DCT

2:18-cv-00041

Uniloc USA Inc v. Samsung Group

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00041, E.D. Tex., 02/23/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic devices capable of using Bluetooth and WiFi simultaneously infringe a patent related to managing communications in multi-mode wireless systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for efficiently combining two different wireless communication standards in a single device to handle asymmetric data loads, such as using a low-data-rate link for control signals and a high-data-rate link for data transfer.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts claims 15-17. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) was instituted against the patent-in-suit (IPR2019-00219). The IPR resulted in the cancellation of asserted claims 15 and 17, while dependent claim 16 was found patentable. This development significantly narrows the scope of the dispute to the specific limitations of claim 16.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-08-10 ’106 Patent Priority Date
2006-03-28 ’106 Patent Issue Date
2018-02-23 Complaint Filing Date
2018-11-12 IPR2019-00219 Filing Date
2022-08-22 IPR Certificate Issued (Cancelling claims 15, 17; Upholding claim 16)

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,020,106 - "RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEM"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency and high cost associated with multi-mode wireless terminals that must incorporate a complete, bi-directional transceiver for each communication standard they support, particularly when dealing with asymmetric data flows like web browsing where downlink traffic far exceeds uplink traffic (’106 Patent, col. 1:7-17, col. 2:55-66).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a device uses two communication modes, but not necessarily with full transceivers for both. For example, a device might have a full transceiver for a first mode (e.g., UMTS) but only a receiver for a second, high-speed mode (e.g., HIPERLAN/2). To manage the high-speed link, control data that would normally be sent on the absent channel (the HIPERLAN/2 uplink) is instead routed over the corresponding channel of the first mode (the UMTS uplink) (’106 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:30-35). This allows the device to benefit from the high-speed downlink without the cost and power consumption of a high-speed transmitter (’106 Patent, col. 4:23-29).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to reduce the hardware complexity and power demands of mobile devices by eliminating redundant components, a key design goal in the evolution of multi-standard cellular and local area network technologies (’106 Patent, col. 4:26-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 15-17 (Compl. ¶16). Following an Inter Partes Review, claims 15 and 17 were cancelled, leaving only dependent claim 16 in dispute.
  • Independent Claim 15 (Cancelled): The base claim described a communication station with:
    • A first transceiver for two-way communication in a first mode.
    • A second transceiver/receiver for communication in a second mode.
    • A condition where if a channel in the first mode is unavailable, information is communicated via the second mode.
    • A function for transmitting "specification information" about the second mode over the first mode's communication link.
  • Dependent Claim 16 (Surviving): Adds the following essential element to the station of claim 15:
    • a converter configured to convert mode one data related to said first mode and received over said third communication link in said second mode to converted data that is further processed as if received via one of said first communication link and said second communication link associated with said first mode.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses "numerous electronic devices implementing Bluetooth Core Specification v. 3.0 and above," referred to as the "Accused Infringing Devices" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused devices allegedly use a Bluetooth Basic Rate/Enhanced Data Rate (BR/EDR) radio to perform discovery, association, and connection establishment (Compl. ¶¶12-13). This BR/EDR link is described as the first communication mode.
  • The devices can also communicate using a second mode, an Alternate MAC/PHY (AMP) physical link, which typically uses WiFi (IEEE 802.11) (Compl. ¶14).
  • The complaint alleges that after establishing a connection using BR/EDR, a first device can "discover whether the second device has a common AMP and cause transmission of data traffic to be moved from BR/EDR to AMP controller(s)" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not contain specific allegations regarding the products' market positioning beyond stating they are sold in the U.S. (Compl. ¶11).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the narrative allegations for the sole surviving asserted claim.

’106 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15, incorporated into surviving Claim 16) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a communication station comprising: a first transceiver configured to at least one of transmit first information over a first communication link in a first mode, and receive second information over a second communication link in said first mode; The accused devices use a BR/EDR radio for two-way communication including discovery, association, and connection maintenance. ¶¶12-13 col. 3:56-57
at least one of a transmitter and receiver configured to at least one of transmit and receive third information over a third communication link in a second mode; The accused devices communicate via an Alternate MAC/PHY (AMP) link using WiFi. ¶14 col. 3:57-58
...at least one of said first transceiver and said transmitter is configured for transmitting specification information about a radio interface specification defining said second mode... via at least one of said first communication link and said second communication link. After a BR/EDR connection is established, "the first device can discover whether the second device has a common AMP." This discovery process is the alleged transmission of "specification information." ¶15 col. 4:6-9
(From Dependent Claim 16) a converter configured to convert mode one data... received over said... second mode to converted data that is further processed as if received via... said first mode. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. It alleges that data traffic is "moved from BR/EDR to AMP," but includes no facts related to a "converter" or data being processed "as if" it were received on the first link. ¶15 col. 5:8-9

Identified Points of Contention

  • Survival of Claim 16: The primary legal and factual dispute will be whether Plaintiff can prove infringement of dependent claim 16, now that its base claim has been cancelled. The infringement case rests entirely on the additional limitations introduced by claim 16.
  • Technical Questions: The central technical question is whether the accused Bluetooth + AMP architecture includes a "converter" that performs the specific function required by claim 16. The complaint alleges traffic is "moved," which may not be the same as being "converted" and processed "as if" it were received on the original BR/EDR link. Evidence of how the protocol stacks in the accused devices handle data passed from the WiFi radio will be critical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term

  • "converter"

Context and Importance

  • This term is the dispositive limitation of the only surviving asserted claim. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend almost entirely on its construction. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides no factual allegations to support the existence of such a component in the accused devices.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. A plaintiff might argue it should encompass any software or hardware layer that adapts or reformats data from the second (AMP) mode to make it usable by applications or higher protocol layers that initiated the connection on the first (BR/EDR) mode.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific embodiments with "extension[s]" to the physical layer that perform "suitable protocol conversions" to pass data between the protocol stacks of the different modes (’106 Patent, col. 4:54-62, col. 5:8-9, Fig. 2). A defendant would likely argue that "converter" should be limited to these explicit protocol-level conversion modules, not a generic handoff mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement based on Samsung providing "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and user guides" that instruct customers on how to use the accused features (Compl. ¶17). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that Samsung knows the software in its devices is "especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement" and is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶18).

Willful Infringement

  • The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that Samsung will have notice of the patent "at the latest, the service of this complaint upon it," and that continued infringement thereafter would be willful (Compl. ¶19).

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

Given the IPR outcome, the case has been fundamentally altered from its original pleading. The litigation will likely center on the following questions:

  1. Impact of IPR: The foundational question is whether Plaintiff can sustain a case based solely on dependent claim 16. The entire infringement theory must now be rebuilt around the specific limitations of this surviving claim, which were not the focus of the original complaint.
  2. Evidentiary Burden for "Converter": A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: can Plaintiff produce evidence showing that Samsung’s standard Bluetooth+AMP architecture contains a "converter" that performs the specific data transformation required by claim 16? Or will discovery show that the accused products simply perform a standard data stream handoff between two independent radios, failing to meet this limitation?
  3. Definitional Scope: The case may turn on a single issue of claim construction: can the term "converter" be construed broadly enough to read on the protocol adaptation layers present in a standard Bluetooth implementation, or is it limited by the specification to a distinct module designed to make a one-way communication channel appear bi-directional to the system?