DCT

2:25-cv-00740

Acer Inc v. PACCAR Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00740, E.D. Tex., 07/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Paccar maintaining regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, including a Peterbilt division with corporate offices and a truck manufacturing facility in Denton, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s trucks equipped with 4G LTE telematics modules infringe two Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to methods for managing signal transmission and power reporting in 4G/LTE wireless networks.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns foundational technologies for 4G LTE-Advanced wireless communications, specifically the management of reference signals and transmission power, which are critical for ensuring reliable high-speed data transfer in modern cellular networks.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Acer has declared the patents-in-suit as essential to telecommunications standards managed by ETSI and has committed to licensing them on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The complaint details a history of licensing negotiations, initiated in January 2022 by Acer’s agent Avanci, LLC, which allegedly reached an impasse in February 2025 after Defendant refused offers to license the technology.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-06-22 ’304 Patent Priority Date
2010-11-08 ’333 Patent Priority Date
2014-05-27 ’333 Patent Issue Date
2014-07-22 ’304 Patent Issue Date
2017-01-01 Accused Peterbilt Truck Models Launch (approximate, "since 2017")
2022-01-01 Avanci first advised Paccar of need for license (approximate, "January 2022")
2022-07-01 Avanci notified Paccar of upcoming price increase (approximate, "July 2022")
2022-08-01 Avanci sent Paccar a standard license agreement (approximate, "early August 2022")
2025-02-01 Avanci issued a Notice of Impasse to Paccar (approximate, "February 2025")
2025-07-23 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,787,304 - “Method for Reference Signal Pattern Allocation and Related Communication Device,” issued July 22, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In advanced LTE systems (LTE-A), demodulation reference signals (DM RS) are critical for channel estimation. These signals are distinguished using Orthogonal Cover Codes (OCC). The patent addresses the challenge of how to apply these OCC patterns efficiently and without interference when a mobile device is allocated multiple, potentially non-contiguous, physical resource blocks (PRBs) for data transmission (’304 Patent, col. 2:40-49; col. 3:3-9).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes specific "mapping rules" for allocating reference signal patterns across multiple PRBs. These rules, which can be either "cell-specific" (applying uniformly across a cell) or "UE-specific" (tailored to the resource blocks of a single user device), create a predictable and orderly allocation of OCC patterns. This systematized approach aims to improve channel estimation accuracy and prevent signal degradation caused by haphazard pattern assignment (’304 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:46-63).
  • Technical Importance: This method of structured pattern allocation provides a way to maintain signal integrity and performance as network complexity increases, particularly in scenarios with fragmented spectrum use, which is a common feature of LTE-Advanced systems (’304 Patent, col. 1:32-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 37 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Essential elements of claim 37 (a method for a mobile device) include:
    • receiving a plurality of physical resource blocks (PRBs) from a base station (eNodeB); and
    • using a plurality of reference signal patterns on the received PRBs according to an "OCC mapping rule," where the patterns are based on OCCs multiplied with a DM RS signal and are mapped across specific time-frequency structures (14 OFDM symbols and 12 subcarriers).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,737,333 - “Method of Power Reporting And Communication Device Thereof,” issued May 27, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: LTE-Advanced systems utilize "carrier aggregation," where a mobile device communicates over multiple frequency bands (component carriers) simultaneously. This complexity makes it difficult for the network's base station (eNB) to manage the device's total transmission power. The patent notes that the prior art did not clearly specify when or how a mobile device should report its maximum output power for each component carrier, creating uncertainty for network resource scheduling (’333 Patent, col. 2:15-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method where a mobile device determines when to start or stop reporting its maximum output power based on specific "characteristics" of the device or the network. These characteristics can include factors like estimated transmission power, downlink channel quality, or the number of active carriers (’333 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:67-col. 6:64). By reporting power information only when triggered by these conditions, the device provides the network with timely and relevant data to manage power and allocate resources more efficiently, without constant, unnecessary reporting (’333 Patent, col. 2:31-48).
  • Technical Importance: This triggered reporting mechanism allows the network to make more intelligent scheduling decisions, which is essential for maintaining system stability and performance at the cell edge in power-constrained, multi-carrier environments (’333 Patent, col. 1:43-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 (a method for a mobile device) include:
    • being configured with a maximum output power for an uplink component carrier;
    • determining whether to start reporting the maximum output power according to a "characteristic" of the device or network;
    • reporting the power when the reporting is triggered;
    • determining whether to stop the reporting; and
    • stopping the reporting when it is determined to do so.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are Peterbilt and Kenworth branded trucks manufactured since 2017 that are equipped with 4G LTE telematics modules, identified as models TCU2 NA IP30 and TCU2 NA IP67 (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 37).

Functionality and Market Context

The telematics modules in the accused trucks provide 4G LTE connectivity, enabling services offered by Paccar such as "SmartLINQ" and "TruckTech+" (Compl. ¶26). These services allow for remote vehicle monitoring, diagnostics, and over-the-air (OTA) software updates (Compl. ¶¶ 26-28). The complaint alleges that this functionality relies on the 4G LTE communications technology that practices the patented inventions (Compl. ¶26). A Paccar sales sheet referenced in the complaint explains that software updates can be transmitted "over the air" (Compl. ¶27, Ex. C). A quick reference guide, also referenced, instructs users that the vehicle must have "good cellular reception" to initiate software updates, which allegedly demonstrates the use of the 4G cellular network for the accused functionality (Compl. ¶28, Ex. D).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits E and F) that were not provided with the filed document. The infringement theory is therefore summarized based on the complaint's narrative allegations (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 46).

Plaintiff alleges that the accused trucks, by incorporating 4G LTE telematics modules, necessarily infringe the patents-in-suit because these modules are designed to comply with specific 3GPP technical standards that implement the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 36). For the ’304 Patent, the complaint identifies standard TS 36.211 (Release 10) as teaching the infringing method of reference signal allocation (Compl. ¶24). For the ’333 Patent, it identifies standards TS 36.300, TS 36.321, and TS 36.101 as teaching the infringing method of power reporting (Compl. ¶36). The complaint states that its incorporated claim charts detail how devices programmed to perform according to these standards meet every limitation of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 46).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Standards vs. Claims: A primary question will be whether practicing the cited 3GPP standards inevitably results in infringement of every element of the asserted claims. The analysis will require a technical mapping of the standard's specifications to the patent's claim language.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused telematics modules actually implement the specific, allegedly infringing sections of the cited 3GPP standards? The court may need to resolve whether the accused products' real-world operation matches the functions described in the standards and required by the claims. For example, for the '333 Patent, it raises the question of which specific "characteristic" (e.g., channel quality, power level) triggers power reporting in the accused devices and whether that trigger is covered by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • ’304 Patent (Claim 37): "OCC mapping rule"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the method of allocating reference signal patterns dictated by the 3GPP standard and implemented in the accused products constitutes an "OCC mapping rule" as defined by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine if the standard-compliant behavior is infringing.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, referring simply to "an OCC mapping rule." The detailed description explains the concept generally as a rule for mapping patterns to PRBs, which could support a construction covering any systematic allocation method (’304 Patent, col. 5:46-54).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of mapping rules, such as the alternating "Pattern A" and "Pattern B" applied to PRBs in a UE-specific or cell-specific manner, as shown in Figures 10-13. A defendant may argue the term should be limited to these disclosed embodiments or rules with similar characteristics (’304 Patent, Figs. 10-13, col. 6:11-40).

  • ’333 Patent (Claim 1): "characteristic associated to the mobile device or a network"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the trigger for the claimed power reporting method. The infringement determination hinges on whether the conditions that cause the accused devices to report their maximum power fall within the scope of this term.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language suggests any attribute or state of the device or network could qualify. The specification lists numerous examples but introduces them with open-ended language like "based on an estimated transmission power, downlink and/or uplink channel quality, the number of configured and/or activated... component carriers," which suggests the list is not exhaustive (’333 Patent, col. 5:67-col. 6:2).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a detailed list of potential characteristics, including estimated transmission power, channel quality metrics (CQI, RSRP), number of active component carriers, support for parallel PUCCH/PUSCH, a negative power headroom report, and explicit signaling (’333 Patent, col. 6:2-64). A defendant might argue that the term should be construed as being limited to this class of specific, technical network-state indicators rather than any conceivable "characteristic."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Paccar provides marketing materials, user manuals, and services (SmartLINQ, TruckTech+) that instruct and encourage customers to use the 4G LTE functionality of the accused trucks in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 44). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the 4G telematics modules have no substantial non-infringing use and are especially made or adapted to practice the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 45).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Paccar’s purported knowledge of the patents and their infringement since at least January 2022, when Acer’s licensing agent Avanci allegedly contacted Paccar regarding its 4G vehicle licensing program. The complaint further alleges that Paccar was willfully blind to the existence and infringement of the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 44).

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

  • A core issue will be one of standards-based infringement: Can Acer prove that compliance with the specified 3GPP standards necessarily constitutes infringement of every limitation of the asserted claims? This will require a granular, element-by-element comparison of the standard's requirements to the claim language.
  • A second key issue will be one of claim construction and scope: How the court construes key terms such as "OCC mapping rule" (’304 patent) and "characteristic" (’333 patent) will be pivotal. The case may turn on whether the accused products' standards-compliant operations fall within the boundaries of these terms as defined by the patent's intrinsic evidence.
  • Given the SEP context, an overarching question concerns the parties' adherence to FRAND obligations. The complaint's detailed account of failed licensing negotiations suggests that the commercial reasonableness of Acer's offers and the good faith of Paccar's negotiation conduct will likely be a central theme shaping potential remedies and defenses.