DCT

2:24-cv-00941

Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Bose Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00941, E.D. Tex., 11/15/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Bose Corporation maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including retail locations in Frisco and Plano, and derives substantial revenue from the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart speakers, soundbars, and amplifiers infringe seven patents related to foundational wireless communication technologies, including methods for error correction in OFDM systems, channel management in MIMO systems, and interference reduction between coexisting wireless protocols.
  • Technical Context: The patents address technical challenges in implementing high-performance wireless local area network (WLAN) functionalities, such as those defined by the IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) standards, which are critical for modern connected audio products that stream high-fidelity content.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was notified of its infringement of the asserted patents via a letter sent in February 2024, a fact which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-02-21 Earliest Priority Date ('583, '616 Patents)
2001-09-21 Earliest Priority Date ('040, '845, '053 Patents)
2002-09-09 Earliest Priority Date ('153 Patent)
2003-04-15 U.S. Patent No. 6,549,583 Issues
2003-10-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,633,616 Issues
2004-07-20 Earliest Priority Date ('388 Patent)
2006-06-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,058,040 Issues
2007-08-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,260,153 Issues
2010-02-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845 Issues
2010-06-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388 Issues
2011-08-23 U.S. Patent No. 8,005,053 Issues
2024-02-01 Defendant allegedly notified of infringement
2024-11-15 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,549,583 - "Optimum Phase Error Metric for OFDM Pilot Tone Tracking in Wireless LAN"

  • Issued: April 15, 2003 (Compl. ¶17)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) wireless systems, such as Wi-Fi, local oscillators within the radio components of a receiver introduce "phase noise." This noise can corrupt the signal and cause data errors, particularly for the high-density modulation schemes (e.g., 64-QAM) required for high data rates. Building radio hardware with sufficiently low phase noise is technically difficult and expensive, especially for highly integrated, single-chip solutions (’583 Patent, col. 1:26-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to compensate for this hardware deficiency using software or digital logic in the receiver's baseband processing section. The method uses known "pilot tones" embedded in the wireless signal as a reference. It first determines reference points for these pilots from the signal's preamble (the initial part of a data packet). It then estimates an aggregate phase error for all pilots in subsequent data symbols using a specific mathematical approach called "maximum likelihood estimation." This aggregate error estimate is then used to correct the phase of the incoming signal, effectively canceling out the noise introduced by the radio hardware (’583 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-17).
  • Technical Importance: This technique allowed for the development of less expensive, more highly integrated OFDM receivers that could reliably support high-data-rate communications, a key enabler for the mass-market adoption of Wi-Fi technologies.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Claim 1 of the '583 Patent recites a method with the following essential elements:
    • Determining pilot reference points corresponding to a plurality of pilots of an OFDM preamble waveform.
    • Estimating an aggregate phase error of a subsequent OFDM data symbol relative to the pilot reference points using complex signal measurements from those pilots.
    • Wherein the estimating step performs a maximum likelihood-based estimation using the complex signal measurements.

U.S. Patent No. 6,633,616 - "OFDM Pilot Tone Tracking for Wireless LAN"

  • Issued: October 14, 2003 (Compl. ¶25)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: A primary bottleneck in correcting phase errors in an OFDM receiver is the processing delay associated with the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), a core computational step. This delay limits how quickly the phase tracking loop can respond, which in turn restricts its ability to correct for higher-frequency noise and faster phase variations (’616 Patent, col. 17:1-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a parallel processing architecture. Instead of waiting for the main FFT to process the entire data symbol, a separate "parallel path" is used to perform the calculations needed for phase error estimation. This dedicated path allows the phase error estimate to be calculated and made available before the main FFT has finished its own processing of the data symbol. The resulting estimate is then used to correct the phase of subsequent symbols as they enter the receiver (’616 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:41-60).
  • Technical Importance: By decoupling the phase estimation from the latency of the main FFT, this method enables a wider tracking loop bandwidth, allowing the receiver to more effectively track and remove phase noise, thereby improving the robustness and performance of the wireless link.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶30).
  • Claim 12 of the '616 Patent recites a method with the following essential elements:
    • Determining pilot reference points from an OFDM preamble waveform.
    • In a parallel path, processing the preamble waveform with a fast Fourier transform.
    • Determining a phase error estimate of a subsequent OFDM symbol.
    • In the parallel path, processing the subsequent OFDM symbol with the fast Fourier transform.
    • Wherein the step of determining the phase error estimate is completed prior to the completion of the processing of the subsequent OFDM symbol with the fast Fourier transform.

U.S. Patent No. 7,058,040 - "Channel Interference Reduction"

  • Issued: June 6, 2006 (Compl. ¶33)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for mitigating interference when two different wireless systems, such as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, operate in the same frequency band. The solution involves establishing shared Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) time-slots, allocating specific slots to each system, and dynamically adjusting the allocation during transmission to maintain a desired quality of service for one or both systems (’040 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶38).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to perform a method of managing data transmission over first and second media that overlap in frequency by computing, allocating, and dynamically adjusting shared TDMA time-slots (Compl. ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 7,260,153 - "Multi Input Multi Output Wireless Communication Method and Apparatus Providing Extended Range and Extended Rate Across Imperfectly Estimated Channels"

  • Issued: August 21, 2007 (Compl. ¶47)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for evaluating and optimizing performance in a Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) wireless system. The method involves defining and estimating a channel matrix metric representing cross-talk signal-to-noise, performing a singular value decomposition (SVD) on that estimate, and using the resulting values to calculate a crosstalk measure for the parallel data sub-streams that characterize MIMO communication (’153 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶51).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to perform a method for evaluating a MIMO wireless channel that includes estimating a channel matrix metric, performing an SVD, and using the results to calculate a crosstalk measure (Compl. ¶51).

U.S. Patent No. 7,656,845 - "Channel Interference Reduction"

  • Issued: February 2, 2010 (Compl. ¶61)
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the '040 patent, describes a system for interference reduction where a base station allocates a plurality of data channels between a first and a second transmission medium for a wireless device. The base station then dynamically adjusts the number of channels assigned to each medium during data transmission to stay within the limits of a desired service level (’845 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶65).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶65).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to provide a method or apparatus where a base station allocates data channels between two media for a wireless device and dynamically adjusts that allocation during transmission (Compl. ¶65).

U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388 - "Packet Generation Systems and Methods"

  • Issued: June 22, 2010 (Compl. ¶75)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for increasing the data rate of a network transmission by modifying the structure of a data packet. The method involves generating a standard packet that includes a preamble with multiple training symbols, and then increasing the packet's size by adding extra subcarriers to the second training symbol to create an "extended packet" capable of carrying more information (’388 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶80).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶80).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to perform a method of generating a packet, increasing its size by adding subcarriers to its second training symbol, and transmitting the resulting extended packet (Compl. ¶80).

U.S. Patent No. 8,005,053 - "Channel Interference Reduction"

  • Issued: August 23, 2011 (Compl. ¶90)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a communication device capable of operating with a plurality of different wireless protocols, each corresponding to a different wireless transceiver in the device. The device selects one of the protocols for transmission, encodes data from an unselected protocol into the data format of the selected protocol, and transmits the newly encoded data using the transceiver corresponding to the selected protocol (’053 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶94).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to be communication devices that can select one of a plurality of wireless protocols, encode data from an unselected protocol into the selected one, and transmit the resulting encoded data (Compl. ¶94).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Accused Products" are identified as the Bose Portable Smart Speaker, Bose Smart Soundbar, Bose Music Amplifier, and other Bose devices with substantially similar functionality (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these products perform wireless communications pursuant to various protocols, including Bluetooth and IEEE 802.11 standards such as 802.11ac and 802.11n (Compl. ¶13). This functionality is central to their operation as network-connected audio streaming devices. The infringement allegations contend that in implementing these wireless standards, the Accused Products necessarily practice the methods claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶22, 30). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

6,549,583 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of pilot phase error estimation in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexed (OFDM) receiver comprising: determining pilot reference points corresponding to a plurality of pilots of an OFDM preamble waveform... The Accused Products, in operating as OFDM receivers, determine pilot reference points from a preamble waveform. ¶22 col. 5:19-25
and estimating an aggregate phase error of a subsequent OFDM data symbol relative to the pilot reference points using complex signal measurements corresponding to each of the plurality of pilots of the subsequent OFDM data symbol and the pilot reference points... The Accused Products estimate an aggregate phase error for a data symbol relative to the reference points using complex signal measurements from the pilots. ¶22 col. 2:11-17
wherein the estimating step comprises performing a maximum likelihood-based estimation using the complex signal measurements... The estimation step performed by the Accused Products is a maximum likelihood-based estimation using the complex signal measurements. ¶22 col. 7:63-66
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: The central dispute may focus on the term "maximum likelihood-based estimation." The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that this specific mathematical method is performed. The case may turn on what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that the accused chipsets implement an algorithm that meets the specific definition of maximum likelihood estimation as described in the patent (e.g., weighting pilot signals by their amplitude), as opposed to a different or simpler form of error estimation.

6,633,616 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of pilot phase error estimation...comprising: determining pilot reference points corresponding to a plurality of pilots of an OFDM preamble waveform; The Accused Products determine pilot reference points corresponding to pilots in an OFDM preamble. ¶30 col. 19:43-51
processing, in a parallel path to the determining step, the OFDM preamble waveform with a fast Fourier transform; The Accused Products process the preamble waveform with an FFT in a path that is parallel to the step of determining reference points. ¶30 col. 19:62-67
determining a phase error estimate of a subsequent OFDM symbol relative to the pilot reference points; and The Accused Products determine a phase error estimate for a subsequent data symbol. ¶30 col. 20:3-7
processing, in the parallel path to the determining step, the subsequent OFDM symbol with the fast Fourier transform; The Accused Products process the subsequent OFDM symbol with an FFT in the parallel path. ¶30 col. 19:62-67
wherein the determining the phase error estimate step is completed prior to the completion of the processing of the subsequent OFDM symbol with the fast Fourier transform in the parallel path. The phase error estimation step in the Accused Products is completed before the FFT processing of the data symbol is completed. ¶30 col. 18:51-60
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The analysis will likely focus on the structural and temporal limitations. A key question is whether the accused devices' architecture constitutes a "parallel path" as contemplated by the patent, or if it uses a more integrated or pipelined processing flow.
    • Technical Questions: A significant evidentiary hurdle may be demonstrating the specific timing relationship required by the claim: that the phase error estimate is fully "completed" before the main data FFT processing is finished. This requires a detailed analysis of the accused chipset's internal operations and a processing pipeline.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "maximum likelihood-based estimation" ('583 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific mathematical character of the invention. Infringement of the '583 Patent will likely depend on whether the accused algorithm falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because generic "error estimation" is common in the art, but "maximum likelihood" implies a specific, mathematically-defined approach.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of the term in the specification, which could support a construction covering any estimation technique that seeks to maximize a likelihood function, even if it employs approximations (’583 Patent, col. 7:63-66).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed derivation and resulting mathematical equations for the estimation process, which involve weighting the contribution of each pilot tone by its amplitude (A_k) (’583 Patent, Eq. (6), (11)-(16)). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to algorithms that perform this amplitude-weighting step, as it is presented as a key aspect of the "optimum" metric.

  • The Term: "parallel path" ('616 Patent, Claim 12)

  • Context and Importance: This term is structural and defines the core architectural contribution of the '616 Patent, which is intended to solve a latency problem. The infringement determination will depend on whether the accused devices' hardware or software architecture contains what can be legally defined as a "parallel path" for phase estimation versus the main data processing.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that a "parallel path" simply requires that the phase estimation calculations occur concurrently with, and are not dependent on the completion of, the main FFT processing, regardless of whether they share hardware resources or are part of the same integrated circuit block.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's description and figures, such as FIG. 8, depict the "pilot phase error metric" 808 receiving the signal from the phase rotator 302 on a separate path (Path B) from the main FFT 304 (Path A) (’616 Patent, FIG. 8). This could support a narrower construction requiring physically or logically distinct processing pipelines for the phase estimation versus the main data symbol demodulation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For the '040, '153, '845, and '388 patents, the complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement. The allegations state that Bose induces infringement by providing user manuals, advertising, and instructions that guide end-users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶39, 52, 66, 81). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the Accused Products contain special features designed for infringing use that are not staple articles of commerce (e.g., Compl. ¶40, 53, 67, 82).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the '040, '153, '845, and '388 patents based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from a notification letter sent in February 2024 (e.g., Compl. ¶41, 54, 68, 83). The complaint further alleges willful blindness based on an asserted policy or practice at Bose of not reviewing the patents of others (e.g., Compl. ¶42, 55, 69, 84).

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

  • A central issue will be one of algorithmic correspondence: for patents claiming specific mathematical methods ('583, '153), what technical evidence will demonstrate that the algorithms implemented in Defendant's commercial wireless chipsets are the legal equivalent of the claimed "maximum likelihood-based estimation" or "singular value decomposition" processes, as opposed to functionally similar but technically distinct industry-standard approximations?
  • A key architectural question will be one of structural and temporal equivalence: for patents claiming specific processing architectures ('616, '388), does the accused functionality—such as using a "parallel path" for phase estimation or "adding subcarriers" to a training symbol—map onto the claimed structures and sequences, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation and timing that places the accused devices outside the claims' scope?
  • The case will also present a question of system-level functionality: for patents directed at managing interference between multiple wireless media ('040, '845, '053), do the accused smart speakers and soundbars themselves perform the claimed high-level network management functions, such as "dynamically adjusting" time-slot allocations between protocols, or are those functions performed by other network infrastructure components (e.g., routers), raising questions of divided infringement?