DCT

2:24-cv-00244

Malikie Innovations Ltd v. D Link Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00244, E.D. Tex., 04/12/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation, and is also alleged to conduct business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Wi-Fi routers and associated software infringe four patents related to wireless communication technologies, including error correction coding, channel estimation methods for MIMO systems, and Bluetooth device pairing.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to foundational components of modern Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) and Bluetooth standards, which are integral to the global market for wireless networking products.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patents' previous owner, Blackberry, first notified Defendant of infringement of three of the patents-in-suit on October 1, 2020, and offered a license on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The complaint further alleges that both Blackberry and the Plaintiff, Malikie, made numerous subsequent attempts to contact Defendant, which did not respond. These allegations form the basis for claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-10-17 ’065 Patent Priority Date
2004-10-12 ’980 and ’212 Patents Priority Date
2009-10-02 ’994 Patent Priority Date
2013-11-12 ’980 Patent Issue Date
2014-11-04 ’994 Patent Issue Date
2016-04-12 ’065 Patent Issue Date
2020-09-15 ’212 Patent Issue Date
2020-10-01 Blackberry (previous owner) notifies D-Link of infringement
2020-11-09 Blackberry follows up with D-Link
2021-01-04 Blackberry follows up with D-Link again
2023-10-04 Malikie (Plaintiff) notifies D-Link of infringement
2023-10-06 Malikie sends additional correspondence to D-Link
2023-11-03 Malikie sends additional correspondence to D-Link
2023-12-06 Malikie sends additional correspondence to D-Link
2023-12-13 Malikie sends additional correspondence to D-Link
2024-02-22 Malikie sends additional correspondence to D-Link
2024-04-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,583,980 - "Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) Code"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,583,980, "Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) Code," issued November 12, 2013 (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes challenges in designing Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) codes, a type of forward error correction code. Specifically, it notes that prior art LDPC matrix structures often did not permit simple encoding algorithms and could have non-uniform row weights, complicating implementation (’980 Patent, col. 2:10-16).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses methods for constructing LDPC codes using a structured "base parity check matrix" that is subsequently expanded. This expansion involves replacing non-zero elements with shifted identity matrices and zero elements with all-zero matrices. The resulting structured design is intended to allow for simpler, recursive encoding algorithms while maintaining robust error correction performance (’980 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-33).
  • Technical Importance: This approach to creating structured, expandable LDPC codes was significant for implementing efficient and high-performance error correction in complex wireless communication systems like those adhering to the IEEE 802.11 standards (’980 Patent, col. 1:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 17 and dependent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶35, 38). Claim 17 is an apparatus claim.
  • The essential element of independent claim 17 is:
    • Circuitry operable to apply a specific, numerically-defined expanded parity check matrix to generate decoded data, where the matrix is constructed from 81x81 all-zero and circularly-shifted identity matrices (’980 Patent, col. 14:26-18:49).
  • The complaint states it may assert one or more claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 9,313,065 - "Scattered Pilot Pattern and Channel Estimation Method for MIMO-OFDM Systems"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,313,065, "Scattered Pilot Pattern and Channel Estimation Method for MIMO-OFDM Systems," issued April 12, 2016 (Compl. ¶11).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) wireless systems, channel conditions must be estimated using known "pilot symbols." This process consumes bandwidth that could otherwise be used for data. Furthermore, pilot signals from different transmitting antennas can interfere with one another, degrading the accuracy of the channel estimation (’065 Patent, col. 3:9-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes transmitting pilot symbols from different antennas in a "scattered pilot pattern" that forms a diamond lattice in the time-frequency grid. The pilot patterns for each antenna use the same frequencies but are offset from each other in time. This structure is designed to minimize interference between pilot signals and enable more accurate channel estimation with reduced overhead (’065 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:24-34).
  • Technical Importance: This method provided a more efficient way to perform channel estimation in complex MIMO systems, which was critical for improving the data rates and reliability of advanced wireless standards (’065 Patent, col. 4:30-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A method of transmitting symbols at a MIMO-OFDM transmitter with at least two antennas.
    • Transmitting, on an OFDM symbol, pilot symbols for a first antenna using a "scattered pattern."
    • Transmitting, on the OFDM symbol, pilot symbols for a second antenna using the "scattered pattern."
    • The pilot symbols for the first antenna correspond to a "first code" and the pilot symbols for the second antenna correspond to a "second code." (’065 Patent, col. 15:16-30).
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶43).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,212

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,212, "Structured Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) Code," issued September 15, 2020 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for constructing LDPC error-correction codes using a structured base parity check matrix. The base matrix is composed of sub-matrices (e.g., permutation, pseudo-permutation, or zero matrices) and is expanded to create a larger matrix used for encoding and decoding, aiming for implementation efficiency (Compl. ¶49; ’212 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 13 is asserted (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: Wi-Fi router devices compliant with IEEE 802.11 standards, such as the D-Link EAGLE PRO AI WiFi 6 AX3200 Gigabit Smart Mesh Router, are accused of using the claimed LDPC code construction method (Compl. ¶51).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,879,994

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,879,994, "Methods and Devices for Facilitating Bluetooth Pairing Using a Camera as a Barcode Scanner," issued November 4, 2014 (Compl. ¶15).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method to simplify the Bluetooth pairing process between two devices. A first device generates and displays a barcode that encodes pairing data, including a Bluetooth address and a personal identification number (PIN). A second device uses its camera to capture and decode the barcode to automate the pairing process, reducing manual entry and potential errors (Compl. ¶57; ’994 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶59).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are embodied in "the mydlink software and associated devices," which allegedly facilitate Bluetooth pairing between a first and second device using a barcode scanning method (Compl. ¶59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are broadly defined as "Wi-Fi router devices compliant with IEEE 802.11 standards" and "mydlink software and associated devices" (Compl. ¶¶35, 43, 51, 59). Specific exemplary products identified are the D-Link WiFi Router AC1200 MU-MIMO, D-Link AC3200 Ultra Wi-Fi Modem Router, and D-Link EAGLE PRO AI WiFi 6 AX3200 Gigabit Smart Mesh Router (Compl. ¶¶35, 43, 51).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused routers, by their nature of complying with the IEEE 802.11 standard, implement the patented LDPC coding and MIMO channel estimation technologies (Compl. ¶¶35, 43, 51). The accused "mydlink software" is alleged to implement the patented barcode-based Bluetooth pairing method (Compl. ¶59). The complaint frames these products as part of D-Link's business of making, using, selling, and importing infringing products into the United States and the Eastern District of Texas (Compl. ¶25).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include claim-chart exhibits. The narrative infringement theories for the lead patents are summarized below.

’980 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint's central infringement theory is that the accused D-Link Wi-Fi routers, by complying with IEEE 802.11 standards, necessarily contain circuitry that decodes LDPC-encoded data by applying the specific expanded parity check matrix recited in claim 17 (Compl. ¶35). The infringement allegation appears to be based on the premise that the IEEE 802.11 standard mandates the use of this patented matrix structure for LDPC decoding.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be whether compliance with the relevant IEEE 802.11 standard requires the use of the exact expanded parity check matrix defined in claim 17. The dispute may turn on whether the standard permits alternative, non-infringing LDPC decoder designs.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused D-Link products, in their actual operation, implement and apply the specific numerical matrix from claim 17? The analysis will likely require reverse engineering or technical documentation of the chipsets used in the accused routers.

’065 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused D-Link routers, as part of their MIMO functionality under the IEEE 802.11 standards, infringe claim 1 by transmitting pilot symbols using the claimed "scattered pattern" method (Compl. ¶43). The theory suggests that the standard's requirements for MIMO pilot transmission fall within the scope of the patent's claims, particularly regarding the use of a "scattered pattern" and distinct "codes" for the pilot symbols from different antennas.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Does the pilot pattern defined in the IEEE 802.11 standard meet the claim limitation of a "scattered pattern" as described in the patent? The patent specification describes this pattern as a "diamond lattice," raising the question of whether the claim scope is limited to that specific geometry (’065 Patent, col. 9:35-37).
    • Technical Questions: How do the accused devices apply a "first code" and a "second code" to the pilot symbols for different antennas? The dispute may focus on whether the signal processing used (e.g., Space-Time Block Coding) qualifies as the "codes" required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’980 Patent, Claim 17

  • The Term: "circuitry operable to apply the following expanded parity check matrix"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase is the core limitation of claim 17. The infringement dispute will center on whether the accused devices' LDPC decoders perform operations that meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the case will likely turn on the factual question of how the accused decoders are implemented and whether standard-compliance necessitates a structure that "applies" the claimed matrix.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes "methods... for decoding low-density parity-check (LDPC) encoded data, involving applying an expanded parity check matrix" (’980 Patent, Abstract). This could support an argument that any circuitry achieving the functional result of decoding according to the matrix's mathematical properties "applies" it, irrespective of the specific hardware algorithm.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discusses the matrix in the context of specific decoder architectures (’980 Patent, col. 10:18-21). This could support a narrower construction requiring a more direct structural or algorithmic correspondence between the accused circuitry and the claimed matrix structure, rather than mere functional equivalence.

’065 Patent, Claim 1

  • The Term: "scattered pattern"
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to determining infringement, as it defines the spatial arrangement of pilot symbols in the time-frequency grid. The case will depend on whether the pattern used by the accused IEEE 802.11-compliant devices falls within the scope of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly define the geometry of the "scattered pattern." This may support a construction covering any non-contiguous arrangement of pilot symbols used for MIMO channel estimation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the preferred embodiment of the pattern as a "diamond lattice pattern" (’065 Patent, col. 9:35-37; Fig. 5). This repeated emphasis could be used to argue that the claim term should be construed more narrowly to be limited to this specific diamond-shaped geometry.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant sells and promotes its Wi-Fi routers and mydlink software with instructions and knowledge that they will be used in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 45, 53, 61). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products are a material part of the claimed inventions and are not staple articles of commerce capable of substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 46, 54, 62).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the ’980, ’065, and ’212 patents based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from communications from Blackberry beginning October 1, 2020, and subsequent communications from Malikie, to which D-Link allegedly did not respond (Compl. ¶¶ 17-20, 39, 47, 55). For the ’994 patent, the willfulness allegation is based on notice "since at least the date of this Complaint," suggesting a theory of post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶ 58, 63).

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

  • A central issue for the three standards-implicated patents ('980, '065, '212) will be one of standard-essentiality versus implementation choice: does compliance with the IEEE 802.11 standard mandate the use of the patented LDPC matrix structures and scattered pilot patterns, or does the standard permit alternative, non-infringing technical implementations that the accused products may use?
  • For the '994 patent, a key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused "mydlink software" actually perform the complete, multi-step method recited in claim 1—specifically, receiving a barcode containing both a Bluetooth address and a PIN, and then using that specific decoded data to execute the pairing—or does it utilize a different workflow that omits a claimed step?
  • A core question for damages and potential enhancement will be one of intent: does Defendant's alleged history of unresponsiveness to years of specific infringement notices from two separate patent owners for the '980, '065, and '212 patents constitute the type of egregious conduct necessary for a finding of willful infringement?