Apex Beam Tech LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd Pursuant To Court Order Docket Pretrial Matters In Lead Case 2 22cv31

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Apex Beam Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Republic of Korea) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP; McKool Smith, P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00188, E.D. Tex., 06/01/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. maintains corporate offices and authorized sellers within the Eastern District of Texas, and Defendant Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 5G-enabled mobile handsets, tablets, and notebooks infringe five patents related to methods for wireless communication.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address technical challenges in 5G wireless systems, including power-efficient device paging, reliable beam recovery, and efficient multi-antenna transmission and reporting.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to 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: In 5G New Radio (NR) systems, the use of multiple "numerologies" (e.g., different subcarrier spacings and symbol lengths) complicates device paging. Legacy LTE systems used fixed-length paging timeframes, but applying this to 5G could increase power consumption for a User Equipment (UE) that must monitor for pages more frequently under certain numerologies. (Compl. ¶15; ’767 Patent, col. 1:45-67).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method where a UE monitors for a "first signaling" (e.g., control information) within defined "X time intervals" to receive a "first radio signal" carrying a paging message. The invention links the determination of these monitoring intervals to properties of the frequency "subband" used for the signaling, such as its location or the subcarrier spacing within it. This allows the paging schedule to adapt dynamically to the numerology in use, aiming to save power. (Compl. ¶24; ’767 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:19-32).
• Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a unified calculation approach for paging opportunities that can accommodate different subcarrier spacings while maintaining paging capacity and reducing UE power consumption. (Compl. ¶15; ’767 Patent, col. 2:38-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶25).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A method in a User Equipment (UE) for paging, comprising: monitoring a first signaling in X time intervals; and receiving a first radio signal.
  • The first signaling is used for determining scheduling information for the first radio signal, which carries a paging message.
  • The frequency domain resource used for the first signaling belongs to a "first subband."
  • At least one characteristic of the first subband (its location or the subcarrier spacing of its subcarriers) "is used for determining the X time intervals." (’767 Patent, col. 23:3-24:4).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 background describes a scenario in 5G where a UE transmits a "beam recovery request" if its connection quality degrades. It notes that if a UE cannot transmit a second request while awaiting a response to the first, the time-frequency resources allocated for such requests may be underutilized. (Compl. ¶16; ’113 Patent, col. 2:31-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention defines a structured process for beam recovery. After detecting a degraded "target radio signal," the UE transmits a "first radio signal" and a "second radio signal" on different channels. It then monitors for a response (a "third radio signal") within a "first time window." The patent claims a specific temporal relationship where the start of this monitoring window is determined by the first transmitted signal, and its end time is determined by the second transmitted signal, with defined sub-windows that overlap. (’113 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-8).
• Technical Importance: This method seeks to improve the utilization of aerial resources configured for transmitting beam recovery requests, which are critical for maintaining stable connections in beamformed wireless networks. (Compl. ¶16; ’113 Patent, col. 2:9-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶33).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A method in a UE comprising: receiving a target radio signal; transmitting a first radio signal on a first channel; transmitting a second radio signal on a second channel; and monitoring a third radio signal in a first time window.
  • A measurement of the target radio signal exceeding a threshold triggers the transmission of the first and second radio signals.
  • The start time of the "first time window" is determined by the time resource of the first radio signal.
  • The claim defines a "second time window" and a "third time window" within the first time window, with specific dependencies on the first and second radio signals, and requires that the second and third time windows have an "overlapped time domain resource(s)." (’113 Patent, col. 25:47-26:14).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

• Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to methods for multi-antenna reception of a radio signal composed of multiple "multicarrier symbols." The technique used for receiving a given symbol is related to its temporal position relative to a "first time point" within a time unit, using a second radio signal as a reference. This approach is intended to improve communication quality by allowing for more dynamic adjustment of reception parameters based on symbol timing. (Compl. ¶17; ’081 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶41).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products' methods for receiving Downlink Control Information (DL DCI) and Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) signals infringe the ’081 Patent. (Compl. ¶42).

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

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses multi-antenna transmission where a UE receives a signal transmitted from a base station's "K antenna port groups." The invention associates "antenna virtualization vectors"—which define how physical antennas combine to create a virtual antenna port—with the antenna port groups and a "time resource pool." This association allows the UE to determine the correct beam alignment to enhance transmission quality. (Compl. ¶18; ’527 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶49).
• Accused Features: The infringement allegations target the Accused Products' methods for receiving signals over KCSI-RSresources and/or SS/PBCH blockresources, along with associated DCI format signals. (Compl. ¶50).

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

• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for channel quality reporting. A UE receives a wireless signal from K "antenna port groups" and transmits "first information" back to the base station. This information is derived from a subset of the port groups (K1) and is based on a "proportional sequence" corresponding to the ratio among the K1 channel quality values, particularly in relation to a "target threshold." This provides a differential-based reporting method to aid in beam selection. (Compl. ¶19; ’271 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶57).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the products' Channel State Information (CSI) reporting functionalities, which are based on measurements of CSI-RS resources and/or SS/PBCH block resources. (Compl. ¶58).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies a broad range of Samsung's 5G-capable devices, including the Galaxy A, S, Note, Z, Tab, and Book series products, and names the Galaxy Z Fold3 5G as a representative example. (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 26, 34).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused functionality is the devices' implementation of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) specifications for 5G wireless communication. (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 25). The complaint alleges that in operating on 5G networks, these products practice the patented methods for paging, beam recovery, symbol reception timing, multi-antenna transmission, and channel quality reporting. (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 34, 42, 50, 58). The complaint does not contain specific allegations regarding the products' market positioning beyond identifying them as 5G mobile handsets, tablets, and notebooks. (Compl. ¶20).
• Visual Evidence: No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

10,462,767 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "subband" as described in the patent reads on a "Bandwidth Part (BWP)" as implemented in the 5G standard and the accused products.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the timing of "PDCCH monitoring occasions" is functionally "determined by" the location or subcarrier spacing of the BWP, as required by the claim. A potential dispute could arise over whether this relationship is one of direct determination or merely a pre-configured correlation within the 5G standard's framework.

10,568,113 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: An issue may arise as to whether the standard-defined timers alleged by the complaint (e.g., msgB-ResponseWindow, ra-ContentionResolutionTimer) meet the specific structural and relational definitions of the "second time window" and "third time window" as recited in the claim.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely scrutinize the precise temporal relationships. The question will be whether the accused products' operation creates the specific nested and overlapping window structure required by the claim, or if there is a mismatch between the functions of the standard timers and the claimed window definitions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term ('767 Patent, Claim 1): "is used for determining"

• Context and Importance: This term establishes the causal link between the characteristics of the "first subband" and the timing of the "X time intervals." The viability of the infringement theory rests on this relationship. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue that the timing of PDCCH monitoring occasions is fixed by higher-level network configuration or standards, and is not actively "determined by" the properties of the BWP in the manner required by the claim, even if the two are correlated.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification states that the determination can be based on "a given mapping rule," which suggests a flexible or indirect relationship rather than a direct real-time calculation. (’767 Patent, col. 4:49-51).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself creates a specific functional dependency. An argument could be made that this requires more than a coincidental or pre-configured relationship, and that the subband's properties must be an active input into the process that establishes the monitoring intervals.

• Term ('113 Patent, Claim 1): "second time window" and "third time window"

• Context and Importance: These terms are central to the claim's inventive concept, defining a complex, overlapping temporal structure for beam recovery. The infringement case depends on successfully mapping the operation of 5G standard timers onto these specific claim limitations. Practitioners may focus on these terms because a potential defense is that the accused timers do not satisfy the claim's detailed requirements for how the windows are defined, related, and overlapped.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description discusses the windows in functional terms, such as a window for waiting for a response, which could support interpreting the terms to cover any standard timer that serves the specified purpose. (’113 Patent, col. 9:1-10:59).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself provides a precise and intricate definition: the second window is determined by the first radio signal, the third window is determined by the second radio signal, the second window is within the first, and the second and third windows must overlap. This detailed structure could support a narrower construction that is not met by the general operation of the accused timers. (’113 Patent, col. 26:6-14).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For all five patents, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is alleged based on Defendant’s affirmative acts of providing instructions, technical support, product manuals, and advertisements that allegedly encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 35, 43, 51, 59). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that accused components, such as chipsets, are material to the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are known by Defendant to be especially adapted for use in an infringing way. (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 36, 44, 52, 60).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that Defendant has had notice of the asserted patents "at least as of the filing date of this complaint," which forms the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement. (Compl. ¶21). The allegations of knowledge and intent in the indirect infringement counts may also be used to support willfulness. (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 28).

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

This case will likely center on the interpretation of claim language in the context of highly complex, standardized technology. The central questions for the court will likely be:

• A core issue will be one of definitional mapping: can the specific, and often intricate, claim limitations of the asserted patents be read onto the functions and components of the accused products as they operate under the 3GPP 5G standard? For instance, with the ’113 patent, does the standard operation of timers for random access procedures create the precise, overlapping "second time window" and "third time window" structure as defined in Claim 1?
• A key legal question will be one of functional causality: for patents like the ’767 patent, does the accused product's operation satisfy claim limitations requiring one element to be "used for determining" another? The dispute may focus on whether a correlation or co-configuration defined by a standard is sufficient to meet this functional requirement, or if a more direct, active determination is necessary.