Modulus Systems LLC v. MOKO Technology Co., Ltd.

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Modulus Systems LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: MOKO Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: KENT & RISLEY LLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00241, E.D. Tex., 05/27/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s radio frequency modules infringe a patent related to the physical layout and configuration of components within such modules.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns compact, configurable radio frequency (RF) modules designed for integration into a wide array of wireless electronic devices.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement via a letter dated May 19, 2023, prior to filing the lawsuit. This pre-suit notice may form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,610,573 - Radio Frequency Module and Methods of Transmitting/Receiving Data

Issued December 17, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges with prior art RF modules, including their large size due to the linear alignment of antennas and filtering components, performance degradation from antenna feedback, and interference from crowded frequency bands like the 2.4 GHz band used by Wi-Fi (’573 Patent, col. 1:26-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a compact RF module featuring a specific physical arrangement of components on a printed circuit board (PCB). A transceiver assembly is covered by a radio frequency shield, while a chip antenna is placed outside the shield. The antenna, a matching/filtering network, and a radio feed point are arranged to form a "generally U-shape configuration," which is described as improving performance in a smaller footprint (’573 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-17). This structural design, including a ground plane and shield, is intended to create an efficient antenna structure while protecting sensitive components (’573 Patent, col. 5:32-41).
• Technical Importance: The described solution aimed to enable the creation of smaller, more power-efficient, and versatile RF modules that could be more easily integrated into a wide range of wireless products, from remote controls to industrial sensors (’573 Patent, col. 3:49-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and references a chart for an "Exemplary '573 Patent Claim" without specifying any claim number (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13). Independent claim 1 is a representative apparatus claim.
• Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
  • A base member including a printed circuit board (PCB).
  • A transceiver assembly on the PCB, which includes a transceiver and a matching/filtering network.
  • A ground plane on the PCB surface surrounding "at least a substantial portion of the transceiver assembly."
  • A radio frequency shield coupled to the ground plane and covering "at least a substantial portion of the transceiver assembly."
  • A chip antenna located on the PCB "outside of the shield" and extending "generally parallel" with the matching/filtering network.
  • A radio feed point connecting the antenna and network, where the components together form "a generally U-shape configuration."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name specific products, instead incorporating by reference a chart from an unattached "Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no specific details regarding the technical functionality, operation, or market context of the accused products. It makes the conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '573 patent" (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim-chart exhibit that is not provided. The infringement allegations are presented in a purely narrative and conclusory manner, stating that the "Exemplary Defendant Products incorporated in this chart satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '573 Patent Claim" (Compl. ¶13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Due to the lack of specific factual allegations, any infringement analysis is preliminary. The central dispute will likely involve a structural comparison of the accused products against the limitations of the asserted claims. Key technical questions will include:

• Structural Questions: Does an inspection of the accused products reveal the specific physical layout required by claim 1, including a chip antenna located "outside" a "radio frequency shield" and a "matching/filtering network" arranged in a "generally U-shape configuration"?
• Scope Questions: What is the scope of "substantial portion" in the context of the ground plane and shield coverage? The case may require determining whether the accused products' components meet this threshold.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"a generally U-shape configuration"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the claimed physical layout of the antenna, feed point, and matching/filtering network. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused products' component arrangement can be characterized as having this shape. Practitioners may focus on this term because its "generally" qualifier introduces ambiguity that could be a key point of dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "generally" suggests that the shape is not required to be a perfect or geometrically precise "U," potentially covering a range of non-linear layouts (’573 Patent, col. 5:17).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links the term to the arrangement of the "antenna together with the matching/filtering network and feed point" and provides specific visual examples in figures like FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, which could be used to argue for a more limited interpretation tied to those embodiments (’573 Patent, col. 2:15-17).

"a substantial portion"

• Context and Importance: This term of degree appears twice in claim 1, qualifying how much of the transceiver assembly is surrounded by the ground plane and covered by the RF shield. Its definition will be critical for determining if accused products with partial shielding or ground plane coverage infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific percentage or quantitative definition, leaving the term open to a qualitative assessment of what is "substantial" in the context of the invention.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as FIG. 3, depict a shield (22) and ground plane (24) that cover and surround nearly the entire transceiver assembly (14). This could support an argument that "substantial" means "almost all" of the assembly.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant "distributing product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct on the use of the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶12).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’573 Patent from a notice letter dated May 19, 2023, and Defendant's continued alleged infringement after receiving notice (Compl. ¶11).

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Structure: Can Plaintiff produce evidence, through discovery or otherwise, to demonstrate that Defendant's unspecified products actually contain the specific, multi-element physical layout recited in claim 1, particularly the "U-shape configuration" and the relationship between the shield, antenna, and transceiver assembly?
2. A Definitional Question of Scope: The case will likely hinge on the construction of key structural terms. A core issue will be whether the term "generally U-shape configuration," as defined in the patent, can be construed to read on the physical component layout of the accused products.
3. A Question of Degree: The interpretation of "a substantial portion" will be critical. The court will need to determine the threshold for how much of the transceiver assembly must be covered by the shield and ground plane for infringement to be found, and whether the accused products meet that threshold.