Mesa Digital LLC v. Schok LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mesa Digital, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Schok LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00937, E.D. Tex., 09/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic wireless handheld devices infringe a patent related to multimedia devices with multiple wireless communication capabilities.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to early-generation smart devices capable of connecting to multiple types of wireless networks, such as cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth, from a single device.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint discloses that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, none of which admitted infringement or were for the production of a patented article. This history is presented to preemptively address potential defenses related to patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537 - "Electronic wireless hand held multimedia device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537, "Electronic wireless hand held multimedia device," issued May 12, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a technical gap existing around the year 2000, where handheld devices like Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) were not available that could selectively connect to more than one type of wireless network (e.g., cellular, 802.11, Bluetooth) to access remote multimedia data sources like the Internet (’537 Patent, col. 2:50-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld multimedia device that integrates a microprocessor with "more than one wireless transceiver modules" to enable communication over a variety of different standards (’537 Patent, Abstract). This architecture allows a single device to retrieve, process, and display multimedia data from remote sources by connecting to the most appropriate available network, be it cellular, Wi-Fi (WLAN), or a short-range standard like Bluetooth (’537 Patent, col. 6:56-col. 7:8; FIG. 1(c)).
• Technical Importance: This approach consolidated multiple communication functions into a single portable device, addressing a need for versatile, on-the-go access to multimedia content before such multi-radio integration became standard in the smartphone market (’537 Patent, col. 3:1-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more of claims 1-37 (Compl. ¶9).
• Independent claim 1, a representative apparatus claim, recites the following essential elements:
  • at least one of a wireless unit and a tuner unit supporting bi-directional data communications of data including video and text... over cellular telecommunications networks, over wireless local area networks and over a direct wireless connection with electronic devices located within short range using Bluetooth communications after accepting a passcode from a user...
  • a touch sensitive display screen configured to display the data...
  • a microprocessor configured to facilitate operation of and communications by the electronic wireless hand held multimedia device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It broadly accuses "electronic wireless hand held media devices including a microprocessor and more than one wireless transceiver modules enabling wireless communications over a variety of standards" that are manufactured, sold, or imported by Defendant (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused devices practice the patented invention by including the capability to communicate over Cellular, 802.11 (WLAN), and short-range (e.g., Bluetooth, infrared, RFID) standards for the purpose of retrieving, processing, and delivering multimedia data from remote resources like the Internet (Compl. ¶9). No specific details about the architecture, operation, or market positioning of Defendant's products are provided. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "exemplary table included as Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations but does not attach the exhibit (Compl. ¶10). The narrative infringement allegations are found in paragraph 9, which largely repeats the language of the patent's abstract and claims without mapping specific features of an accused product to the claim elements (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a tabular analysis of the infringement allegations. The core of the infringement allegation is that Defendant's devices contain a microprocessor and multiple wireless transceivers (for Cellular, WLAN, Bluetooth, etc.) that retrieve and process multimedia data from the internet, thereby infringing the asserted patent (Compl. ¶9).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary issue will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate through discovery that Defendant’s unnamed products possess the specific architecture recited in the claims. The complaint’s generalized allegations raise the question of what specific evidence supports the claim that Defendant's devices meet each limitation of the asserted claims.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the interpretation of claim limitations in the context of modern device architecture. For example, a question for the court could be whether a single, integrated system-on-a-chip (SoC) that handles multiple wireless protocols constitutes the claimed "more than one wireless transceiver modules" (’537 Patent, Abstract) or if the patent requires physically distinct modules.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "at least one of a wireless unit and a tuner unit" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term appears at the beginning of independent claim 1 and defines the core communication hardware. The construction of this phrase, particularly the relationship between "wireless unit" and "tuner unit," will be critical for determining the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires two distinct components or if a single, integrated component can satisfy the limitation, which is a common issue for patents filed before the widespread adoption of integrated radio SoCs.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses high-level block diagrams, such as FIG. 1(b), which depict functional modules like "RF WIRELESS TRANSCEIVER MODULES" (17) without specifying a particular hardware implementation (’537 Patent, FIG. 1(b)). This functional description could support an interpretation where a single integrated circuit performing the functions of both a "wireless unit" and a "tuner unit" meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the conjunctive "and," which could suggest that both a "wireless unit" and a "tuner unit" are required elements. A defendant may argue that these are distinct, well-understood terms of art and that the patentee claimed a device possessing both, not one that integrates the two functions. The specification does not appear to explicitly define either term, leaving their meaning open to interpretation based on their plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not currently allege indirect infringement. Plaintiff expressly "reserves the right to amend to add claims for indirect infringement" pending discovery (Compl. ¶11, fn. 2).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not currently allege willful infringement. Plaintiff expressly "reserves the right to amend to add claims for... willful infringement" if discovery shows pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶11, fn. 2).

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

1. A central issue will be one of claim scope and technological evolution: Can the term "at least one of a wireless unit and a tuner unit," drafted in the context of early 2000s technology, be construed to cover modern, highly integrated system-on-a-chip (SoC) transceivers, or does it require a more modular, physically distinct hardware architecture?
2. A second key question will be evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint provides only conclusory allegations of infringement without identifying specific products or mapping their features to claim limitations. A threshold issue for the case will be whether the specific technical architecture and operation of Defendant’s products, once identified in discovery, actually align with the requirements of the asserted claims.