Apex Beam Tech LLC v. TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Apex Beam Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited, et al. (China, Hong Kong, Cayman Islands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP; McKool Smith, P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:21-cv-00438, E.D. Tex., 11/30/2021
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are foreign companies that may be sued in any judicial district and that they transact business and commit acts of infringement in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 5G-capable mobile handsets and tablets infringe five patents related to methods for managing transmission schemes in wireless communication systems.
• Technical Context: The patents address technical challenges in 5G wireless networks, focusing on optimizing device power consumption, signal timing for beam recovery, and efficient reporting of channel quality for multi-antenna transmissions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or inter partes review proceedings involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,462,767 - Method and Device in UE and Base Station Used for Paging

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes that in 5G New Radio (NR) systems, which support multiple signal configurations ("numerologies"), legacy paging methods from LTE could lead to increased power consumption for the user equipment (UE) and inconsistent paging capacity for the network (’767 Patent, col. 1:46-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for a UE to determine when to monitor for a paging message based on the specific numerology in use. The UE monitors a "first signaling" in defined "X time intervals" to receive scheduling information for a "first radio signal" that carries the paging message. Crucially, the patent teaches that the determination of these time intervals is linked to characteristics of the frequency "subband" being used, such as its location or the spacing of its subcarriers, thereby creating a uniform method for calculating paging opportunities across different numerologies (’767 Patent, col. 2:19-42, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to conserve battery life in mobile devices and maintain network efficiency by standardizing how a UE listens for pages in the complex and variable 5G environment (’767 Patent, col. 2:4-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
• Claim 1 requires a method in a UE for paging, comprising the elements of:
  • monitoring a first signaling in X time intervals;
  • receiving a first radio signal;
  • wherein the first signaling is used for determining scheduling information for the first radio signal, and the first radio signal carries a paging message;
  • wherein the frequency domain resource for the first signaling belongs to a first subband comprising a positive integer number of consecutive subcarriers; and
  • wherein at least one of (location of the first subband, subcarrier spacing of subcarriers in the first subband) is used for determining the X time intervals.

---

U.S. Patent No. 10,568,113 - Method and Device in UE and Base Station Used for Wireless Communication

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a potential inefficiency in wireless communication: when a UE transmits a "beam recovery request" after its signal quality degrades, the time-frequency resources allocated for the network's response may be underutilized if the UE cannot transmit another request during that waiting period (’113 Patent, col. 2:41-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method where a UE receives a "target radio signal" and, if its measured value exceeds a threshold, transmits a "first radio signal" and a "second radio signal." The patent defines a series of overlapping time windows based on the timing of these first and second signals. A "first time window" for monitoring a response (a "third radio signal") is established, with its start and end times determined by the transmission times of the first and second signals, respectively. This structured timing relationship aims to improve the use of allocated resources (’113 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-8).
• Technical Importance: This method provides a more structured and efficient protocol for managing beam recovery procedures, which are critical for maintaining stable connections in beamforming-based systems like 5G (’113 Patent, col. 2:9-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
• Claim 1 requires a method in a UE for wireless communication, comprising the elements of:
  • receiving a target radio signal;
  • transmitting a first radio signal on a first channel;
  • transmitting a second radio signal on a second channel;
  • monitoring a third radio signal in a first time window;
  • wherein a measurement for the target radio signal obtaining a target measurement value, when higher than a target threshold, is used for triggering the transmission of the first and second radio signals;
  • wherein a time resource occupied by the first radio signal is used for determining the start time of the first time window;
  • wherein there are a second time window and a third time window, with the second being within the first, a resource occupied by the first signal determining the second window, and a resource occupied by the second signal determining the third window;
  • wherein the end time of the third time window is the end time of the first time window; and
  • wherein the second time window and the third time window have overlapped time domain resource(s).

---

U.S. Patent No. 10,912,081 - Method and Device used for Wireless Communication in UE and Base Station

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses methods for determining how a UE performs multi-antenna receiving for a signal composed of multiple "multicarrier symbols." The technique is based on the relative timing position of each symbol with respect to a "first time point" within a time unit, allowing for more dynamic and efficient beam management (Compl. ¶19; ’081 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products perform a method of receiving a first radio signal (e.g., PDSCH) and a second radio signal (e.g., DL DCI) within a time unit and determining the multi-antenna receiving procedure based on the relative timing of multicarrier symbols with respect to a time point derived from the DCI signal (Compl. ¶47).

---

U.S. Patent No. 10,944,527 - Method and Device for Multi-Antenna Transmission in UE and Base Station

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a technique for multi-antenna transmission where a UE receives a radio signal from a base station transmitted via multiple "antenna port groups." The UE also receives signaling used to determine a "time resource pool," and at least one "antenna virtualization vector" is associated with an antenna port group to facilitate correct beam alignment and enhance transmission quality (Compl. ¶20; ’527 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products receive a first radio signal (e.g., KCSI-RSresources) and a first signaling (e.g., DCI format signal). The signaling is allegedly used to determine a time resource pool where antenna virtualization vectors are associated with antenna port groups used for the radio signal transmission (Compl. ¶57).

---

U.S. Patent No. 10,951,271 - Method and Device for Multi-Antenna Transmission in UE and Base Station

• Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a method for a UE to report channel quality back to a base station. The UE receives a signal and signaling, determines channel quality values (e.g., RSRPs) for different antenna port groups, and transmits information back to the base station based on a ratio between the best and worse channel qualities being greater than or equal to a target threshold. This helps the base station with beam selection (Compl. ¶21; ’271 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶66).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products receive signaling (e.g., CSI-ReportConfig IE) and a wireless signal (e.g., K CSI-RS resources), determine channel quality values, and transmit a CSI report based on a comparison of channel quality ratios against a determined threshold (Compl. ¶67).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Accused Products include at least the TCL 10 5G UW, the TCL 20 Pro 5G, the 20 A 5G, and the Tab Pro 5G (Compl. ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are described as 5G mobile handsets and tablets that implement the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) 5G standards (Compl. ¶¶22, 26). The complaint alleges that in operating on 5G networks, these products practice the patented methods for paging, beam recovery, multi-antenna reception timing, antenna virtualization, and channel state reporting as defined by the 3GPP specifications (Compl. ¶¶27, 37, 47, 57, 67).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

10,462,767 Patent Infringement Allegations

10,568,113 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Standards Mapping: Across all asserted patents, a central point of contention may be whether the terms used in the claims read on the specific implementations, signals, and protocols defined in the 3GPP 5G standards. For the ’767 Patent, a question is whether a 5G "Bandwidth Part" (BWP), as alleged in the complaint, meets the claim definition of a "first subband."
• Temporal and Functional Equivalence: For the ’113 Patent, the dispute may focus on the precise temporal relationships between the various "windows." A key technical question will be whether the operation of standard 5G timers, such as "msgB-ResponseWindow" and "ra-ContentionResolutionTimer", satisfies the claim requirement that the resulting second and third time windows have "overlapped time domain resource(s)" and that the "end time of the third time window is the end time of the first time window."

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’767 Patent

• The Term: "first subband"
• Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on this term encompassing a "Bandwidth Part" (BWP) as defined in the 3GPP 5G standard (Compl. ¶27). The construction of "subband" will therefore be critical to determining whether the accused products, by implementing the standard, meet this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term functionally, stating "The first subband includes a positive integer number of consecutive subcarriers in frequency domain" (’767 Patent, col. 2:31-33). This general language may support a construction broad enough to cover various frequency resource configurations, including a BWP.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the context of the invention, which aims to solve a problem related to multiple numerologies, implies a more specific structure than the general-purpose BWP. However, the specification does not appear to provide an explicit, more restrictive definition.

For the ’113 Patent

• The Term: "the second time window and the third time window have overlapped time domain resource(s)"
• Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that the operation of two distinct timers in the 5G standard ("msgB-ResponseWindow" and "ra-ContentionResolutionTimer") creates windows that satisfy this limitation (Compl. ¶37). The interpretation of "overlapped" will determine whether these standardized, sequential-but-potentially-concurrent processes meet the claim's requirement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain and ordinary meaning of "overlapped" suggests that the two time windows are not mutually exclusive in time and share at least some common time duration. The specification does not appear to require a specific degree or type of overlap.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 6 of the patent depicts the second and third time windows as partially overlapping, with the second window beginning before the third. A party could argue this specific depiction limits the term to configurations with a similar temporal structure, potentially excluding the relationship between the timers used in the accused products.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For each of the five patents-in-suit, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations are based on Defendants knowingly and intentionally encouraging infringement by providing the Accused Products to customers and end-users for use in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶28, 30, 38, 40, 48, 50, 58, 60, 68, 70).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date of this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶29, 39, 49, 59, 69). This frames the willfulness claim as being based on alleged post-suit continuation of infringing conduct, rather than pre-suit knowledge.

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

This case appears to present two central questions for the court that are common across the asserted patents.

• A core issue will be one of standards mapping: Can the specific, and at times general, terminology of the patent claims (e.g., "first subband," "first signaling," "antenna virtualization vector") be construed to read on the technical protocols, signals, and functionalities defined by the 3GPP 5G standard, which the Accused Products are alleged to practice?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional and temporal precision: For patents with detailed method steps, particularly the '113 and '081 Patents, does the accused implementation of 5G standards perform the exact sequence of operations and satisfy the specific timing relationships (e.g., "overlapped time domain resource(s)," "the end time of the third time window is the end time of the first time window") required by the asserted claims, or is there a functional or temporal mismatch?