DCT

2:25-cv-00554

Malikie Innovations Ltd v. ADT Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00554, E.D. Tex., 05/19/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, specifically citing branch offices in Tyler, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart home products, which are compliant with the IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) standard and feature touchscreen interfaces, infringe four patents originating from BlackBerry related to Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) error correction coding and user interface rendering and interaction.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue involve fundamental aspects of modern electronics: efficient error correction coding for reliable wireless communication and intuitive methods for rendering and interacting with graphical user interfaces on smart devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details extensive pre-suit correspondence, beginning with a May 28, 2024 notice letter that identified the asserted patents and accused products. Plaintiff alleges that it asserted some of the patents are essential to the IEEE 802.11 standard and offered to license them on Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms, but that Defendant did not respond to any of its outreach attempts.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-10-12 Earliest Priority Date for ’829 and ’212 Patents
2007-10-19 Earliest Priority Date for ’847 Patent
2011-03-29 ’829 Patent Issued
2011-10-18 Earliest Priority Date for ’631 Patent
2012-12-18 ’847 Patent Issued
2015-07-07 ’631 Patent Issued
2020-09-15 ’212 Reissue Patent Issued
2024-05-28 Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant
2024-07-15 Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Defendant
2024-08-02 Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Defendant
2024-10-01 Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Defendant
2024-10-08 Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Defendant
2024-10-18 Plaintiff sends notice letter offering a specific RAND royalty rate
2024-11-04 Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Defendant
2024-12-02 Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Defendant
2024-12-06 Plaintiff sends additional notice letter to Defendant
2024-12-18 Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Defendant
2025-01-10 Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Defendant
2025-02-03 Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Defendant
2025-02-18 Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Defendant
2025-03-07 Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Defendant
2025-04-03 Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Defendant
2025-04-30 Plaintiff sends follow-up email to Defendant
2025-05-19 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,917,829 - "Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) Code"

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses challenges in designing LDPC codes, a form of forward error correction used in communication systems. Specifically, it notes that prior art LDPC base matrices often do not allow for simple encoding algorithms and can have non-uniform row weights, which complicates implementation (’829 Patent, col. 2:18-22).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for efficiently creating LDPC codes by first constructing a "base parity check matrix" with a specific structure, and then "expanding" this compact base matrix into a full-size matrix suitable for encoding data. This expansion is done by replacing each non-zero element of the base matrix with a shifted identity matrix and each zero element with a zero matrix, a process that enables a simplified, recursive encoding algorithm (’829 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-44).
    • Technical Importance: LDPC codes provide powerful error correction, which became a key technology for enabling the high data rates and reliability required by modern wireless standards, including IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶28).
    • The essential elements of apparatus claim 6 are:
      • A processor; and
      • An instruction storage element operable to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, apply a specific expanded parity check matrix to input data to generate encoded data.
      • The expanded parity check matrix itself is defined by a large, specific matrix of integers presented in the claim text, where each integer represents a circular shift of an identity matrix and "-1" represents an all-zero matrix.

U.S. Patent No. RE 48,212 - "Structured Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) Code"

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: This reissue patent, from the same family as the ’829 Patent, also addresses the need for efficient and flexible LDPC codes. It describes the difficulty in adapting a single LDPC code design to support various code rates and block sizes without significant redesign or performance degradation, particularly in the context of standardized communication systems (’212 Patent, col. 2:11-24).
    • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses methods for constructing "structured" base parity check matrices composed of smaller sub-matrices (e.g., permutation matrices, zero matrices). The structured nature of the parity portion allows for simple encoding. The invention also provides methods for encoding variable-sized data packets by applying shortening (sending fewer information bits) and puncturing (removing parity bits) to the codeword, enabling adaptation to different channel conditions (’212 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-46).
    • Technical Importance: The ability to flexibly adapt error correction codes through techniques like shortening and puncturing is critical for maintaining robust performance in dynamic wireless environments like those where Wi-Fi operates.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶36).
    • The essential elements of method claim 13 are:
      • Computing a number of modulated OFDM symbols for transmitting data.
      • Computing a number of shortening bits ("N_shortened") for at least one LDPC codeword.
      • Distributing the shortening bits over the codeword.
      • Computing a number of puncturing bits ("N_punctured") for the codeword.
      • Distributing the puncturing bits over the codeword.
      • Determining a performance criterion using the shortening and puncturing numbers.
      • If the criterion is not met, increasing the OFDM symbols and recalculating the puncturing bits.
      • Generating encoded data based on the final shortening and puncturing numbers.
      • Transmitting the encoded data.

U.S. Patent No. 8,334,847 - "System Having User Interface Using Object Selection and Gestures"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses user interaction with touchscreen displays, particularly the problem of distinguishing a user's intent to select an on-screen object from an intent to perform a larger gesture, like a swipe (Compl. ¶42; ’847 Patent, col. 1:35-41). The invention provides a system that detects the "motion magnitude" of a touch input; if the movement is below a set threshold, the system registers it as a selection of a proximate object, and if it exceeds the threshold, the system identifies it as a gesture (’847 Patent, col. 2:47-55).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 14 is asserted (Compl. ¶44).
  • Accused Features: The user interface functionality of Defendant's smart home products, which allegedly use a similar motion-magnitude distinction to process user input on their touchscreens (Compl. ¶44, ¶47).

U.S. Patent No. 9,075,631 - "Method of Rendering a User Interface"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the performance and responsiveness of graphical user interfaces on electronic devices (Compl. ¶50; ’631 Patent, col. 1:19-24). The invention describes a UI architecture that decouples the application logic (managed by a "UI client engine") from the graphics rendering (managed by a "UI rendering engine"). The rendering engine receives a "scene graph" describing the UI layout from the client and can then render the display, including animations, independently, preventing the UI from becoming unresponsive even if the underlying application is busy (’631 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:59-67).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶52).
  • Accused Features: The underlying software architecture of Defendant's products, which are alleged to use a decoupled client/renderer system for their user interfaces (Compl. ¶52, ¶55).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint names the Google Nest Hub 2nd Gen. and the ADT Smart Home Hub as exemplary infringing products (Compl. ¶28, ¶36).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are smart home control hubs that serve as central points for managing connected devices. Their relevant technical functionalities, as alleged in the complaint, are their use of IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) for network connectivity and their reliance on graphical touchscreen displays for user interaction (Compl. ¶28, ¶36, ¶42, ¶50). The complaint suggests these products are commercially significant instrumentalities through which ADT provides services to its customers (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach exemplary claim charts (Exhibits 5-8) that would detail its infringement theories (Compl. ¶28, ¶36, ¶44, ¶52). In the absence of these exhibits, the infringement allegations are summarized below based on the narrative provided in the complaint.

  • ’829 and ’212 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint’s infringement theory for the two LDPC patents hinges on the accused products’ compliance with the IEEE 802.11 standards (Compl. ¶28, ¶36). It alleges that in order to be compliant with these Wi-Fi standards, the accused products must necessarily implement LDPC error correction codes. The core of the allegation is that the specific LDPC matrix structures and encoding methods (including shortening and puncturing) required by the 802.11 standards fall within the scope of the asserted claims of the ’829 and ’212 patents. Plaintiff alleges that by making, using, and selling these standard-compliant devices, Defendant directly infringes the patents (Compl. ¶28, ¶36).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether compliance with the IEEE 802.11 standard necessarily requires practicing every limitation of the asserted claims. The analysis may raise the question of whether the standard allows for alternative, non-infringing implementations of LDPC coding.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the specific matrix expansion methods or shortening/puncturing algorithms used in the accused products meet the detailed limitations of the asserted claims? The case may depend on a technical comparison between the patent claims and the mandatory sections of the relevant 802.11 standard.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "expanding the base parity check matrix into an expanded parity check matrix" (’829 Patent, claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core technical process of the invention. Its construction will be critical for determining whether the method used to generate LDPC codes in the IEEE 802.11 standard is the same as the patented method. Practitioners may focus on whether the term is limited to the specific base matrices shown in the patent or covers a broader class of expansion techniques.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the expansion of a base parity check matrix as "one of the common approaches" to accommodate larger code rates without redesigning hardware, suggesting the concept is not narrowly limited (’829 Patent, col. 2:13-15).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides highly specific examples of base matrices (e.g., an 8x24 matrix) and expansion factors (’829 Patent, col. 5:50-65; FIG. 5). This may support an argument that the claims are limited to matrices with similar structures and properties.
  • The Term: "distributing the number of shortening bits N_shortened over the at least one LDPC codeword" (’212 Patent, claim 13)
  • Context and Importance: This step is part of the claimed method for adapting a codeword to variable data packet sizes. The interpretation of how shortening bits are "distributed" is key to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a specific distribution pattern or algorithm.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular method of distribution, which could support a construction covering any method of applying shortening to a codeword.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses specific rules for shortening, such as prearranging columns so that shortening can be applied to consecutive columns to preserve certain properties of the code (’212 Patent, col. 24:55-67). This could support a narrower construction limited to such structured or optimized distribution methods.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement for all four patents. Induced infringement is alleged based on Defendant "selling and offering access to devices compliant with IEEE 802.11 standards" and their associated user interfaces (Compl. ¶30, ¶38, ¶46, ¶54). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that Defendant supplies a material part of the inventions (e.g., the standard-compliant hardware/software) that is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶31, ¶39, ¶47, ¶55).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the ’829, ’212, and ’847 patents based on pre-suit notice dating back to May 28, 2024, to which Defendant allegedly did not respond (Compl. ¶12-14, ¶27, ¶35, ¶43). For the ’631 patent, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge "since the date of the present Complaint," suggesting a theory of post-filing willfulness for that patent (Compl. ¶56).

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

  • A core issue will be one of standards versus scope: Does compliance with the IEEE 802.11 standard's specifications for LDPC coding necessarily mean that a device practices every limitation of the asserted claims of the ’829 and ’212 patents? The outcome will likely depend on claim construction and a detailed mapping of the standard onto the claims.
  • A second key issue will be one of technical evidence: For the ’847 and ’631 user interface patents, what factual evidence will demonstrate that the accused products’ software architectures and input processing methods actually operate in the specific manner recited by the claims? This will likely require technical analysis of the accused products' software.
  • A third central question will concern damages and willfulness: Given the allegations of pre-suit notice and ignored RAND licensing offers for alleged standard-essential patents, a major focus will be whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes willful infringement and how the RAND context will influence the determination of a reasonable royalty.