Uniloc USA Inc v. ZTE

Here is the transformed patent infringement complaint analysis, formatted as a senior litigation partner memo.

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc 2017 LLC, and Uniloc Licensing USA LLC (Texas and Delaware)
  • Defendant: ZTE (USA), Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc. (New Jersey and Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP; Nelson Bumgardner Albritton PC
• Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00308, E.D. Tex., 08/08/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant ZTE having a regular and established place of business in the district and having committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a wide range of Defendant’s mobile devices, which operate in compliance with HSPA/HSPA+ cellular standards, infringe a patent related to selecting data transmission formats in a wireless network.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for managing data traffic in wireless networks, specifically how to allocate data from various logical channels (e.g., voice, data) onto physical transport channels while maintaining a minimum quality of service.
• Key Procedural History: Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted patent was subject to multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. An IPR Certificate issued on August 16, 2021, indicates that all asserted claims in this litigation—claims 1, 3-6, and 12—have been cancelled. This cancellation presents a dispositive issue for the plaintiff's case as currently pleaded.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,167,487 - NETWORK WITH LOGIC CHANNELS AND TRANSPORT CHANNELS

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In wireless networks, data from different applications (e.g., voice calls, web browsing) must be bundled together for transmission. A key challenge is efficiently selecting the right data transmission formats (Transport Format Combinations or TFCs) to use, especially when needing to guarantee a certain Quality of Service (QoS) for specific applications, such as a constant bit rate for a voice connection ('487 Patent, col. 2:1-7).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes integrating a "minimum bit rate" requirement directly into the TFC selection algorithm at the MAC (Medium Access Control) layer ('487 Patent, col. 2:56-65). By making the selection algorithm itself aware of the minimum performance needed by each logical channel, the system can more effectively choose transport formats that satisfy those requirements, rather than monitoring QoS at a higher, less accurate level ('487 Patent, col. 2:56-64). The relationship between the logical channels (RLC layer), the MAC layer where selection occurs, and the physical transport channels (PHY layer) is illustrated in Figure 2 ('487 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve QoS management efficiency and reliability directly within the lower layers of the network protocol stack, which could lead to better performance for real-time applications in standardized wireless systems ('487 Patent, col. 2:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-6 and 12 (Compl. ¶17).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A network with a first plurality of logic channels associated with a second plurality of transport channels.
  • The transport channels transmit 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a comprehensive list of ZTE electronic devices, including smartphones and tablets from product lines such as "nubia," "Blade," "Axon," and "Grand," collectively referred to as the "Accused Infringing Devices" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these devices infringe because they "operate in compliance with HSPA/HSPA+ standardized in UMTS 3GPP Release 6 and above" (Compl. ¶15). The core accused functionality is the implementation of networks that have "a first plurality of logic channels and a second plurality of transport channels associated by the MAC layer" and which use "a minimum bit rate criteria" for sending and receiving packet units (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not detail the specific market positioning of these numerous products but lists them as being imported, used, and sold in the United States (Compl. ¶15).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’487 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint asserts claim 1, which is directed to a "network." A primary question would be whether a single end-user device (e.g., a smartphone) can be considered a "network" under the patent's definition, which describes a system including a radio network controller and multiple terminals ('487 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 5:61-65). While claim 12 recites a "terminal," the infringement count relies on claim 1.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question would be whether the HSPA/HSPA+ standard, as implemented by ZTE, actually "uses a minimum bit rate criteria" in the manner claimed by the patent. The complaint makes a conclusory allegation (Compl. ¶16) without providing specific technical evidence showing how the accused algorithm functions or how it maps to the detailed selection process described in the patent specification ('487 Patent, col. 9-10).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"selection algorithm"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention. The infringement theory hinges on whether the standardized HSPA/HSPA+ protocol implemented by ZTE embodies the specific "selection algorithm" of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification describes a detailed, multi-step iterative algorithm ('487 Patent, col. 9:15-col. 10:56), and the case would depend on the degree of similarity required between the accused functionality and this detailed description.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not recite the specific steps of the algorithm, which could support an argument that any algorithm for selecting transport formats that considers a minimum bit rate meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a highly specific, three-iteration selection process ("ITER==1," "ITER==2," "ITER==3") with detailed calculations for determining the number of transport blocks based on minimum and maximum bit rates ('487 Patent, col. 9:31-col. 10:67). A defendant could argue these detailed descriptions define the scope of the claimed "selection algorithm."

"network"

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term is critical for claim 1, which the complaint asserts is directly infringed by ZTE's devices (Compl. ¶17). If "network" is construed to require both a controller and at least one terminal, it raises the question of whether ZTE, by selling only the terminal, could be liable for direct infringement of the "network" claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used generally in the title and abstract, which might suggest it can be read broadly to cover any system of interconnected communication components.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 and its accompanying description explicitly depict the "network" as comprising a "radio network controller (RNC) 1 and a plurality of terminals 2 to 9" ('487 Patent, col. 5:63-65). This provides strong evidence that the term was intended to mean a system containing both controller and terminal elements.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that ZTE's marketing, user guides, and other materials intentionally instruct customers to use the accused devices in a manner that infringes (Compl. ¶19-20). It provides numerous URLs to ZTE's website and support pages as evidence of these instructions (Compl. ¶20).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on ZTE having notice of the '487 patent and its alleged infringement "at the latest, the service upon it of the Original Complaint in this case" (Compl. ¶22). The allegation is therefore based on post-suit knowledge.

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

1. Viability of the Asserted Claims: The central and likely dispositive issue is the post-filing cancellation of all asserted claims (1, 3-6, and 12) in IPR proceedings. The case, as pleaded in this complaint, appears to lack a basis for relief as there are no valid, asserted claims left to enforce.
2. Evidentiary Sufficiency: Had the claims survived, a key question would be one of evidentiary proof: what specific evidence shows that ZTE's implementation of the HSPA/HSPA+ standard practices the particular "selection algorithm" that "uses a minimum bit rate criteria" as detailed in the patent's specification, beyond the conclusory allegations in the complaint?
3. Definitional Scope: A fundamental legal question would have been one of claim scope: can an end-user "terminal" directly infringe a claim for a "network," which the patent specification explicitly defines as a system comprising both a network controller and terminals? This potential mismatch between the accused product and the language of the asserted claim would be a primary focus of claim construction.