DCT

2:22-cv-00094

Neo Wireless LLC v. General Motors

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00094, E.D. Tex., 03/29/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the district and maintain regular and established places of business there, including a parts distribution center in Fort Worth.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicles equipped with 4G/LTE and 5G/NR cellular communication capabilities infringe six patents related to foundational technologies for multi-carrier communication systems.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to methods for managing data transmission, channel access, and signaling in wireless networks, such as those based on Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) technology, which underpins modern 4G/LTE and 5G cellular standards.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details the assignment history of the patents-in-suit, which originated with inventors associated with Neocific, Inc. in the early 2000s and were subsequently assigned to Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC in 2020. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-01-29 Earliest Priority Date (’908, ’512, ’302 Patents)
2004-02-13 Earliest Priority Date (’941 Patent)
2004-03-09 Earliest Priority Date (’366 Patent)
2005-09-28 Earliest Priority Date (’450 Patent)
2008-01-01 3GPP finalizes LTE standards (approximate date based on complaint)
2013-06-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 issues
2018-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 issues
2019-10-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 issues
2020-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302 issues
2020-11-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 issues
2021-03-30 U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 issues
2022-03-29 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 - Methods and Apparatus for Multi-Carrier Communication Systems With Adaptive Transmission and Feedback, issued September 11, 2018 (’941 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of maintaining reliable and efficient communication in wireless environments where signal quality can vary significantly due to factors like fading (’941 Patent, col. 1:31-40). Using a fixed transmission scheme is inefficient, as it may be too robust for good channel conditions (wasting resources) or not robust enough for poor conditions (causing errors).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system where a transmitter jointly adapts multiple parameters—including the modulation and coding scheme (MCS), training pilot patterns, and transmission power—based on channel quality feedback from a receiver (’941 Patent, col. 2:33-42). This feedback, often called Channel Quality Information (CQI), allows the transmitter to select an optimal set of parameters to maximize data throughput and spectral efficiency for the current state of the communication channel (’941 Patent, FIG. 4, FIG. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This approach of dynamically adapting transmission characteristics to channel conditions is a fundamental concept for enabling high-speed, reliable data services in modern wireless systems like 4G/LTE and 5G (’941 Patent, col. 1:31-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 13 (’941 Patent; Compl. ¶76).
  • Essential elements of claim 13 include:
    • A mobile station comprising a receiver configured to:
    • Receive a control message from a base station containing transmission parameters for a subsequent data transmission;
    • Where the parameters indicate both an antenna transmission scheme (e.g., MIMO or diversity) and a corresponding subchannel configuration (e.g., distributed or localized subcarriers); and
    • Receive a data packet transmitted from the base station using those specified parameters.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 - Method and System for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with Reduced Overhead, issued October 15, 2019 (’450 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In packet-based wireless systems (e.g., those based on the IEEE 802.16 "WiMAX" standard), control messages that schedule and allocate network resources to users create significant overhead (’450 Patent, col. 1:45-54). For applications with frequent, small data packets, such as Voice-over-IP (VoIP), this control overhead can consume a substantial portion of the available bandwidth, reducing overall system efficiency (’450 Patent, col. 2:7-13).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent proposes reducing this overhead by partitioning the available time-frequency resource into designated "zones" for specific application types, such as a dedicated VoIP zone (’450 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:44-50). Within such a zone, resources are allocated in modular "basic resource units," allowing packet streams to be mapped using a simple offset index rather than complex two-dimensional coordinates. This significantly reduces the number of bits required for control messaging (’450 Patent, col. 6:24-35; FIG. 6).
  • Technical Importance: By minimizing control overhead, the invention enables more efficient support for latency-sensitive, small-packet applications like VoIP, which is critical for maximizing the capacity of modern packet-switched wireless networks (’450 Patent, col. 2:13-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (’450 Patent; Compl. ¶82).
  • Essential elements of claim 7 include:
    • A mobile device configured to:
    • Receive an identifier from a base station;
    • Receive a signal over a segment of a time-frequency resource, where the segment has a starting coordinate and comprises N time-frequency resource units;
    • The number of units, N, is specified as being 2, 4, or 8; and
    • Recover the information from the signal using the identifier, the starting coordinate, and the value of N.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 (’908 Patent) - Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband Communication System, issued November 10, 2020

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system where a robust, low-power spread spectrum signal is intentionally overlaid in time or frequency with a primary, high-efficiency OFDM data signal (’908 Patent, Abstract). The spread spectrum signal is designed with a high processing gain to be detectable despite interference and is used for auxiliary system functions like channel probing or initial random access, while the OFDM signal carries the main broadband data traffic.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 11 is asserted (Compl. ¶70).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that GM's products infringe by implementing and using 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular functionality (Compl. ¶¶69-70).

U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302 (’302 Patent) - Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband Communication System, issued September 8, 2020

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’908 patent, also discloses a hybrid communication system that intentionally overlaps a spread spectrum signal with an OFDM signal (’302 Patent, Abstract). The spread spectrum signal facilitates system functions like random access or channel probing, while the OFDM signal carries high-throughput data, with techniques employed to minimize mutual interference between the two signal types.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 23 is asserted (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses GM's products that implement 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular functionality (Compl. ¶¶93-94).

U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 (’366 Patent) - Methods and Apparatus for Random Access in Multi-Carrier Communication Systems, issued June 18, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technical synopsis. The patent title suggests a focus on methods for managing the initial random access procedure in multi-carrier networks, a process by which a mobile device first establishes contact with a base station.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by GM products that implement 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular functionality (Compl. ¶¶63-64).

U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 (’512 Patent) - Method and Apparatus Using Cell-Specific and Common Pilot Subcarriers in multi-Carrier, Multi Cell Wireless Communication Networks, issued March 30, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the technical synopsis. The patent title suggests a system that employs two distinct types of pilot signals: "cell-specific" pilots, which are unique to an individual cell, and "common" pilots, which are shared across multiple cells, to allow a receiver to perform different system functions efficiently.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 15 is asserted (Compl. ¶88).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses GM's products that implement 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular functionality (Compl. ¶¶87-88).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are General Motors vehicle models equipped with cellular communication technology, including the Blazer, Bolt, Equinox, Sierra, Cadillac XT5, and Encore models (Compl. ¶46). The complaint also references the myGMC mobile application, which interacts with the vehicles' connectivity features (Compl. ¶45).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused functionality is the 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR connectivity provided in the vehicles, primarily through the integrated OnStar system (Compl. ¶44). This technology enables a wide array of telematics and infotainment features, such as SOS emergency assistance, automatic collision notification, remote vehicle controls (e.g., remote start), stolen vehicle tracking, in-vehicle Wi-Fi hotspots, and live traffic and map updates (Compl. ¶43). The complaint asserts that these features are implemented in compliance with 3GPP technical standards for 4G/LTE and 5G/NR networks (Compl. ¶¶38, 47).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶64, 70, 76, 82, 88, 94); however, these exhibits were not provided. The analysis below summarizes the narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint.

’941 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that GM's accused products, by implementing the 3GPP LTE standard, necessarily meet the limitations of at least claim 13 of the ’941 Patent (Compl. ¶76). The infringement theory suggests that the LTE-capable modems in the vehicles function as the claimed "mobile station." These devices are alleged to receive "control messages" from cellular base stations that specify transmission parameters, such as the use of MIMO antenna schemes and the configuration of subcarriers for data transmission. The vehicle's modem then receives data packets that are transmitted according to those specified parameters, thereby practicing the elements of the claim.

  • Identified Points of Contention: The analysis may center on whether the control signaling channels in the 3GPP LTE standard function as the "control message" recited in the claim and whether they convey the specific combination of "antenna transmission scheme" and "corresponding subchannel configuration" as a single set of "transmission parameters" for a subsequent transmission.

’450 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products' implementation of the 3GPP LTE standard reads on at least claim 7 of the ’450 Patent (Compl. ¶82). The theory posits that the LTE standard's method for resource allocation aligns with the claimed method. It suggests that the LTE system in a GM vehicle receives an "identifier," and is allocated a "segment of time-frequency resource" defined by a "starting... coordinate" and a size of "N time-frequency resource units." The claim's specific requirement that N must be 2, 4, or 8 is alleged to be met by the standard's resource allocation mechanisms, allowing the device to recover information as claimed.

  • Identified Points of Contention: The dispute may focus on the construction of "time-frequency resource unit" and whether the resource allocation blocks used in the LTE standard, as implemented by GM, are consistently comprised of exactly N=2, 4, or 8 of these units. The specificity of this numerical limitation suggests a potential area for disagreement on claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’941 Patent: "corresponding subchannel configuration characterized by distributed subcarriers or localized subcarriers" (from Claim 13)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis as it defines the required structure of the frequency resources. The case may turn on whether the methods of grouping and assigning frequency resources in the LTE standard, as implemented in the accused products, fall within the patent's definition of a "subchannel configuration" that is either "distributed" or "localized."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that the subchannel configuration is designed to be flexible and "configurable so that it can be adjusted statically or dynamically according to the user profiles or environmental conditions" (’941 Patent, col. 2:42-46). This language may support an argument that the term encompasses a wide variety of resource grouping methods.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent depicts specific arrangements of subcarriers grouped into subchannels, such as in FIG. 2. This could be used to argue that the term is limited to the particular types of non-adjacent ("distributed") or adjacent ("localized") groupings illustrated in the patent's embodiments.

’450 Patent: "N time-frequency resource units within a time interval, each unit containing a set of frequency subcarriers in a group of OFDM symbols, where N=2, 4, or 8" (from Claim 7)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is highly specific and quantitative. Infringement depends directly on whether the resource blocks allocated in the accused LTE systems can be technically characterized as being composed of exactly 2, 4, or 8 "time-frequency resource units" as that term is defined by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification introduces the concept of a "basic resource unit" and explains that resources utilized by various MCS schemes are "simply an integer multiple of the basic unit" (’450 Patent, col. 6:51-53). Table 1 shows examples where the number of units is 1, 2, 4, and 8, which might support an argument that the numbers in the claim are exemplary of this modular approach.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim explicitly recites the limitation "where N=2, 4, or 8." This provides textual support for an argument that the claim scope is strictly confined to resource allocations using these exact integer multiples, and does not cover allocations of, for example, 1 or 3 units.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by encouraging customers to use the infringing 4G/LTE and 5G/NR features and by providing advertising, sales materials, and technical documentation that instruct on the use of these features (Compl. ¶¶55-56).
  • Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ knowledge of the patents-in-suit acquired, at the latest, upon service of the complaint (Compl. ¶58). The complaint further alleges that Defendants acted despite an "objectively high likelihood" that their actions constituted infringement (Compl. ¶59).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary mapping: The complaint's theory appears to equate compliance with the 3GPP standards to infringement. The case will likely depend on detailed technical evidence establishing whether the specific implementation of those standards in GM's vehicles and the OnStar system meets every limitation of the asserted claims, or if there are material technical differences.
  • A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: The dispute will likely involve claim construction battles over highly specific terms. For instance, can the LTE standard's resource block structure be defined as comprising "N time-frequency resource units, where N=2, 4, or 8" as required by the ’450 patent, or is this a fundamental mismatch? Similarly, does the phrase "corresponding subchannel configuration" in the ’941 patent encompass the channel structures used in the accused LTE systems?