XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba Vivato Tech v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. PURSUANT TO The Court ORDER, DOCKET IN Lease Case 2:23CV202

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies (Delaware)
  • Defendant: T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00469, E.D. Tex., 10/04/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because T-Mobile is registered to do business in Texas and maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including retail stores and cellular base stations.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 5G mobile network, which utilizes base stations and RAN solutions from suppliers such as Ericsson and Nokia, infringes two patents related to directed wireless communication and beamforming technology.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) and beamforming, technologies that directionally steer wireless signals to improve range, data speed, and network capacity, which are foundational to modern 5G cellular standards.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in a prior case, T-Mobile has admitted to operating retail stores in the Eastern District of Texas and has not contested that the district is a proper venue for patent actions, which Plaintiff may leverage to support its venue contentions.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-11-04	Earliest Priority Date for '256 and '569 Patents
2023-09-05	U.S. Patent No. 11,750,256 Issues
2023-10-03	U.S. Patent No. 11,777,569 Issues
2023-10-04	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,750,256 - "Directed Wireless Communication"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional wireless networks that use omni-directional antennas as suffering from limited transmission range, unmanaged electromagnetic interference, and inefficiency, which can lead to data corruption and poor performance, particularly over large coverage areas (Compl., Ex. 1, ’256 Patent, col. 1:21-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "multi-beam directed signal system" that uses an antenna assembly and associated beam-forming networks to create and coordinate multiple directed communication beams. This system can simultaneously transmit and receive signals from different client devices in different directions, thereby improving range, data integrity, and overall network efficiency compared to omni-directional systems (Compl., Ex. 1, ’256 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-16). Figure 2 of the patent illustrates this core concept, showing an access station (102) with a multi-beam system (206) communicating with multiple client devices (202, 204) via distinct directed beams (214).
• Technical Importance: This technology represents a method for overcoming the physical limitations of omni-directional broadcasting by focusing signal energy where it is needed, a critical advancement for increasing the capacity and reliability of wireless networks (Compl., Ex. 1, ’256 Patent, col. 4:41-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 18 and method claim 22 (Compl. ¶¶28, 31).
• The essential elements of independent claim 18 include:
  • Receiving first and second signal transmissions from first and second remote devices via first and second antenna elements, respectively.
  • Determining first and second signal information from these transmissions, where the information is different.
  • Determining first and second sets of "weighting values" based on the respective signal information.
  • Transmitting third and fourth signals to the first and second remote devices, respectively, where these signals are constructed based on the determined weighting values to include distinct transmission "peaks" and "nulls."

U.S. Patent No. 11,777,569 - "Directed Wireless Communications"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same fundamental problems as the '256 Patent: the low bandwidth, limited range, and interference issues inherent in conventional omni-directional wireless networks (Compl., Ex. 3, ’569 Patent, col. 1:21-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a wireless access point (AP) that uses an adaptive antenna array to manage communications. The AP receives a signal from a client device, obtains "antenna direction information of an antenna of the first client device" from that signal, stores this information, and then uses it to coordinate subsequent directed communications with that specific device. This process allows the AP to learn and adapt to a client's location to maintain a stable, directed link (Compl., Ex. 3, ’569 Patent, Abstract; col. 16:1-12).
• Technical Importance: This system provides a method for an access point to intelligently track and communicate with specific users, enabling more persistent and efficient high-bandwidth connections, a key feature for supporting mobile users in a complex radio environment (Compl., Ex. 3, ’569 Patent, col. 4:41-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 11 (Compl. ¶¶38, 41).
• The essential elements of independent claim 11 include:
  • Generating and transmitting first data packets to a first client device via a directed AP communication beam.
  • Receiving second data packets from the first client device via a directed client device (CD) communication beam.
  • Obtaining, from the second data packets, "antenna direction information of an antenna of the first client device."
  • Storing this obtained antenna direction information in memory.
  • Coordinating subsequent directed wireless communications with the first client device based on the stored information.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Ericsson and/or Nokia cellular base stations / 5G NR RAN solutions that support 3GPP 5G NR beamforming" (Compl. ¶¶28, 38).

Functionality and Market Context

• These products are alleged to be integral components of T-Mobile's nationwide 4G and 5G mobile network (Compl. ¶25). The complaint alleges that these base stations and Radio Access Network (RAN) solutions provide telecommunication and internet services to T-Mobile's customers by, among other things, implementing the beamforming technologies that are central to the 5G New Radio (NR) standard (Compl. ¶¶25, 28, 38). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 2 and 4) that were not provided with the filed document. The infringement theories are therefore summarized in prose based on the complaint’s narrative allegations.

• '256 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that T-Mobile's 5G network, through the operation of the accused Ericsson and Nokia base stations, infringes at least claim 18 (Compl. ¶¶28, 31). The infringement theory is that the accused base stations, in compliance with 5G NR standards, necessarily perform the claimed method. This involves receiving uplink signals from multiple user devices simultaneously, processing those signals to determine information (e.g., channel state, location), calculating parameters ("weighting values") to form directed downlink beams, and transmitting those beams with focused energy ("peaks") toward the intended users and reduced energy ("nulls") in other directions to manage interference.

• '569 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 11, contending that the accused base stations function as the claimed "wireless access point" (Compl. ¶¶38, 41). The theory is that the base stations transmit directed beams to user devices, receive responsive signals, and from those signals obtain "antenna direction information" (e.g., channel state information or angle of arrival data). This information is then allegedly stored and used to coordinate subsequent transmissions, mirroring the claimed method of learning a user's location to maintain a directed link.

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Technical Questions: A primary technical question is whether the beam management and channel state information (CSI) feedback protocols in the 3GPP 5G NR standard, as implemented in the accused products, perform the specific steps recited in the claims. For example, what evidence will show that the accused systems "determine... weighting values" ('256 Patent) or "obtain... antenna direction information of an antenna of the first client device" ('569 Patent) in the precise manner claimed, as opposed to functionally similar but technically distinct operations?
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the claim terms, originating from patents with a 2002 priority date, can be construed to cover modern 5G technology. For example, does the term "wireless access point" (’569 Patent) read on a 5G gNodeB (base station), and does a "remote device" (’256 Patent) encompass modern 5G user equipment like smartphones?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term from '256 Patent (Claim 18): "determining a ... set of weighting values"

  • Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the claimed signal processing. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the calculations performed by the accused 5G systems to generate directed beams are considered a determination of "weighting values" as taught in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes using a "weighting matrix" to "apply the latest weighting values to the received signals" (’256 Patent, col. 25:13-17), which could support an argument that any set of numerical coefficients used to control beam direction falls within the term's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes specific embodiments, for instance, where "a polynomial expansion in z... can be utilized to establish the values of the weights (wᵢ)" (’256 Patent, col. 24:55-58). A defendant may cite such passages to argue that the term requires a more specific mathematical structure than that used in the accused systems.

• Term from '569 Patent (Claim 11): "antenna direction information of an antenna of the first client device"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is highly specific and its construction will be critical. Infringement will turn on whether the information the accused base station obtains from a user's device is information about the client's antenna itself, or merely information about the radio channel path to the client. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern cellular systems typically use channel sounding to determine the path, which may not be the same as determining information "of" the client's antenna.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly discusses coordinating "directed wireless communication with client devices via directed communication beams" (’569 Patent, col. 2:10-12). A plaintiff could argue that any information that allows the base station to determine the direction to the client device, such as Angle of Arrival (AoA) data, satisfies this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language points specifically to information "of an antenna of the... client device." A defendant could argue this requires knowledge of the physical orientation or characteristics of the antenna on the user's device, not just the characteristics of the signal received from it.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents, asserting that T-Mobile has knowledge of the patents and their infringement via the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶29, 39). It further alleges T-Mobile encourages infringement by providing customers with products and instructional materials (e.g., user manuals, technical specifications) that guide them to use the network in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶29, 39).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that T-Mobile "knew or were willfully blind that its actions would induce direct infringement" (Compl. ¶¶29, 39). The basis for this claim appears to be post-suit knowledge, arising from the notice provided by the lawsuit itself.

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

1. Claim Construction and Technological Evolution: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in early 2000s wireless technology (e.g., "weighting values," "antenna direction information of an antenna of the... client device") be construed to cover the sophisticated and highly standardized beam management and channel state feedback mechanisms of modern 5G NR systems?
2. Evidentiary Proof of Operation: A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the accused Ericsson and Nokia systems, as operated by T-Mobile, perform the exact, multi-step methods recited in the independent claims, moving beyond the general allegation that they perform "beamforming"?
3. Infringement Timeline and Damages: Given that the asserted patents issued only days or weeks before the complaint was filed, the case raises significant questions about the scope of damages. The dispute will likely center not on past damages, which are minimal, but on establishing a reasonable royalty for ongoing and future use of the technology, should infringement be found.