Modulus Systems LLC v. Utovertek Co., Ltd.

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Modulus Systems LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Utovertek Co., Ltd. (Korea)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kent & Risley LLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00243, E.D. Tex., 05/27/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s radio frequency products infringe a patent related to the physical layout and component configuration of compact wireless modules.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the design of integrated radio frequency (RF) modules, focusing on component arrangements that minimize physical size and reduce interference, particularly in the crowded 2.4 GHz band used by Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the alleged infringement via a letter dated May 19, 2023, prior to filing the lawsuit. This notice may form the basis for allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: 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’s background section describes the technical challenge of designing increasingly compact RF modules, noting that prior art solutions were limited by the need to align filtering components with an onboard antenna, which often reduced performance (’573 Patent, col. 1:26-34). It also identifies interference from other devices in the 2.4 GHz frequency band, such as Wi-Fi, as a significant problem ('573 Patent, col. 1:40-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve these problems through a specific physical arrangement of components on a printed circuit board. The core concept is a "generally U-shape configuration" formed by a chip antenna, a matching/filtering network, and a radio feed point, all enclosed by a radio frequency shield that is coupled to a ground plane ('573 Patent, col. 2:1-18). This layout is described as creating an effective antenna structure in a small space while shielding the components from interference ('573 Patent, col. 5:35-42).
  • Technical Importance: This design approach sought to enable the creation of smaller, more power-efficient, and more reliable wireless modules for a wide range of products, from remote controls to industrial sensors, that operate in congested radio environments ('573 Patent, col. 3:45-61).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts an "Exemplary '573 Patent Claim" without specifying a claim number (Compl. ¶13). The following analysis focuses on independent claim 1, an apparatus claim.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A base member including a printed circuit board.
    • A transceiver assembly on the board, including a transceiver and a matching/filtering network with a plurality of passive, series-connected electrical components in a linear arrangement.
    • A ground plane on the board’s surface surrounding a substantial portion of the transceiver assembly.
    • A radio frequency shield coupled to the ground plane and covering a substantial portion of the transceiver assembly.
    • A chip antenna on the board’s surface, located outside the shield and extending generally parallel with the matching/filtering network.
    • A radio feed point extending between the antenna and the matching/filtering network, where the antenna, network, and feed point together form a "generally U-shape configuration."
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert additional claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in a chart (Exhibit B) incorporated by reference (Compl. ¶12). This exhibit was not included with the filed complaint.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market context beyond the general allegation that they "practice the technology claimed by the '573 patent" (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B, which was not provided. The narrative infringement theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '573 patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '573 Patent Claim" (Compl. ¶13). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. Due to the lack of specific allegations or an available claim chart, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention: The infringement analysis will depend on mapping the structural limitations of the ’573 Patent’s claims onto the physical layout of the accused products. Key questions will likely include:
  • Structural Questions: Does the internal component layout of the accused products feature a chip antenna, matching/filtering network, and feed point arranged in what can be described as a "generally U-shape configuration" as required by the claim?
  • Scope Questions: What is the scope of "surrounding at least a substantial portion," and does the ground plane in the accused products meet this limitation with respect to the transceiver assembly?
  • Technical Questions: Do the accused products contain a distinct "radio frequency shield" that is "electrically coupled to the ground plane" and covers the transceiver assembly in the manner claimed?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a generally U-shape configuration"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to Claim 1, as it defines the spatial relationship between the antenna, the feed point, and the matching/filtering network. The infringement analysis will hinge on whether the physical layout of components in the accused products falls within the scope of this term.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "generally" suggests that the arrangement does not need to be a perfect geometric 'U' and can encompass layouts that approximate this shape. The claim language itself provides the definition: "the chip antenna together with the matching/filtering network and the feed point forming a generally U-shape configuration" ('573 Patent, col. 12:56-60).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term is limited to the specific embodiment shown in the figures, where the "chip antenna extends generally parallel with the matching/filtering network" ('573 Patent, col. 2:13-15), suggesting that this parallel orientation is a required aspect of the "U-shape."

• The Term: "a radio frequency shield electrically coupled to the ground plane"

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires a specific shielding component and its electrical connection. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on identifying a discrete component in the accused products that meets both the "shield" and "electrically coupled" requirements.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the shield's function as shielding "the electronic components of the transceiver assembly 14 from outside interference" ('573 Patent, col. 4:8-10). A party could argue that any structure performing this function could qualify as the claimed "shield."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific structure where the "lower edges of the front, rear and side walls are preferably soldered to their respective ground plane segments" ('573 Patent, col. 4:28-30) via tabs (52) and holes (54). A defendant may argue that "electrically coupled" requires a direct, soldered connection as shown in the preferred embodiment.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers and distributors on using the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’573 Patent and its infringement based on a notice letter sent and received prior to the filing of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶11). This allegation supports a claim for enhanced damages.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "generally U-shape configuration," which describes a specific physical component layout in the patent, be construed to read on the internal architecture of the accused products? The outcome of this claim construction dispute will likely determine infringement.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of structural mapping: given the lack of detail in the complaint, Plaintiff will bear the burden of producing evidence, likely through expert analysis and product teardowns, to demonstrate that the accused products contain each of the specific, interconnected structural elements recited in Claim 1, from the linearly arranged components of the matching/filtering network to the shielded transceiver assembly.
• A central legal question will be inducement and willfulness: did the Defendant's product literature actively instruct users to operate the products in an infringing way, and was the pre-suit notice letter sufficient to establish the knowledge and intent required to prove willful infringement?