DCT

2:17-cv-00718

Traxcell Tech LLC v. AT&T Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00718, E.D. Tex., 05/29/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the district and have a regular and established place of business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless network infrastructure, which utilizes Self-Organizing Network (SON) technology, and certain mobile devices infringe four patents related to dynamic network tuning and location-based navigation.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems and methods for monitoring the geographic location and performance of wireless devices to proactively adjust network parameters, manage load, and prevent service degradation.
  • Key Procedural History: This filing is a Second Amended Complaint. For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges that Defendant knew of the patent family because the underlying patent application was cited by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during the prosecution of one of Defendant's own patent applications, a fact Plaintiff uses to support its allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-10-04 Earliest Priority Date for ’284, ’320, ’024, and ’388 Patents
2015-03-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,977,284 Issues
2016-11-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,510,320 Issues
2017-01-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,549,388 Issues
2017-05-02 U.S. Patent No. 9,642,024 Issues
2019-05-29 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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, “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 (Compl. ¶6).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the increasing importance of wireless networks and the corresponding need for reliable methods of locating wireless devices, noting that existing techniques like GPS can suffer from inaccuracies in challenging environments such as urban canyons or indoors (’320 Patent, col. 1:33-2:25). This creates difficulties for network management and location-based services.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "network tuning system" that addresses these problems by continuously locating mobile devices on the network and collecting performance data associated with those locations (’320 Patent, col. 37:33-41). This dynamic database of location and performance information allows the system to compare actual performance to expected parameters, identify problems, and suggest corrective actions to prevent network overload and improve service quality (’320 Patent, Abstract). The system also includes a privacy feature, allowing a user to set a flag to prevent their location from being shared with a second computer.
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows for a proactive and automated approach to network optimization, replacing the need for network engineers to perform manual field analysis to diagnose and correct performance issues (’320 Patent, col. 37:42-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-6, with infringement allegations detailed for independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶9).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A system with at least one radio-frequency transceiver and antenna for communication with a mobile wireless device.
    • A first computer coupled to the transceiver, programmed to locate the device and generate a location indication.
    • The first computer receives and stores performance data of the connection along with the location, references it to expected data, and determines a suggested corrective action.
    • The first computer routinely stores updated performance data and location while the device is communicating.
    • A second computer coupled to the first computer.
    • The first computer, responsive to a communication from the mobile device, sets a "no access flag" in memory.
    • The first computer provides access to the location indication to the second computer if the flag is reset, and denies access if the flag is set.

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, “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 (Compl. ¶13).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent, part of the same family as the ’320 patent, identifies the same core technical problem: the difficulty in efficiently managing wireless network performance and the limitations of existing device location technologies (’284 Patent, col. 1:33-2:25).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention describes a wireless network with a computer that locates wireless devices, references their performance against known parameters, and stores the performance data with the corresponding location (’284 Patent, Abstract). A key aspect is the system's response to an "error code" generated by a radio tower; upon receiving the error code, the computer is programmed to selectively suggest a corrective action, such as restricting the processing of radio frequency signals, to improve communication. (’284 Patent, col. 126:39-52).
  • Technical Importance: The system provides a method for a network to self-diagnose issues based on error codes from its own components and automatically suggest targeted solutions, improving network reliability and reducing manual intervention.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-12, with infringement allegations detailed for independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A wireless network with at least two wireless devices and a radio tower.
    • A first computer programmed to locate at least one device, reference its performance against known parameters, and routinely store the performance data and location in memory.
    • The computer includes means for receiving performance data and suggesting corrective actions from a list of possible causes.
    • The radio tower generates an "error code" based on the operation of a wireless device.
    • The first computer is programmed to receive the error code and selectively suggest a corrective action to restrict signal processing for at least one of the two wireless devices to improve communication.

U.S. Patent No. 9,642,024 - “Mobile Wireless Systems and Method with Corrective Actions Responsive to Communications Fault Detection”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,642,024, “Mobile Wireless Systems and Method with Corrective Actions Responsive to Communications Fault Detection,” issued May 2, 2017 (Compl. ¶20).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for optimizing a wireless network by using a computer to locate mobile devices, store performance data with location, and compare that data to expected performance. The system is specifically designed to receive an "error code" from a radio-frequency transceiver and, in response, determine a suggested corrective action to resolve the performance issue indicated by the code (Compl. ¶¶21-22).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-22 are asserted, with independent claim 1 detailed in the complaint (Compl. ¶23).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Ericsson's Centralized SON solution," as used in Verizon's wireless network, infringes by performing automated network optimization based on performance data and alarms from network components (Compl. ¶23, pp. 18-22).

U.S. Patent No. 9,549,388 - “Mobile wireless device providing off-line and on-line geographic navigation information”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,549,388, “Mobile wireless device providing off-line and on-line geographic navigation information,” issued January 17, 2017 (Compl. ¶27).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a wireless communication system that provides both online (network-connected) and offline (local database) navigation on a mobile device. Routing decisions can be controlled by traffic congestion data measured by the wireless network. A key feature is the use of "preference flags" that control whether a user's location is tracked and communicated by a network-side processor (Compl. ¶¶28-29).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-30 are asserted, with independent claim 1 detailed in the complaint (Compl. ¶30).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Verizon Ellipsis 10 tablet, which comes pre-loaded with applications like Google Maps, of infringing this patent by providing location-based navigation services that operate both online and offline (Compl. ¶30, pp. 25-27).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are primarily Verizon's wireless telecommunications networks (GSM, UMTS, WCDMA, and LTE) that incorporate "Ericsson's Centralized SON solution," and specific end-user products such as the "Verizon Ellipsis 10" tablet running navigation applications like Google Maps (Compl. ¶¶9, 30).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Ericsson's Centralized SON (Self-Organizing Network) solution provides Verizon's network with self-optimizing capabilities (Compl. ¶9, p.6). A diagram included in the complaint illustrates a high-level architecture for "Fixed Operator Wi-Fi with SON" (Compl. p.3). The core of this system is the "SON Optimization Manager (SON OM)," which allegedly collects device location, performance measurements, and trace data from the network's Radio Access Network (RAN) (Compl. ¶9, p.6).
  • This system is accused of analyzing the collected data against performance standards to identify network issues, and then determining and implementing "appropriate SON use cases to optimize the relevant operational parameters" of base stations to improve performance (Compl. ¶9, p.8).
  • For the '388 Patent, the accused instrumentality is a consumer device, the Verizon Ellipsis 10 tablet, which the complaint describes as a 10.1-inch Android tablet operating on Verizon's 4G LTE network (Compl. ¶30, p.25). A photograph of the device is provided in the complaint (Compl. p.25). This tablet is alleged to come pre-loaded with Google Maps for navigation, which uses a combination of GPS, Wi-Fi, and cell tower data to determine the user's location (Compl. ¶30, p.27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,510,320 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A system including at least one radio-frequency transceiver and an associated at least one antenna... configured for radio-frequency communication with at least one mobile wireless communication device. Verizon's network includes base stations (BTS, eNodeBs, etc.) with radio-frequency transceivers and antennas for communicating with mobile devices over GSM, LTE, and other wireless networks. ¶9 col. 20:38-54
The said system further including a first computer coupled to the at least one radio-frequency transceiver programmed to locate the at least one mobile wireless device and generate an indication of a location... Ericsson's centralized SON solution, including the SON Optimization Manager (SON OM), is connected to the base stations and ascertains UE geolocation information from MDT reports, UE measurement reports, and Trace data. ¶9 col. 40:19-49
The said first computer receives and stores performance data of connections between the... mobile wireless device and the radio frequency transceiver along with the indication of location. The SON OM receives and collects Performance Measurements (PM) and Trace data, including UE-referenced network performance measurements and corresponding UE location, from the network's Operations Support System (OSS) and stores it in a database. ¶9 col. 38:20-41
The said first computer determines at least one suggested corrective action in conformity with differences between the performance data and expected performance data in conjunction with the indication of location. The SON OM performs a comparative analysis of observed network performance against standards or thresholds, and based on this analysis with UE geolocation, determines and implements SON use cases to optimize poorly performing base stations. ¶9 col. 39:53-64
The said system further including a second computer coupled in communication with the first computer... A server for a Location Based Service (LBS) application (e.g., advertising, navigation) is coupled in communication with the network of computers implementing the Ericsson SON solution. ¶9 col. 21:1-8
...the first computer, responsive to a communication from the at least one mobile wireless communication device, sets a no access flag within a memory of the first computer. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. It maps this element to a user's refusal to allow use of their location information, but does not specify a "communication" from the device that sets a flag. ¶9 col. 18:48-52

U.S. Patent No. 8,977,284 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A wireless network comprising: at least two wireless devices... a radio tower adapted to receive... and transmit radio frequency signals... Mobile devices (UEs) on the Verizon Wireless network communicate via RF signals with base stations (BTS, eNodeBs) in the Radio Access Network (RAN). ¶16 col. 20:35-46
The said wireless network further comprising a first computer, which includes means for receiving performance data of said RF-based interactions... Ericsson's SON solution, particularly the SON Optimization Manager, ascertains UE location and performance data from MDT reports, UE Measurement Reports, and other trace data. ¶16 col. 38:20-26
...wherein the said first computer is further programmed to perform the steps of: locating at least one said wireless device... referencing performance... and routinely storing performance data and a corresponding location... The first computer (SON OM) locates UEs on the network via trace features (CTR, UETR) and receives performance reports (MDT, UE Measurement Reports) through a "Data Gateway," storing the data. ¶16 col. 39:20-40
...wherein said radio tower generates an error code based upon operation of said at least one wireless device... A base station generates an "alarm, alert, indication or notification" (alleged to be an "error code") when it becomes congested or overloaded due to excessive traffic or too many connected UEs. ¶16 col. 38:22-26
...wherein said first computer is further programmed to, 1) receive said error code from said radio tower, and, 2) selectively suggest a corrective action of said radio frequency signals... The SON OM receives alarms and performance counters from base stations via the OSS and a "Data Gateway" and, based on this data, can implement SON use cases (corrective actions). ¶16 col. 39:41-64
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may concern the interpretation of claim terms mapped to complex, multi-component network systems. For instance, the infringement theory for both the ’320 and ’284 patents identifies a distributed "Ericsson's centralized SON solution" as the claimed "first computer." A defendant may argue that such a collection of servers, gateways, and managers does not constitute a single "computer" as recited in the claims.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’284 patent, a key technical question will be whether a network "alarm, alert, indication or notification" (Compl. ¶16, p.15) generated due to congestion performs the function of and can be legally considered an "error code" as required by the claim. For the ’320 patent, a factual question is whether a user's act of "opting-out" of location services, as alleged in the complaint, constitutes a "communication from the... device" that "sets a no access flag," as claimed, or if this is merely a network-side administrative setting.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "first computer" (asserted in ’320 Claim 1; ’284 Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central because the complaint maps it to a broad, distributed system of network components, including the "SON Optimization Manager," "Operations Support System," and various other servers (Compl. ¶9, p.6). The viability of the infringement case for the system claims depends on whether this distributed architecture can be construed as a single "first computer."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the invention’s components in functional terms and depicts them as interconnected but potentially physically separate entities. Figure 29, for example, shows a "Master Server" (2800) connected to a "Back-up System Server" and "Individual Computers" (2910), suggesting a distributed but unified system (’284 Patent, FIG. 29).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims consistently use the singular phrase "a first computer." A defendant may argue this requires a single, co-located piece of hardware, pointing to embodiments where the functions are described as being performed by a single server or processor.

  • The Term: "error code" (asserted in ’284 Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that an "alarm, alert, indication or notification" from a base station due to congestion is an "error code" (Compl. ¶16, p.15). The definition of this term is critical to determining whether general network status messages, rather than formally structured error messages, fall within the claim's scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses monitoring the network for "errors or problems that result in service disruption" (’284 Patent, col. 38:59-62) and lists "Error codes" as one of many "Service Effecting Factors" that can be tracked, potentially suggesting it is a broad category of fault indicators (’284 Patent, col. 38:22-26, FIG. 37).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "code" itself implies a defined set of values. The specification describes generating a "case file" that includes a specific data field for "Error code" (e.g., ’284 Patent, col. 54:8-12), which may support an argument that the term refers to a discrete, formatted data value rather than a general alert.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement for all asserted patents, stating that Defendants "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers)" on how to use the accused products and services in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 18, 25, 32). For the ’388 patent, this is supported by allegations that Verizon sells the Ellipsis 10 tablet with pre-loaded navigation software and provides instructions on its use (Compl. ¶30, p.26).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The primary basis for pre-suit knowledge is the allegation that the underlying application for the patents-in-suit was "cited to Defendants by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution of one of Defendants' patent applications" (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 18, 25, 32). This allegation suggests that Defendants were on notice of the technology before the lawsuit was filed.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms like "first computer", rooted in the context of a single machine, be construed to cover the complex, distributed "Self-Organizing Network" architecture as alleged? Similarly, does a general network performance "alarm" meet the more specific claim requirement of an "error code"?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what evidence will be presented to show that the accused SON system autonomously performs the claimed steps of "determin[ing]" and "suggest[ing]" corrective network actions, as required by the claims, versus merely presenting performance data to human engineers who make the ultimate optimization decisions?
  • Regarding the navigation technology in the ’388 patent, a central question may be one of system integration: does the combination of a Verizon device, its network, and a third-party application (Google Maps) constitute a single infringing "wireless communications system" for which Defendant is liable, and how is the claimed user "preference flag" functionality met by the accused product?