2:25-cv-00705
L2 Mobile Tech LLC v. PACCAR Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: L2 Mobile Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: PACCAR Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00705, E.D. Tex., 07/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant PACCAR has a regular and established place of business in the district, including the headquarters of its Peterbilt Motors Company division, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s connected commercial vehicles, which comply with the LTE wireless communication standard, infringe two patents related to methods for managing data transmission and retransmission.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns specific processes for handling Transmission Time Interval (TTI) bundling within LTE wireless systems, a technique used to improve the reliability and efficiency of uplink data transmissions.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff asserts the patents-in-suit are essential to the LTE standard and were declared as such to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) by the original assignee. The complaint states that U.S. Patent No. 8,321,740 survived an ex parte reexamination, with a certificate issued in 2023. Plaintiff also alleges it made a FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) license offer to Defendant via the Avanci patent pool, which was declined, and alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of both patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-08-15 | Priority Date for ’740 and ’784 Patents |
| 2012-11-27 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,321,740 |
| 2013-03-05 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,392,784 |
| 2015-01-01 | Alleged Launch of Accused Vehicles with TRUCKTECH+/SMARTLINQ |
| 2020-10-06 | Alleged Date of PACCAR’s Actual Notice of ’740 Patent |
| 2022-01-01 | Alleged Date of PACCAR’s Actual Notice of ’784 Patent |
| 2023-10-12 | Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issued for ’740 Patent |
| 2025-07-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,321,740 - “METHOD AND APPARATUS OF HANDLING TTI BUNDLING,” Issued November 27, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In LTE wireless systems, a feature called "TTI bundling" improves uplink coverage. However, the patent identifies a problem that occurs when a user device (UE) switches this mode on or off. Data packets (transport blocks) stored in the device's retransmission buffers (HARQ buffers) before the switch could be handled incorrectly under the new mode's timing rules, potentially causing interference on the network (’740 Patent, col. 2:7-30).
- The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a direct method to prevent this issue. Whenever the operational status of the TTI bundling mode is switched, the UE is instructed to flush all of its uplink HARQ buffers (’740 Patent, Abstract). As depicted in the process flowchart of Figure 5, this step of flushing the buffers (504) is performed directly in response to switching the mode's status (502), thereby clearing out old data and preventing improper retransmissions under the new configuration (’740 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 5:35-42).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a clean and unambiguous rule to avoid data handling errors and network interference when transitioning between communication modes, contributing to the stability of the overall LTE system (Compl. ¶37; ’740 Patent, col. 6:17-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1, as amended by the Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued October 12, 2023 (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 46, 48).
- The essential elements of amended claim 1 are:
- A method for handling a Transmission Time Interval (TTI) bundling mode in a user equipment (UE) of a wireless communication system,
- switching an operation status of the TTI bundling mode by deactivating the TTI bundling mode; and
- flushing all uplink Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) buffers in the UE when the TTI bundling mode is deactivated.
U.S. Patent No. 8,392,784 - “METHOD AND APPARATUS OF HANDLING TTI BUNDLING RETRANSMISSION,” Issued March 5, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses an inefficiency in how retransmissions were handled in TTI bundling. Under prior art rules, when a device did not receive a new command (an "uplink grant"), it could end up performing unnecessary retransmissions. For example, it might retransmit data even if the network had already confirmed successful receipt (an "ACK"), or it might automatically retransmit all parts of a data bundle without checking for feedback, wasting network resources and device power (’784 Patent, col. 2:34-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a more intelligent logic for deciding when to perform a "non-adaptive retransmission." The method requires the UE to check the "last received feedback" (i.e., ACK or NACK) for the specific data transmission process. The UE only performs the retransmission if the last feedback was a NACK (non-acknowledgement); if it was an ACK (acknowledgement), it does not retransmit. This logic is applied when no new uplink grant has been received from the network (’784 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:50-col. 5:13).
- Technical Importance: By preventing superfluous retransmissions, this method conserves network capacity, reduces signal interference, and saves power on the user device, thereby improving the overall efficiency of the wireless system (Compl. ¶37).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 61, 63).
- The essential elements of claim 1 are:
- A method for handling retransmission of a TTI bundle in a UE operating in a TTI bundling mode, where transmissions are generated in a non-adaptive way.
- Performing a bundle retransmission triggered by a HARQ process.
- Determining whether to generate a non-adaptive retransmission for a current transmission opportunity based on a "last received feedback" of the HARQ process, when no new uplink grant has been received.
- Generating the non-adaptive retransmission if the last received feedback is a non-acknowledgement signal.
- Not generating the non-adaptive retransmission if the last received feedback is an acknowledgement signal.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies "PACCAR Standard-Compliant Vehicles" as the accused instrumentalities. These include specific Peterbilt and Kenworth truck models, as well as any PACCAR vehicle utilizing connectivity services such as TRUCKTECH+, SMARTLINQ, PACCAR Solutions, and PACCAR Connect (Compl. ¶40).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused vehicles are equipped with Telematics Control Units (TCUs) that provide 4G LTE connectivity (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 43). The complaint presents a screenshot from a Peterbilt operator manual identifying the specific "TCU2 NA IP30" and "TCU2 NA IP67" models used in the vehicles (Compl. p. 15). These TCUs enable data-intensive features like remote diagnostics, navigation, and streaming media, which rely on the vehicle's ability to communicate over cellular networks (Compl. ¶37). A photograph of the Bosch-manufactured TCU2 module included in the complaint explicitly labels a "4G LTE Cellular Interface" (Compl. p. 16). PACCAR's Telematics Terms, also referenced with a screenshot, state that the functionality of its connectivity services is "dependent on a wireless network" (Compl. p. 17). The complaint alleges that these TCUs are user equipment that must implement the patented methods to comply with the LTE standard (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 41-43).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that for the accused vehicles to comply with the LTE standard, they must necessarily practice the methods claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 60). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.
’740 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, as amended) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for handling a Transmission Time Interval (TTI) bundling mode in a user equipment (UE) of a wireless communication system, the method comprising: | The accused vehicles contain a TCU that functions as a UE in an LTE wireless system and is capable of operating in a TTI bundling mode. | ¶¶41-43, 48 | Abstract |
| switching an operation status of the TTI bundling mode by deactivating the TTI bundling mode; | The TCU, in complying with the LTE standard, deactivates the TTI bundling mode as part of its normal operation. | ¶48 | col. 5:35-42 |
| and flushing all uplink Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) buffers in the UE when the TTI bundling mode is deactivated. | When the TCU deactivates the TTI bundling mode, it flushes all uplink HARQ buffers, as allegedly required by the LTE standard. | ¶48 | col. 5:35-42 |
’784 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| performing a bundle retransmission of the TTI bundle, the bundle retransmission being triggered by a Hybrid Automatic Retransmission Request (HARQ) process responsible for the TTI bundle; | The accused vehicles' TCUs perform TTI bundle retransmissions that are triggered by the HARQ process, a standard function in LTE communications. | ¶63 | col. 4:50-53 |
| determining whether to generate a non-adaptive retransmission for a current transmission opportunity according to a last received feedback of this HARQ process...when no uplink grant...has been received...; | When no new uplink grant is received, the TCU determines whether to perform a non-adaptive retransmission by checking the last HARQ feedback received for that process. | ¶63 | col. 4:53-61 |
| generating the non-adaptive retransmission for the current transmission opportunity if the last received feedback of this HARQ process is a non-acknowledgement signal; | If the last HARQ feedback was a NACK, the TCU proceeds to generate the non-adaptive retransmission. | ¶63 | col. 5:4-8 |
| and not generating the non-adaptive retransmission for the current opportunity if the last received feedback of this HARQ process is an acknowledgement signal. | If the last HARQ feedback was an ACK, the TCU does not generate a non-adaptive retransmission, thereby avoiding an unnecessary transmission. | ¶63 | col. 5:9-13 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Standard-Essentiality: The central dispute appears to be whether compliance with the LTE standard requires the practice of the asserted claims. The complaint's theory is that infringement is unavoidable for any LTE-compliant device (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 45). This raises the question of whether alternative, non-infringing methods of implementing the LTE standard exist and are used in the accused products.
- Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be whether the accused TCUs operate in the exact manner claimed. For the ’740 patent, does the system "flush all" uplink HARQ buffers upon deactivation, or does it perform a different memory management action? For the ’784 patent, is the decision to retransmit based solely on the "last received feedback" as claimed, or do other factors influence the logic?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "flushing all uplink ... HARQ buffers" (’740 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
This term defines the core inventive step of the ’740 patent. The outcome of the infringement analysis for this patent will depend heavily on the construction of "flushing" and the scope of "all." A central question will be what technical action constitutes "flushing" and whether the accused devices perform that specific action on every required buffer.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification does not provide a special definition for "flushing," which may support an interpretation based on its plain and ordinary meaning of clearing, emptying, or resetting the contents of the buffers (’740 Patent, col. 5:35-39).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "flushing" in the context of the standard implies a specific technical process that is not performed by the accused system. Likewise, the term "all" could be construed strictly, raising the question of whether every single HARQ buffer without exception must be cleared for the claim limitation to be met.
Term: "last received feedback" (’784 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance
This term is the key input to the decision-making logic of the ’784 patent's invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement hinges on whether the accused TCUs use this specific piece of information—the most recent ACK/NACK for that HARQ process—to control retransmissions.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent consistently uses the phrase in the context of the ACK/NACK signal that indicates the reception status of a prior transmission, suggesting its plain meaning within the field (’784 Patent, col. 4:53-61).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links the feedback to "this HARQ process," implying a specific one-to-one correspondence (’784 Patent, col. 4:56-58). A dispute could arise over whether the accused system maintains such a direct and exclusive link, or if its retransmission logic is influenced by other system states or timers, which could suggest it does not rely solely on the "last received feedback" as claimed.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that PACCAR provides LTE-equipped vehicles to customers with the knowledge and intent that the ordinary use of their connectivity features will directly infringe the patents. The alleged inducing acts include designing and selling the infringing systems, providing user manuals and instructions, advertising LTE capabilities, and providing over-the-air software updates (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 66).
Willful Infringement
Plaintiff alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The complaint specifies that PACCAR had actual notice of the ’740 patent no later than October 6, 2020, and of the ’784 patent no later than January 2022 (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19, 49, 64). The claim is further supported by the allegation that PACCAR continued its infringing conduct after receiving notice and declining a FRAND license offer (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 58, 65).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's findings on a few central questions:
A core issue will be one of standard-essentiality vs. implementation: Must a device, in order to comply with the LTE standard, necessarily practice the patented methods? Or is it possible for PACCAR's accused TCUs to be LTE-compliant while using an alternative, non-infringing implementation of TTI bundling management and retransmission logic?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused TCUs in PACCAR's vehicles actually perform the precise technical steps of the asserted claims? This will involve a detailed analysis of whether the systems "flush all" HARQ buffers as required by the ’740 patent and use the "last received feedback" as the determinative factor for retransmission as laid out in the ’784 patent.
Given the allegation that the patents are subject to a FRAND licensing commitment, a pivotal issue for determining remedies will be the parties' conduct during licensing negotiations. The assertion that PACCAR declined a license offer raises underlying questions of whether the offer was consistent with FRAND terms and whether PACCAR acted as a willing licensee, which will be critical if infringement is found.