DCT
2:18-cv-00072
Uniloc USA Inc v. Huawei Tech Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Uniloc USA, Inc. (Texas) and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (Luxembourg)
- Defendant: Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Texas) and Huawei Device Co. Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00072, E.D. Tex., 03/13/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Huawei USA, Inc. having an established principal place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and both defendants offering the accused products for sale to customers in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile devices, which comply with HSPA/HSPA+ cellular standards, infringe a patent related to methods for managing data transmission in a wireless network.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns resource allocation in wireless communication networks, specifically a method for selecting data transmission formats to ensure a minimum quality of service (QoS) for different data streams.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed in March 2018. Subsequent to the filing, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against the patent-in-suit at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. These proceedings resulted in a certificate, issued August 16, 2021, cancelling all claims asserted in this complaint (claims 1, 3-6, and 12). This development is dispositive for the infringement claims as originally pleaded.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-05-21 | '487 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-01-23 | '487 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-03-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,167,487 - "NETWORK WITH LOGIC CHANNELS AND TRANSPORT CHANNELS"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,167,487, "NETWORK WITH LOGIC CHANNELS AND TRANSPORT CHANNELS," issued January 23, 2007.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In complex wireless networks like 3G, data from different applications (e.g., voice calls, web browsing) must be efficiently bundled for transmission. The patent identifies the need for an "optimized selection process" for choosing how to package this data into "transport blocks" for transmission over the air, particularly to satisfy different Quality of Service (QoS) requirements for each data stream (’487 Patent, col. 2:30-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes integrating a "minimum bit rate" requirement directly into the selection algorithm at the network's Medium Access Control (MAC) layer (’487 Patent, col. 2:46-49). Rather than being a separate check performed at a higher, less-informed layer, the algorithm for selecting a "transport format combination" is itself designed to satisfy this minimum rate criteria, leading to a more accurate and efficient allocation of network resources (’487 Patent, col. 2:56-64). The architecture is illustrated in Figure 2, showing the MAC layer's role in mediating between higher-level logic channels (RLC) and the physical transmission layer (PHY).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a more robust method for guaranteeing QoS in 3G and later cellular systems, which were designed to handle a mixture of real-time traffic (like voice) and non-real-time data traffic on the same network (’487 Patent, col. 2:3-6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-6 and 12. As noted, all asserted claims were subsequently cancelled by the USPTO.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A network with a first plurality of logic channels and an associated second plurality of transport channels.
- The transport channels are for transmitting transport blocks formed from packet units of the logic channels.
- A plurality of valid transport format combinations is allocated to the transport channels.
- A selection algorithm is provided for selecting the transport format combinations.
- The selection algorithm uses a minimum bit rate criteria applicable to the respective logic channel.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, though the cancellation of claims 11-13 limits this possibility.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Infringing Devices" are a broad category of Huawei electronic devices, including numerous models of smartphones and tablets, that "operate in compliance with HSPA/HSPA+ standardized in UMTS 3GPP Release 6 and above" (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused devices, by virtue of their compliance with the HSPA/HSPA+ standard, necessarily "implement networks having a first plurality of logic channels and a second plurality of transport channels associated by the MAC layer for sending and receiving packet units." (Compl. ¶15). The core of the infringement allegation is that this implementation includes using a "minimum bit rate criteria," as required by the patent claims (Compl. ¶15). The infringement theory is thus based on the functionality mandated by a technical standard rather than on a specific, independent analysis of the accused products' source code or operation.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'487 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A network with a first plurality of logic channels with which is associated a second plurality of transport channels, which transport channels are provided for transmitting transport blocks formed from packet units of the logic channels | The accused devices implement networks with logic and transport channels for sending and receiving packet units in accordance with the HSPA/HSPA+ standard. | ¶15 | col. 1:4-10 |
| wherein a plurality of valid transport format combinations is allocated to the transport channels, which combinations indicate the transport blocks provided for transmission on each transport channel | This functionality is alleged to be part of the devices' implementation of networks compliant with the HSPA/HSPA+ standard. | ¶15 | col. 1:38-44 |
| wherein a selection algorithm is provided for selecting the transport format combinations | This functionality is alleged to be part of the devices' implementation of networks compliant with the HSPA/HSPA+ standard. | ¶15 | col. 1:25-27 |
| and wherein the selection algorithm uses a minimum bit rate criteria applicable to the respective logic channel. | The accused devices are alleged to use a "minimum bit rate criteria" as part of their HSPA/HSPA+ compliant operation. | ¶15 | col. 2:46-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention: The analysis below is presented on a hypothetical basis, as the cancellation of the asserted claims renders these points moot.
- Scope Questions: A central question for the court would have been whether compliance with the broad HSPA/HSPA+ standard necessarily implies infringement of the specific method claimed. The defense could argue that the standard allows for multiple implementations, not all of which would meet the patent's specific claim limitations, particularly the manner in which the "selection algorithm" is structured and "uses" the bit rate criteria.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused devices' algorithm "uses a minimum bit rate criteria" in the specific manner taught by the patent? The specification describes an integrated process where the criteria is part of the transport block calculation (’487 Patent, col. 9:16-27), which raises the question of whether the accused standard-compliant implementation performs this specific function or merely employs a functionally different QoS check.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "selection algorithm"
Context and Importance: The infringement theory hinges on the accused devices implementing an infringing "selection algorithm." The construction of this term would determine whether the functionality mandated by the HSPA/HSPA+ standard falls within the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, and claim 1 recites it at a high functional level without specifying particular steps. This could support an interpretation covering any algorithm that selects transport format combinations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed, multi-iteration process for selecting the TFC, including specific iterative steps for satisfying minimum and maximum bit rates (’487 Patent, col. 9:16 - 10:65). A defendant could argue that "selection algorithm" should be limited to this disclosed embodiment and its equivalents.
The Term: "uses a minimum bit rate criteria"
Context and Importance: This phrase captures the asserted inventive concept. The dispute would focus on how the criteria must be "used" by the algorithm to infringe.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This could be read to mean that the algorithm simply ensures its output does not violate a minimum bit rate, regardless of the internal process.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the invention as integrating the condition into the selection algorithm (’487 Patent, col. 2:50-54). The detailed embodiment shows the minimum bit rate being used to calculate the number of transport blocks to allocate (
Nmin(L)) as a core part of the algorithm's logic (’487 Patent, col. 9:16-27). This suggests a specific functional integration, not merely a post-selection check.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and user guides" available on Huawei's general support websites, which allegedly instruct customers on how to use the accused devices (Compl. ¶17). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the assertion that portions of the devices are especially made for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶18).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on notice provided by the service of the complaint itself, asserting that any continued infringement would be knowing and intentional (Compl. ¶19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central and dispositive issue for this case is the post-filing invalidation of all asserted patent claims. Following inter partes review proceedings concluded in 2021, the USPTO cancelled claims 1, 3-6, and 12 of the '487 patent. The primary question for the court, therefore, is not one of infringement, but of the procedural consequences of these cancellations on a complaint filed in 2018.
- Had the claims survived, a key question would have been one of evidentiary sufficiency: does mere compliance with the HSPA/HSPA+ standard, as alleged in the complaint, provide sufficient evidence that the accused devices perform the specific, multi-step "selection algorithm" that "uses a minimum bit rate criteria" in the particular manner required by the patent's claims and detailed specification? The complaint asserts this link without providing a detailed technical mapping between the standard's requirements and the patented method.