DCT

2:18-cv-00346

EVS Codec Tech LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: EVS Codec Technologies, LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., 2:18-cv-00346, E.D. Tex., 03/25/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Huawei USA is a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ mobile devices (e.g., smartphones and tablets) that implement the Enhanced Voice Services ("EVS") Codec standard infringe five patents related to speech and audio compression technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns audio codec (compression/decompression) algorithms, specifically those compliant with the 3GPP EVS standard, which is used in 4G/LTE networks to provide high-definition voice services.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the court is familiar with the Patents-in-Suit, having presided over prior litigation involving the same patents against other major mobile device manufacturers, including Apple, ZTE, and Motorola. The complaint also notes that the court has issued two prior Markman (claim construction) opinions and presided over a jury trial relating to these patents, which may influence claim scope in this case. Plaintiffs also allege pre-suit knowledge based on prior licensing discussions with Huawei.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-10-27 Earliest Priority Date (’805, ’524 Patents)
2002-02-25 Earliest Priority Date (’521 Patent)
2002-03-18 Earliest Priority Date (’123 Patent)
2002-05-28 Earliest Priority Date (’802 Patent)
2004-09-21 '805 Patent Issued
2004-10-19 '524 Patent Issued
2006-12-19 '802 Patent Issued
2007-03-13 '123 Patent Issued
2007-08-21 '521 Patent Issued
2014-10-01 Huawei publishes paper on benefits of EVS
2016-01-01 T-Mobile allegedly launches EVS Codec on its network
2019-03-25 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,795,805 - "Periodicity Enhancement in Decoding Wideband Signals"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that when standard CELP (Code-Excited Linear Prediction) speech coding models are applied to wideband signals, they can introduce periodicity across the entire frequency spectrum. This is inefficient and can degrade quality for voiced segments because natural periodicity in wideband speech is often concentrated in lower frequencies. (’805 Patent, col. 2:13-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an "innovation filter" that processes a component of the encoded speech signal (the "innovative codevector"). This filter is designed to reduce the energy of the innovative codevector at low frequencies, which in turn enhances the periodicity of the final synthesized speech signal primarily in that lower frequency range, creating a more natural sound. (’805 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-42).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for more efficient and perceptually pleasing compression of wideband speech, which is critical for technologies like Voice over LTE (VoLTE) that aim to deliver higher-than-telephone quality audio. (Compl. ¶¶23, 28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts representative independent claim 3 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Essential elements of claim 3 include:
    • A device for enhancing periodicity of an excitation signal produced in relation to a pitch codevector and an innovative codevector for synthesizing a wideband speech signal.
    • A factor generator for calculating a "periodicity factor" related to the wideband speech signal.
    • An "innovation filter" for filtering the innovative codevector based on the periodicity factor to reduce energy of its low frequency portion and enhance periodicity of a low frequency portion of the excitation signal.
    • The innovation filter has a specific transfer function of the form F(z) = -az + 1 – az⁻¹, where "a" is a periodicity factor derived from a level of periodicity of the excitation signal. (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524 - "Perceptual Weighting Device and Method for Efficient Coding of Wideband Signals"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent explains that traditional perceptual weighting filters in speech coders are not well-suited for wideband signals. They have inherent limitations in simultaneously modeling the formant structure (vocal resonances) and the pronounced spectral tilt (the tendency for energy to decrease at higher frequencies) found in wideband speech. (’524 Patent, col. 9:1-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention decouples these two aspects. It first applies a pre-emphasis filter to the signal to manage the spectral tilt. Then, it calculates the synthesis filter coefficients from this pre-emphasized signal. Finally, it uses a modified perceptual weighting filter with a fixed denominator, which focuses on shaping quantization noise around the formants without being confounded by the signal's overall tilt. (’524 Patent, col. 9:11-30, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This technique improves the performance of wideband codecs by more accurately shaping quantization error so that it is masked by the human auditory system, a key principle for achieving high perceived quality at low bitrates. (Compl. ¶28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts representative independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Essential elements of claim 4 include:
    • A perceptual weighting device for producing a perceptually weighted signal from a wideband speech signal.
    • A signal preemphasis filter that enhances the high frequency content to produce a preemphasised signal.
    • A synthesis filter calculator that operates on the preemphasised signal to produce synthesis filter coefficients.
    • A perceptual weighting filter that operates on the preemphasised signal and has a transfer function with a "fixed denominator," whereby the weighting of the signal's formant region is "substantially decoupled from a spectral tilt" of the signal. (Compl. ¶62).

U.S. Patent No. 7,151,802 - "High Frequency Content Recovering Method and Device for Over-Sampled Synthesized Wideband Signal"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of high-frequency content being lost when a wideband signal is down-sampled for efficient encoding (’802 Patent, col. 2:48-56). The proposed solution is a method at the decoder to regenerate this missing content by producing a random noise sequence, spectrally shaping it using the decoded signal’s own characteristics, and injecting it into the up-sampled signal to create a full-spectrum output (’802 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Representative independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the EVS Codec in Huawei's products includes a high-frequency content recovering device that performs the claimed steps of noise generation, spectral shaping, and signal injection (Compl. ¶¶84-85).

U.S. Patent No. 7,260,521 - "Method and Device for Adaptive Bandwidth Pitch Search in Coding Wideband Signals"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes that a single, fixed method for pitch prediction is inefficient for wideband speech because the harmonic structure of speech varies and does not cover the entire spectrum (’521 Patent, col. 12:45-51). The invention provides a pitch analysis device that uses at least two different signal paths to calculate pitch prediction error, where at least one path includes a filter to modify the pitch codevector. The device then selects the path that yields the lowest prediction error, effectively adapting the bandwidth of the pitch analysis. (’521 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Representative independent claim 2 (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the EVS Standard's pitch analysis device, alleging it includes at least two signal paths (one with a filter and one without) and a selector that chooses the path with the lowest calculated pitch prediction error (Compl. ¶¶101-104).

U.S. Patent No. 7,191,123 - "Gain-Smoothing in Wideband Speech and Audio Signal Decoder"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of audible artifacts caused by unnatural fluctuations in the gain of the "innovative codevector," especially in the presence of stationary background noise (’123 Patent, col. 2:23-29). The solution is a device that "smoothes" this gain by calculating a smoothing factor based on characteristics of the incoming signal, such as its voicing (e.g., speech vs. noise) and spectral stability. This reduces gain fluctuations for non-speech sounds, improving perceptual quality. (’123 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Representative independent claim 102 (Compl. ¶113).
  • Accused Features: The EVS Standard's decoder is accused of infringing by including a device that produces a "gain-smoothed codevector" by calculating a factor representative of voicing and using it to calculate a smoothing gain (Compl. ¶¶118-122).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Huawei EVS Products," defined as any Huawei product containing the EVS Codec. This includes products capable of "Ultra HD Voice (or HD Voice+)" communications, such as the Huawei Mate series, P series, and others, as well as devices containing specific System-on-Chip (SOC) components from HiSilicon, Qualcomm, and MediaTek (Compl. ¶¶43, 59, 76, 92, 111).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused functionality is the implementation of the 3GPP EVS Standard, a codec designed to deliver high-quality voice services over LTE/4G networks (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges that Huawei was aware of the benefits of EVS, having published a paper on "Full HD Voice" in 2014, and that devices marketed as "HD Voice+" capable must support the EVS Codec (Compl. ¶¶29, 32). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement theory rests on the allegation that compliance with the 3GPP EVS Standard necessarily results in infringement of the asserted patents. The allegations map claim elements to specific sections of the EVS technical specifications, which are cited as "Ex. A" in the complaint (Compl. ¶¶49-52, 65-69).

U.S. Patent No. 6,795,805 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 3) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a factor generator for calculating a periodicity factor related to the wideband speech signal The periodicity enhancing device of the EVS Standard comprises a factor generator for calculating a periodicity factor. ¶51 col. 12:40-50
an innovation filter for filtering the innovative codevector in relation to said periodicity factor to thereby reduce energy of a low frequency portion of the innovative codevector and enhance periodicity of a low frequency portion of the excitation signal The EVS Standard comprises an innovation filter for filtering the innovative codevector based on the periodicity factor to achieve the claimed functions. ¶51 col. 12:25-40
the innovation filter has a transfer function of the form F(z) = -az + 1 – az⁻¹ where a is a periodicity factor derived from a level of periodicity of the excitation signal The EVS Standard's innovation filter is alleged to have the claimed transfer function, where "a" is a periodicity factor derived from the excitation signal's periodicity. ¶52 col. 2:57-62
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "periodicity factor" as defined and calculated in the ’805 Patent’s specification encompasses the specific factor calculated and used in the EVS Standard. The analysis will depend on comparing the patent’s disclosed calculation methods with the standard’s requirements.
    • Technical Questions: The dispute may focus on whether the filter implemented in the EVS Standard performs the dual functions of both "reduc[ing] energy of a low frequency portion" and "enhanc[ing] periodicity of a low frequency portion" of the respective signals, as required by claim 3.

U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a signal preemphasis filter responsive to the wideband speech signal for enhancing a high frequency content of the wideband speech signal to thereby produce a preemphasised signal The EVS Standard allegedly comprises a signal preemphasis filter that enhances the high frequency content of the wideband speech signal. ¶67 col. 8:64-67
a synthesis filter calculator responsive to said preemphasised signal for producing synthesis filter coefficients The EVS Standard allegedly comprises a synthesis filter calculator that produces coefficients based on the preemphasised signal. ¶67 col. 9:31-35
a perceptual weighting filter... having a transfer function with fixed denominator whereby weighting of said wideband speech signal in a formant region is substantially decoupled from a spectral tilt of said wideband speech signal The EVS Standard's perceptual weighting filter is alleged to have a fixed denominator, which decouples formant weighting from the spectral tilt. ¶67 col. 9:39-44
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The term "substantially decoupled" will be a key point of contention. The analysis will require determining the degree of separation between formant weighting and spectral tilt that is required by the claim and whether the EVS Standard’s method achieves it.
    • Technical Questions: A potential dispute is whether the EVS Standard's architecture truly processes a "preemphasised signal" through both the synthesis filter calculator and the perceptual weighting filter in the manner required by the claim's structure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "periodicity factor" (’805 Patent, claim 3)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the ’805 Patent’s invention. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the parameter used in the EVS Standard to control the innovation filter falls within the scope of this term as defined by the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the factor to be "derived from a level of periodicity of the excitation signal." The specification discloses two different methods for calculating the factor, one based on a "ratio of pitch contribution" and another on a "voicing factor," suggesting the term is not limited to a single formula but rather to its functional origin. (’805 Patent, col. 12:40-67; col. 13:5-13).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific, detailed equations for calculating the periodicity factor a. A party could argue that these embodiments define and limit the scope of the term to those specific mathematical relationships. (’805 Patent, col. 12:47-50; col. 13:8-10).

  • The Term: "substantially decoupled" (’524 Patent, claim 4)

  • Context and Importance: This functional language describes the key technical benefit of the ’524 Patent’s invention. The infringement case for this patent depends on whether the accused EVS implementation achieves this result.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of "substantially" implies the decoupling does not need to be perfect or complete. The patent describes the novel filter structure as one that "substantially decouples the formant weighting from the tilt," framing it as a characteristic of the claimed architecture. (’524 Patent, col. 9:28-30).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the term requires a specific, high degree of technical separation that is only achieved by the precise filter structure disclosed in the patent's preferred embodiments, potentially arguing that the EVS Standard's method is technically different and does not achieve the same level of decoupling. (’524 Patent, col. 9:39-44).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. The inducement theory is based on allegations that Huawei advertises, promotes, and sells its EVS-capable products with the specific intent that its customers will use them in an infringing manner (e.g., by making HD Voice+ calls). The contributory infringement theory is based on the allegation that the EVS Codec has no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶53, 70, 86, 105, 123).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint alleges that Huawei had pre-suit knowledge of the patents through "prior licensing discussions," "public information about these patents, the EVS Standard, and licensing," and awareness of related lawsuits in Germany and the U.S. against other companies (Compl. ¶¶37, 55, 72, 88, 107, 125).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical mapping: Does the 3GPP EVS standard, as implemented in Huawei’s products, practice every element of the asserted claims? This will require a granular, element-by-element comparison between the technical requirements of the standard and the specific limitations recited in the patent claims.
  • A second issue will be one of judicial precedent and claim scope: Given the extensive litigation history noted in the complaint, how will the court’s prior claim construction rulings on key terms (e.g., "periodicity factor," "substantially decoupled") from cases against other defendants shape the infringement analysis in this matter?
  • A key question for damages will be one of pre-suit knowledge: Did Huawei’s alleged awareness of the patents-in-suit and related industry litigation, purportedly gained through prior licensing discussions and public information, rise to the level of egregious conduct necessary to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?