery of the current block." The patent's specification discusses coded blocks "above and on the left" ('238 Patent, col. 2:42-43), which may support the allegation but could also be interpreted as a limiting embodiment.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory rests on the allegation that compliance with the H.264/AVC standard necessitates the claimed features (Compl. ¶44). A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the Accused Products' decoders implement the specific three-step process of (1) determining a predictive value from peripheral blocks, (2) selecting a table based on that value, and (3) decoding using that table, as opposed to other decoding methods potentially allowed by the standard.

’216 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a coding circuit for coding the digital data block and generating a mother code word LTE-compliant devices include a coding circuit that codes a data block to generate a mother code word, as required by 3GPP TS 36.212 and 36.213. ¶58 col. 4:33-35
a reordering circuit for reordering the mother code word and generating a reordered mother code word, wherein the reordered mother code word is generated based on an ordering vector... LTE-compliant devices include a circuit for reordering the mother code word based on an ordering vector to define the order in which bits are modulated and forwarded, as required by 3GPP TS 36.212. ¶59 col. 4:35-40
a modulating circuit for modulating at least one subsequence...having a desired number of bits taken from the reordered mother code word to fill the available bandwidth of at least one available gross rate channel LTE-compliant devices include a modulating circuit that takes a desired number of bits from the reordered word to fill the available channel bandwidth for transmission, as required by 3GPP TS 36.211, 36.212, and 36.213. ¶60 col. 4:40-45

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The case will likely turn on whether the patent is truly essential to the LTE standard. A central question is whether the functions described in the 3GPP specifications, such as rate matching and channel coding, are coextensive with the claimed "reordering circuit" and "ordering vector."
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that practicing the LTE standard requires the claimed invention (Compl. ¶56). A key technical question for the court will be whether it is possible to create an LTE-compliant device that does not perform the claimed steps of generating a single mother code word, reordering it based on a vector, and then selecting subsequences to fill channel bandwidth.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’238 Patent

  • The Term: "a decoded block located on a periphery of the current block" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory hinges on mapping this term to the H.264 standard's use of left-hand and upper adjacent blocks for prediction (Compl. ¶49). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the specific predictive model used in the standard falls within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "periphery" suggests any or all blocks surrounding the current block. The patent states the predictive value is calculated "based on the numbers of coefficients other than 0 contained in coded blocks located on a periphery of the current block" without immediately limiting which peripheral blocks are used (’238 Patent, col. 2:3-6).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification later clarifies that the predictive value is calculated based on "the numbers of the coefficients other than 0 contained in the coded blocks located above and on the left of the current block" (’238 Patent, col. 2:42-44). This more specific language, tied to the embodiments, could be argued to define and limit the scope of "periphery."

For the ’216 Patent

  • The Term: "reordering circuit" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's claimed departure from prior art. The complaint equates this circuit with functionalities required by the 3GPP LTE standard (Compl. ¶59). Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case depends on whether the processes in the LTE standard (like bit selection and rate matching) meet the structural and functional requirements of the claimed "reordering circuit."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines the circuit by its function: "for reordering the mother code word and generating a reordered mother code word, wherein the reordered mother code word is generated based on an ordering vector" (’216 Patent, claim 1). This functional language could support a construction that covers any module performing a permutation of the mother code word bits before transmission.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that the reordering is based on "one or more puncturing patterns P1, P2, P3 . . . Pn that together form the ordering vector" (’216 Patent, col. 7:1-4). A defendant may argue that this specific implementation, based on a sequence of puncturing patterns, limits the term to structures that operate in that manner, potentially distinguishing it from the methods used in the LTE standard.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant’s promotion, advertising, and instruction manuals that teach customers how to use the accused LTE and video decoding functionalities (Compl. ¶¶33-34). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused components are specially made for infringement and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶36).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least July 18, 2014, through licensing correspondence sent by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶137). The complaint alleges that Defendant’s continued infringement after this date was and is willful (Compl. ¶¶136, 138).

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

  • A core issue for four of the asserted patents will be one of standard essentiality: can Plaintiff demonstrate that compliance with the relevant 3GPP LTE standards necessarily requires practicing the specific methods and structures recited in the claims of the '216, '851, '284, and '569 patents, or do non-infringing alternatives exist within the standard?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: for the '238 patent, does the H.264/AVC standard's specified method for context-adaptive coding directly map onto each element of the asserted claim, particularly the definition of determining a "predictive value" from blocks on the "periphery" to "select a variable length code table"?
  • Given the allegation that four patents are standard-essential, a significant legal question will be the effect of FRAND obligations: has the Plaintiff met its obligation to offer a license on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, an issue Plaintiff has proactively raised in its claim for declaratory judgment? The resolution of this question may influence the availability of injunctive relief and the methodology for calculating damages.