Mesa Digital LLC v. HP Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mesa Digital, LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: HP, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00940, E.D. Tex., 09/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic wireless handheld media devices infringe two patents related to multimedia communication capabilities in such devices.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to foundational technologies for handheld devices, such as modern smartphones, that integrate multiple wireless communication standards (e.g., cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) for retrieving and processing multimedia data.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that it and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into settlement licenses with other entities regarding the patent portfolio, though none of these licenses were for producing a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-06-27	Earliest Priority Date for ’144 and ’444 Patents
2017-05-09	U.S. Patent No. 9,646,444 Issued
2019-01-15	U.S. Patent No. 10,182,144 Issued
2025-09-08	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,182,144 - "Electronic wireless hand held multimedia device," Issued January 15, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a market landscape around the year 2000 where Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) and similar devices were available but lacked the ability to selectively connect to more than one type of wireless network (e.g., cellular, Wi-Fi) to access remote multimedia data from sources like the Internet ('144 Patent, col. 2:60-67). These early devices were also limited in their integrated multimedia, payment, and security functionalities ('144 Patent, col. 3:6-26).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld multimedia device that integrates a microprocessor with "at least one" wireless unit capable of communicating over multiple standards, including cellular networks (e.g., GSM, CDMA), wireless local area networks (WLAN/802.11), and short-range direct connections (e.g., Bluetooth) ('144 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:6-28). This multi-modal connectivity is combined with other features now common in smartphones, such as a touch-sensitive display, a video camera, a GPS module for mapping, a mobile payment unit, and a security module ('144 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1(b)).
• Technical Importance: The patent, with a priority date of 2000, describes an architectural convergence of distinct technologies—cellular communication, WLAN data access, GPS, and onboard multimedia processing—into a single handheld device, foreshadowing the functionality of the modern smartphone.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-18 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claims 1, 17, and 18 are asserted.
• Independent Claim 1: An electronic wireless handheld multimedia device comprising:
  • at least one of a wireless unit supporting bi-directional data communications for the device with remote data resources over cellular telecommunications networks, over wireless local area networks, and over a direct wireless connection with electronic devices located within short range using short range RF (Radio Frequency) communications;
  • a touch sensitive display screen configured to display the data including video and text received by the device by selecting a particular data represented by a soft button graphically displayed on the touch sensitive display screen;
  • a microprocessor configured to facilitate operation of and communications by the device;
  • a video camera enabling capture of video and pictures;
  • an image processing unit configured to process the video and pictures for display;
  • a GPS module configured to operate with mapping resources and provide location information; and
  • a security module accessible by the microprocessor to enable protected data access, management and communications security.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the assertion of claims 1-18 necessarily includes dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,646,444 - "Electronic wireless hand held multimedia device," Issued May 9, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the '144 patent, the '444 patent addresses the limitations of early-2000s handheld devices, which typically had only a single mode of wireless communication and lacked integrated, robust multimedia capabilities ('444 Patent, col. 2:60-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention detailed in the ’444 Patent is also a multi-functional handheld device. It combines "at least one of a wireless unit and a tuner unit" to support communication over cellular, WLAN, and short-range RF networks ('444 Patent, col. 15:51-61). A key element described is the requirement of "accepting a passcode from a user of the multimedia device during the communications," adding a layer of user-initiated security to the device's operation ('444 Patent, col. 15:60-63). The device also integrates a touch screen, microprocessor, camera, and GPS module ('444 Patent, col. 16:1-25).
• Technical Importance: This patent also claims an early integrated architecture for a multi-network handheld device, with a specific focus on user authentication via a "passcode" as a condition for communication.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-20 (Compl. ¶14). Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are asserted.
• Independent Claim 1: An electronic wireless handheld multimedia device comprising:
  • at least one of a wireless unit and a tuner unit supporting bi-directional data communications with remote data resources over cellular, wireless local area, and direct short-range RF connections "after accepting a passcode from a user of the multimedia device during the communications";
  • a touch sensitive display screen configured to display video and text received by the device by selecting data represented by a soft button;
  • a microprocessor configured to facilitate operation and communications; and
  • a video camera enabling capture, storage, processing, and transmission of video and pictures.
• The assertion of claims 1-20 includes the dependent claims within that range.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "electronic wireless hand held media devices" manufactured, sold, or imported by HP (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not identify any specific HP products (e.g., specific models of laptops, tablets, or other devices). It alleges in general terms that the accused devices include a microprocessor and "more than one wireless transceiver modules" that enable communication over various standards, including Cellular, 802.11 (WLAN), and short-range protocols like Bluetooth, for the purpose of retrieving, processing, and delivering multimedia data (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any specific product's functionality or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts in Exhibits B and D, which were not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the narrative provided in the complaint body.

The core of the infringement allegation is that HP has made, used, sold, and imported "electronic wireless hand held media devices" that embody the inventions of the '144 and '444 patents (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The complaint alleges these devices possess the key architectural features claimed in the patents, including a microprocessor and multiple wireless transceivers for communicating over a variety of standards such as cellular, WLAN, and Bluetooth (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The allegations are stated at a high level, essentially mirroring the language of the patents' abstracts and claims rather than describing the specific operation of any accused HP product.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'144 Patent

• The Term: "at least one of a wireless unit"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claims 1, 17, and 18. Its construction is critical because the claims require this single "unit" (or collection of units) to support three distinct communication modes: cellular, WLAN, and short-range RF. The dispute may center on whether a combination of physically separate chips or modules (e.g., a cellular modem, a Wi-Fi/Bluetooth combo chip) constitutes "at least one... unit" as contemplated by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses an embodiment where the "wireless transceiver modules 17... can constitute more than one wireless transceiver (e.g., multiple transceivers)" ('144 Patent, col. 6:60-62). Figure 1(c) explicitly depicts "Wireless Transceiver Modules" (17) containing a "1st Transceiver" (17a), "2nd Transceiver" (17b), and so on, suggesting "unit" can encompass a system of multiple, distinct components.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term implies a single, integrated physical component. The consistent use of the singular "a wireless unit" in the claim language could be argued to support a more constrained reading, despite the plural "modules" being used in the specification.

'444 Patent

• The Term: "after accepting a passcode from a user"
• Context and Importance: This limitation in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 introduces a specific sequence of operations: user authentication must occur "during the communications." The construction of this temporal and functional requirement will be central. The dispute will likely focus on what qualifies as a "passcode" (e.g., PIN, password, biometric) and whether the accused devices perform communications after such a step in the manner required by the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "security module" that enables "the use of pass codes, passwords and/or biometrics" ('444 Patent, col. 8:35-37). This suggests "passcode" could be interpreted broadly to include various forms of user authentication, not just a numeric code.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the communication support to be enabled "after accepting a passcode." A defendant could argue this requires a specific gating function where the wireless hardware is disabled or non-functional until a passcode is entered for a particular communication session, potentially distinguishing it from a general device unlock mechanism. The specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition distinguishing these scenarios.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint currently alleges only direct infringement (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). However, in footnotes, the Plaintiff "reserves the right to amend to add claims for indirect infringement, including inducement and contributory" pending discovery (Compl. p. 4, fn. 1; p. 5, fn. 2).
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff also reserves the right to amend its complaint to add claims for willful infringement "to the extent fact discovery shows Defendant's pre-expiration knowledge of the patent" (Compl. p. 4, fn. 1; p. 5, fn. 2).

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

This case, as pled, presents several fundamental questions that will likely define the litigation's trajectory.

• A primary issue will be one of specificity and scope: The complaint's broad accusation against generic "electronic wireless hand held media devices" will need to be substantiated with specific, accused HP products during discovery. The central dispute will then be whether the term "hand held multimedia device," as defined in a patent with a 2000 priority date, can be construed to cover the architecture of modern accused products, such as laptops or tablets.
• A key evidentiary question will concern technical operation: Once products are identified, the case will turn on whether the combination of components in HP's devices (e.g., separate cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth chipsets) meets the "at least one of a wireless unit" limitation of the '144 patent, and whether the timing and function of user login features meet the "after accepting a passcode" limitation of the '444 patent.
• A third core issue relates to patent validity: Given the patents' early priority date and the now-ubiquitous nature of the claimed technology, a significant focus of the defense will likely be on identifying prior art that predates June 2000 and allegedly discloses the claimed combination of features in a single device.