DCT

2:19-cv-00232

Cellular Evolution LLC v. T-Mobile US Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00232, E.D. Tex., 10/07/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because T-Mobile maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including retail stores and a regional headquarters with research and development facilities in Frisco, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 3G UMTS/HSPA network and the compatible user equipment operating on it infringe five patents related to methods for enabling interoperability between synchronous and asynchronous mobile telecommunication systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of allowing mobile devices to function across different types of cellular networks, specifically synchronous (e.g., ANSI-41 based) and asynchronous (e.g., GSM-MAP based) systems, which was a critical issue during the global transition to 3G mobile standards.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the asserted patents were declared essential to the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) standard and were identified as such in European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) special reports, which may be relevant to questions of notice and damages. The complaint also alleges that T-Mobile cited the asserted patents in its own patent applications.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-07-30 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2004-05-25 U.S. Patent No. 6,741,868 Issues
2006-09-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,110,788 Issues
2007-04-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,203,514 Issues
2008-01-01 T-Mobile begins commercial launch of its 3G UMTS/HSPDA network (approximate date)
2009-03-17 U.S. Patent No. 7,505,783 Issues
2012-10-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,285,325 Issues
2019-10-07 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,741,868 - “Method and Apparatus for Interfacing Among Mobile Terminal, Base Station, and Core Network in Mobile Telecommunications System”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In the late 1990s, mobile telecommunication systems were fragmented into two incompatible types: synchronous systems (e.g., CDMA-2000) and asynchronous systems (e.g., UMTS). A mobile terminal designed for one type of network could not operate on the other, limiting interoperability and roaming. (Compl. ¶¶45-47; ’868 Patent, col. 7:59-8:3).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "hybrid" mobile terminal and radio network capable of interfacing with both synchronous and asynchronous core networks. The radio network first determines the operating type of the connected core network and then sends a message containing this "core network operating type information" to the terminal. The terminal uses this information to activate the appropriate communication protocols (e.g., call control and mobility management) for the specific network type it is connected to. (Compl. ¶¶48, 50; ’868 Patent, col. 8:14-30, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a technical foundation for creating unified networks and multi-mode devices that could seamlessly switch between different underlying network technologies, a key enabler for global roaming and the transition to 3G services. (Compl. ¶55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts representative independent claim 27. (Compl. ¶69).
  • Claim 27 is a method for interfacing among a terminal, a radio network, and a core network, with the following essential elements:
    • A terminal having a "hybrid operating type" that can be set as either synchronous or asynchronous.
    • At the base station (BS), storing core network operating type information on a storage device.
    • At the BS, reading this information during initialization.
    • At the BS, providing the terminal with this information in a message over a predetermined channel.
    • At the terminal, extracting the core network operating type information from the received message.
    • At the terminal, recognizing the operating type of the core network based on the extracted information.
    • At the terminal, setting its own operating type (synchronous or asynchronous) based on the recognized network type.
  • The complaint states that Plaintiff is not asserting claims 15-26, 37-44, 58-69, and 83-102 of the ’868 Patent. (Compl. ¶78).

U.S. Patent No. 7,110,788 - “Method and Apparatus for Interfacing Among Mobile Terminal, Base Station and Core Network in Mobile Telecommunications System”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’788 Patent, a continuation of the '868 Patent, addresses the same technical problem of incompatibility between synchronous and asynchronous mobile communication systems. (’788 Patent, col. 1:60-2:23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method where a radio network provides a terminal with a message that includes "core network operating type information." The terminal then uses this information to recognize the network's operating type, which in turn "allow[s] the terminal to operate according to the recognized operating type." (’788 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:25-38). This enables a terminal to adapt its communication protocols to match the connected network.
  • Technical Importance: As described for the parent '868 Patent, this technology facilitates interoperability between historically incompatible cellular standards.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts representative independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶103).
  • Claim 1 is a method for interfacing between a terminal and a core network with an asynchronous operating type, comprising the steps of:
    • Providing the terminal with a message including core network operating type information.
    • At the terminal, recognizing the operating type of the core network based on the information in the message.
    • Thereby allowing the terminal to operate according to the recognized operating type of the core network.
  • The complaint states that Plaintiff is not asserting claims 25-36 and 45-56 of the ’788 Patent. (Compl. ¶109).

U.S. Patent No. 7,203,514 - “Method and Apparatus for Interfacing Among Mobile Terminal, Base Station and Core Network in Mobile Telecommunications System”

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the same patent family, the ’514 Patent addresses the problem of interoperability between synchronous and asynchronous networks. It focuses on a method where a "hybrid" terminal recognizes the core network's operating type from information contained in a message and thereby operates according to that type. (Compl. ¶¶45-48, 147-149).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts representative claim 1. (Compl. ¶145).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are T-Mobile's 3G network and compatible User Equipment, which allegedly have a hybrid operating type and recognize the core network type (synchronous or asynchronous) from a broadcast message to enable proper operation. (Compl. ¶¶147-149).

U.S. Patent No. 7,505,783 - “Method and Apparatus for Interfacing Among Mobile Terminal, Base Station, and Core Network in Mobile Telecommunications System”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent continues the same family and describes methods for interfacing terminals with radio networks. The invention involves providing a terminal with a message containing an information element that identifies the operating type of the core network (e.g., GSM-MAP). (Compl. ¶¶169-172).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts representative claim 1. (Compl. ¶167).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the use of the UMTS RRC Protocol in T-Mobile's 3G network, which allegedly provides terminals with a message containing an information element identifying the core network as having a GSM-MAP operating type. (Compl. ¶¶170-172).

U.S. Patent No. 8,285,325 - “Method and Apparatus for Interfacing Among Mobile Terminal, Base Stations and Core Network in Mobile Telecommunications System”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also from the same family, claims a method for interfacing a terminal and a radio network. The claimed method involves providing the terminal with a message that includes core network information elements within a master information block, which identify the network's operating type (e.g., GSM-MAP). (Compl. ¶¶198-201).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts representative claim 1. (Compl. ¶196).
  • Accused Features: The accused features involve T-Mobile's 3G network utilizing the UMTS RRC Protocol, which allegedly provides a message containing a master information block with elements that identify a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) based on the core network's operating type. (Compl. ¶¶198-202).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are T-Mobile's Third Generation (3G) wireless network, which operates using UMTS/HSPA network technology, and the User Equipment (UE) sold for use on that network. (Compl. ¶¶21, 63, 67-68).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that T-Mobile's 3G network is a UMTS network that complies with standards developed by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), specifically the UMTS Radio Resource Control (RRC) Protocol. (Compl. ¶¶23, 31, 63). The complaint presents a diagram of the UMTS architecture, identifying key subsystems like the User Equipment (UE), the radio access network (UTRAN), and the Core Network (CN). (Compl. ¶30, p. 8, Figure 1). To operate on the network, a UE must support these standards, which allegedly involves receiving and processing broadcast system information to determine the network's characteristics and configure itself accordingly. (Compl. ¶¶32, 35). The complaint lists numerous popular smartphones, such as Samsung Galaxy and Apple iPhone models, as examples of accused UEs. (Compl. ¶¶68, 102).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,741,868 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 27) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
the terminal has a hybrid operating type being possible to be set as either a synchronous operating type or an asynchronous operating type The UE maintains a list of allowed PLMN types that can include GSM-MAP (asynchronous) and ANSI-41 (synchronous) types, per 3GPP standards. ¶71 col. 14:36-44
storing core network operating type information and information related to the core network on a storage device T-Mobile's base stations store network type information (PLMN type) to be included in a system information message broadcast from the UTRAN to the UE. ¶72 col. 20:56-61
reading the core network operating type information...during a time period of initialization of the BS T-Mobile's base stations read the stored network type information during initialization in preparation for broadcasting it. ¶73 col. 21:1-6
providing the terminal with the core network operating type information...as a message through a predetermined channel The T-Mobile UTRAN broadcasts a "SYSTEM INFORMATION" message containing a "PLMN type" element to the UE, as shown in a diagram from the ETSI standard. (Compl. ¶74, p. 20). ¶74 col. 21:15-26
extracting, at the terminal, the core network operating type information from a received message... The UE operating on the T-Mobile network extracts the PLMN type information contained within the received system information message. ¶75 col. 23:33-39
recognizing, at the terminal, the operating type of the core network on the basis of the extracted...information The UE recognizes the core network's operating type (e.g., GSM-MAP) based on the extracted PLMN type information element. ¶76 col. 23:40-44
setting an operating type of the terminal to the synchronous operating type or the asynchronous operating type on the basis of the recognized operating type of the core network Based on the recognized network type, the UE selects the appropriate PLMN to operate on, thereby setting its operational mode to interface with the asynchronous core network. ¶77 col. 23:45-51

U.S. Patent No. 7,110,788 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
the core network has an asynchronous operating type T-Mobile's 3G UMTS network is alleged to be an asynchronous type network (GSM-MAP type). ¶105 col. 2:48-52
providing the terminal with a message including a core network operating type information T-Mobile's base stations broadcast a system information message that contains the PLMN type, which indicates the core network's operating type. ¶106 col. 18:25-38
at the terminal, recognizing the operating type of the core network on the basis of the core network operating type information contained in the message A user operating a T-Mobile UE recognizes the network type based on the PLMN type information contained in the broadcast system message. ¶107 col. 15:5-10
to thereby allow the terminal to operate according to the recognized operating type of the core network After recognizing the network type, the UE camps on the appropriate cell and registers with the network, thereby operating in a mode compatible with that network type. ¶108 col. 15:33-39

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the patent terms "synchronous operating type" and "asynchronous operating type" can be construed to read on the 3GPP standard's "ANSI-41" and "GSM-MAP" PLMN types, respectively, as the complaint alleges. (Compl. ¶¶45, 71). The litigation may focus on whether the technical definitions and operations described in the patents align with the implementation details of the accused standards.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 27 of the ’868 Patent recites steps performed by the base station and steps performed by the terminal. The complaint alleges that T-Mobile is liable for all steps, either by performing them directly on its network or by directing and controlling the actions of its users' devices. (Compl. ¶¶80-86). This raises the question of divided infringement and whether T-Mobile's alleged control over the automated, standard-compliant functions of a UE is sufficient to attribute the terminal-side steps to T-Mobile.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "hybrid operating type" (’868 Patent, Claim 27)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the accused terminal. Its construction is critical because it determines whether a standard multi-mode 3GPP device falls within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory depends on mapping this patent concept to a UE's ability to select between different standardized network types like GSM-MAP and ANSI-41. (Compl. ¶71).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as solving the problem of incompatibility between two distinct system types, suggesting "hybrid" could broadly mean any device capable of operating on both. (’868 Patent, col. 7:59-8:3). The patent states the invention is accomplished by "using a new hybrid terminal instead of the conventional synchronous terminals and asynchronous terminals." (Compl. ¶50; ’868 Patent, col. 12:50-52).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description illustrates specific protocol stack architectures for a hybrid terminal, such as in FIG. 5A, which shows co-existing "ASYNCHRONOUS MM/CC" and "SYNCHRONOUS MM/CC" protocol entities. (’868 Patent, FIG. 5A). A party could argue the term is limited to terminals implementing such specific dual-stack structures.

The Term: "recognizing, at the terminal, the operating type of the core network" (’868 Patent, Claim 27)

  • Context and Importance: This is a key step performed by the accused UEs. The dispute will center on what technical process constitutes "recognizing" in the context of a UE processing broadcast network information.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this step as being performed "on the basis of the extracted core network operating type information." (’868 Patent, cl. 27). This suggests that any process where the terminal uses the broadcast information to determine the network type would meet the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flowcharts, such as FIG. 11B, depict a specific sequence of logic, such as checking if a "CN TYPE VALUE" is "1" or "0" and then analyzing related information elements. (’868 Patent, FIG. 11B, S26-S32). This could support an argument that "recognizing" requires performing this specific decision-making process, rather than any general interpretation of network parameters.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for the ’788 and ’514 patents, asserting T-Mobile provides instructions to consumers to activate and use UEs on its network with the knowledge and intent that this use will constitute infringement. (Compl. ¶¶110, 151, 154). It also alleges contributory infringement for the ’788 patent, claiming that UEs operating on T-Mobile's 3G network have no substantial non-infringing uses because they must comply with the infringing UMTS protocols to function. (Compl. ¶127).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willful infringement for the ’868, ’788, ’514, ’783, and ’325 patents. (Compl. ¶¶95, 136, 163, 192, 221). The basis for willfulness includes allegations of T-Mobile's actual, pre-suit knowledge derived from its role as a "sophisticated industry leader in standard-setting bodies" (Compl. ¶40), its awareness of ETSI reports identifying the patents as essential to the UMTS standard (Compl. ¶¶92, 133), and T-Mobile's own patent applications citing the asserted patents as prior art (Compl. ¶¶94, 135).

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

  • A core issue will be one of divided infringement: For method claims reciting steps performed at both the base station and the terminal (e.g., Claim 27 of the '868 Patent), can the plaintiff establish that T-Mobile directs or controls the automated, standards-compliant actions of its customers' user equipment to an extent sufficient to attribute all claimed steps to a single actor?
  • A second key question will be one of claim scope: Can the patent term "hybrid operating type," which is described in the specification with specific protocol stack diagrams, be construed broadly enough to encompass standard multi-mode User Equipment that supports both GSM-MAP and ANSI-41 network types as defined by 3GPP standards?
  • A final dispositive issue will relate to knowledge and damages: Given the allegation that the patents are standard-essential and were cited by the defendant's own patent applications, the case may turn on the evidentiary strength of T-Mobile's alleged pre-suit knowledge and how this status as an alleged standard-essential patent (SEP) influences the determination of willfulness and the calculation of a reasonable royalty.