DCT

2:18-cv-00073

Uniloc USA Inc v. Huawei Tech Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00073, E.D. Tex., 03/13/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Huawei USA being a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in the state, and both Defendants allegedly conducting business, including offering the accused products for sale, within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic devices, such as smartphones and smartwatches equipped with Bluetooth 3.0+HS and Wi-Fi capabilities, infringe a patent related to multi-mode radio communication systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for economically integrating multiple wireless communication standards (e.g., a cellular standard and a high-speed data standard) onto a single device by eliminating redundant hardware components.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on March 13, 2018. Subsequently, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2019-00219, was initiated against the patent-in-suit. A certificate issued from the IPR on August 22, 2022, confirmed the cancellation of asserted claims 15 and 17. The same IPR certificate found dependent claim 16, also asserted in the complaint, to be patentable. This post-filing development fundamentally alters the basis of the lawsuit, as the primary independent claim asserted (Claim 15) is no longer valid.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-08-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,020,106 Priority Date
2006-03-28 U.S. Patent No. 7,020,106 Issue Date
2018-03-13 Complaint Filing Date
2018-11-12 IPR2019-00219 Filing Date
2022-08-22 IPR Certificate issues, cancelling claims 15 and 17

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 addresses the cost and complexity of building multi-mode wireless terminals that must support different communication standards (e.g., UMTS for cellular and HIPERLAN/2 for high-speed data) (’106 Patent, col. 1:41-54). Implementing full, bi-directional hardware for each standard is described as "relatively expensive" (’106 Patent, col. 1:66-68).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a device operates with a first, fully bi-directional communication mode alongside a second mode where one of the communication channels (e.g., the uplink) is "absent" (’106 Patent, col. 2:22-26). To compensate, data that would normally be sent over the absent channel of the second mode is instead transmitted over a channel of the first mode (’106 Patent, col. 2:22-26, Abstract). For example, a device could use a full UMTS transceiver for general communication but only a HIPERLAN/2 receiver for high-speed downloads, omitting the costly HIPERLAN/2 transmitter and sending any necessary control signals for the HIPERLAN/2 link over the UMTS uplink (’106 Patent, col. 4:20-31).
    • Technical Importance: This design allows for the creation of more economical multi-mode devices by selectively omitting redundant or power-intensive hardware, a significant consideration for consumer electronics. (’106 Patent, col. 1:66-68).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16-17 (Compl. ¶15).
    • Independent Claim 15: The claim recites a communication station comprising:
      • A first transceiver for communicating in a first mode.
      • At least one of a transmitter and receiver for communicating in a second mode.
      • A condition wherein if a link in the first mode is "not available," information is communicated via a link in the second mode.
      • A configuration where the station transmits "specification information about a radio interface specification defining the second mode" to another station via the first mode's communication link.
    • The complaint alleges infringement of "at least claims 15-17," reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a wide range of Huawei smartphones, smartwatches, and tablets as the "Accused Infringing Devices" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The devices are alleged to implement the Bluetooth Core Specification v. 3.0 + HS (High Speed) or higher (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The functionality involves using a Basic Rate/Enhanced Data Rate (BR/EDR) radio for initial discovery and connection, which the complaint maps to the patent's "first mode" (Compl. ¶12). The devices can also communicate via an Alternate MAC/PHY (AMP) link, such as Wi-Fi, which is mapped to the "second mode" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that after a BR/EDR connection is established, one 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. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’106 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
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 BR/EDR radio in the Accused Infringing Devices is used to perform two-way "discovery, association, connection establishment and connection maintenance." ¶¶11-12 col. 11:3-4
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 Infringing Products communicate with each other via an Alternate MAC/PHY (AMP) physical link using Wi-Fi. ¶13 col. 11:5-6
wherein when at least one of said first communication link and said second communication link is not available, then at least one of said first information and said second information is communicated to said communication station via said third communication link in said second mode... The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. It describes moving traffic to the AMP link but does not allege this occurs because a BR/EDR link is "not available." N/A col. 11:29-35
wherein at least one of said first transceiver and said transmitter is configured for transmitting specification information about a radio interface specification defining the second mode... transmitted... via at least one of said first communication link and said second communication link. Once a connection is established using BR/EDR, "the first device can discover whether the second device has a common AMP," which allegedly constitutes transmitting information about the second mode via the first mode. ¶14 col. 11:36-44
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Procedural Question: A threshold issue is the cancellation of independent claim 15 by the IPR. As the complaint’s infringement theory for all asserted claims relies on this now-invalid claim, the allegations as pleaded appear to be moot. The case’s viability depends on whether it can proceed solely on dependent claim 16, which would likely require an amended complaint.
    • Technical Question: The complaint's theory appears to have a potential mismatch with the claim language regarding the "not available" condition. The complaint describes a voluntary, performance-based hand-off from BR/EDR to a faster Wi-Fi (AMP) link (Compl. ¶14). This raises the question of whether a dynamic traffic shift meets the claim requirement for a link being "not available," which the patent specification suggests could mean structurally absent (’106 Patent, col. 2:22-26).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "not available"
    • Context and Importance: The interpretation of this term is central to infringement. The infringement theory depends on whether a voluntary hand-off to a higher-speed channel satisfies this condition. Practitioners may focus on this term as it appears to describe a failure or absence condition, not a performance optimization.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, which a party might argue leaves room for an interpretation where "not available" could mean "not selected for use" or "unsuitable for the current task."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the invention in the context of one communication channel being "absent," implying a structural or permanent unavailability (’106 Patent, col. 2:22-26). This could support a narrower construction where the term requires a link to be non-functional or physically missing, rather than merely deselected.
  • The Term: "specification information about a radio interface specification"
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining whether the Bluetooth discovery protocol meets the claim limitation. The dispute will likely center on how much information must be transmitted.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any data packet that identifies a communication mode and its basic capabilities, as exchanged during discovery, constitutes "specification information."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of downloading entire "software module[s] for implementing the specification" (’106 Patent, col. 11:38-40) or complete "radio interface specifications" (’106 Patent, col. 10:1-3). This may support a narrower definition requiring the transmission of a more substantial set of technical data than what is exchanged during a standard discovery handshake.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Huawei providing "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and user guides" that allegedly instruct users on infringing uses (Compl. ¶16). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating Huawei knows its software is "especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the '106 patent" (Compl. ¶17).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges knowledge only from the date of service of the complaint, which may form a basis for post-filing enhanced damages (Compl. ¶18). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge.

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

  1. Procedural Viability: The foremost issue is the legal and procedural impact of the IPR decision. With independent claim 15 and dependent claim 17 cancelled, can the plaintiff's case, as originally pleaded, survive? The viability of the lawsuit now rests entirely on dependent claim 16, which likely necessitates an amended complaint and a new infringement theory.
  2. Mismatch in Operational Logic: For the surviving claim, a core technical question will be whether the accused functionality meets the "not available" limitation. The case may turn on whether the accused Bluetooth standard's voluntary hand-off to a high-speed channel for performance reasons can be equated with the patent's described scenario of communicating because a link is unavailable or structurally absent.
  3. Definitional Scope: An evidentiary battle may focus on the term "specification information." The court will need to determine whether the exchange of discovery packets in the Bluetooth protocol constitutes the "transmitting [of] specification information about a radio interface specification" as contemplated by the patent, which provides examples of transmitting entire software modules.