DCT

2:25-cv-00979

XR Communications LLC v. Nokia Of America Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00979, E.D. Tex., 09/25/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas, has transacted business in the District, and maintains offices within the District where it sells or markets its products. The complaint also references a prior case in which Defendant allegedly admitted to or did not contest venue in the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cellular base stations and 5G NR RAN solutions infringe five patents related to directed wireless communication, including Multiple-Input, Multiple-Output (MIMO) and beamforming technologies.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to methods for improving the performance, range, and reliability of wireless networks by intelligently directing signals and mitigating interference, technologies that are foundational to modern standards like 5G.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369 due to a prior lawsuit, Case No. 2:23-cv-202, which may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement for that patent. For the other four patents, knowledge is alleged to arise from the filing of the instant complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-04-27 ’369 Patent Priority Date
2002-11-04 ’511, ’235, ’256, and ’569 Patents Priority Date
2007-02-13 ’369 Patent Issue Date
2014-05-27 ’511 Patent Issue Date
2020-07-14 ’235 Patent Issue Date
2023-09-05 ’256 Patent Issue Date
2023-10-03 ’569 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-25 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369 - "Multipath Communication Methods and Apparatuses"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369, "Multipath Communication Methods and Apparatuses," issued February 13, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: High-speed wireless communication is susceptible to "multipath" interference, where signals reflect off objects and arrive at the receiver at different times, causing intersymbol interference that degrades performance (Compl. ¶7; ’369 Patent, col. 1:12-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method of "pre-equalization" performed at the transmitter (e.g., a base station). The transmitter first analyzes a signal received on a "reverse link" from a client device to identify multipath transmission delays. It then calculates "pre-equalization parameters" based on these delays and uses them to modify the "forward path" signal before transmitting it back to the client device, proactively compensating for the anticipated multipath effects (’369 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-13).
  • Technical Importance: This approach shifts the computational complexity of correcting for long multipath delays from the client device to the more powerful base station, potentially improving reliability beyond what is achievable with standard techniques like OFDM guard intervals (’369 Patent, col. 2:14-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 42, and 79 (Compl. ¶25).
  • Independent claim 1 recites a method with the essential elements of:
    • identifying at least one multipath transmission delay within a reverse path data signal received from a receiving device;
    • determining at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter based on said at least one transmission delay; and
    • modifying a forward path data signal that is to be transmitted to the receiving device based on said at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter.

U.S. Patent No. 8,737,511 - "Directed MIMO Communications"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,737,511, "Directed MIMO Communications," issued May 27, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of combining the high-throughput capabilities of MIMO systems with the range-extending and interference-managing benefits of beamforming in a system with multiple antenna arrays (’511 Patent, col. 1:10-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system architecture comprising multiple ("m") antenna arrays and multiple ("n") MIMO transceivers. The system is configured such that signals from a specific beam direction (e.g., beam 'j') across all of the different antenna arrays are processed by the same, dedicated MIMO receiver (e.g., receiver 'j'). This structure maps spatial directions to specific MIMO processors, allowing the system to combine signals from multiple arrays for enhanced directional gain while simultaneously applying MIMO processing for increased throughput (’511 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture provides a scalable method for integrating multi-array beamforming with MIMO processing, enabling a wireless system to achieve both extended range and high data rates simultaneously (’511 Patent, col. 1:10-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶37).
  • Independent claim 1 recites a system with the essential elements of:
    • "m" antenna arrays, each with a beamformer configured to produce "n" different bi-directional beams.
    • "n" MIMO transceivers, each comprising a MIMO receiver configured to process "m" different received signals.
    • The claim specifies that an "i-th" received signal to a "j-th" MIMO receiver "corresponds to" a "j-th" beam of an "i-th" antenna array.

Multi-Patent Family Analysis

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235, "Directed Wireless Communications," issued July 14, 2020.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a network apparatus that directs wireless communication by receiving simultaneous signal transmissions from a remote station via at least two different antenna elements. Based on the distinct signal information from each element, the apparatus determines a set of weighting values used to construct and generate one or more beam-formed signals for transmission back to the remote station (’235 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
    • Accused Features: Cellular base stations / 5G NR RAN solutions that support 3GPP 5G NR beamforming (Compl. ¶49).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,750,256, "Directed MIMO Communications," issued September 5, 2023.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a networking apparatus that generates multiple sequences of symbols for transmission to multiple client devices. It then transmits these sequences, at least partly simultaneously, via one or more beams focused toward the client devices, a technique aligned with multi-user MIMO beamforming (’256 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).
    • Accused Features: Cellular base stations / 5G NR RAN solutions that support 3GPP 5G NR beamforming (Compl. ¶61).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,777,569, "Directed Wireless Communications," issued October 3, 2023.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent, similar to the ’256 patent, describes an apparatus that generates and transmits multiple symbol sequences to multiple client devices. The transmissions are directed via one or more beams focused toward the devices and occur at least partly simultaneously (’569 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
    • Accused Features: Cellular base stations / 5G NR RAN solutions that support 3GPP 5G NR beamforming (Compl. ¶73).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are identified as "cellular base stations / 5G NR RAN solutions that support 3GPP 5G NR beamforming" (Compl. ¶25, ¶37).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products provide wireless communications services to consumers, businesses, and government entities throughout the United States (Compl. ¶17). The accused functionality is the products' implementation of 5G NR beamforming and MIMO, which are core features of modern cellular networks designed to enhance signal strength, reliability, and data transmission capability (Compl. ¶9, ¶26).
    No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim-chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶28, ¶40). The analysis below summarizes the narrative allegations.

’369 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Nokia’s 5G NR RAN solutions directly infringe by performing the claimed pre-equalization method. The theory suggests that the accused base stations analyze uplink signals from user devices to identify multipath characteristics and then modify the corresponding downlink signals before transmission to compensate for those effects (Compl. ¶25, ¶28).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products' standard-compliant channel estimation and beamforming processes perform the specific function of identifying a "multipath transmission delay" and calculating a "pre-equalization parameter" to modify a subsequent transmission, as required by the claim?
    • Scope Question: Does the term "pre-equalization parameter," as used in the patent, read on the beamforming weights or channel state information (CSI) feedback mechanisms used in the 3GPP 5G NR standard?

’511 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the architecture of Nokia's multi-antenna base stations infringes the claimed system. The theory posits that the accused products are built with multiple antenna arrays and multiple MIMO transceivers, and that they are configured to map signals from a specific directional beam across different arrays to a corresponding MIMO processing unit (Compl. ¶37, ¶40).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: Does the physical or logical architecture of the accused Nokia base stations route signals in the specific manner claimed, where the "j-th" beam from the "i-th" antenna array is processed by the "j-th" MIMO receiver?
    • Scope Question: How will the term "corresponds to" be construed? The dispute may focus on whether this requires a specific, fixed hardware mapping, as depicted in the patent's figures, or if it can be met by a more flexible or logical signal processing path within the accused systems.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’369 Patent, Claim 1

  • The Term: "pre-equalization parameter"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the inventive act. Its construction will determine whether the routine channel estimation and beamforming adjustments in a 5G system fall within the scope of the claim, or if the claim requires a more specific type of modification aimed explicitly at multipath delay compensation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit, limiting definition, stating that the parameter is determined "based on" the transmission delay, which could support a broader functional interpretation (’369 Patent, col. 2:7-9).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discusses specific embodiments, such as inverting the measured channel response, which could be argued to limit the term's scope to techniques that directly counteract the measured channel effects (’369 Patent, col. 10:20-25).

’511 Patent, Claim 1

  • The Term: "wherein an i-th received signal to a j-th MIMO receiver corresponds to a j-th beam of an i-th antenna array"
  • Context and Importance: This clause defines the specific structural and functional relationship between the antenna arrays and the MIMO receivers. The case will likely turn on whether the accused Nokia products, which integrate MIMO and beamforming, possess this specific signal routing architecture.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "corresponds to" is not explicitly defined, which may support an argument that any logical or functional association between a beam direction and a processing unit meets the limitation, regardless of the physical implementation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed description illustrate a specific, structured wiring and signal-processing path where signals from beams with the same index ("j") from different arrays ("i") are physically or logically grouped and sent to the same receiver ("j") (’511 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:4-21). A defendant may argue this disclosure limits the claim to such an architecture.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all five patents. It asserts that Defendant's user manuals, technical specifications, and professional support services instruct customers and end users to operate the accused products in a manner that directly infringes, specifically by utilizing their 5G NR beamforming and MIMO functionalities (Compl. ¶26, ¶38, ¶50, ¶62, ¶74). The complaint also includes allegations of contributory infringement for all asserted patents (Compl. ¶27, ¶39, ¶51, ¶63, ¶75).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all five patents. For the ’369 Patent, willfulness is predicated on alleged pre-suit knowledge from a prior litigation (Compl. ¶26, ¶33). For the ’511, ’235, ’256, and ’569 patents, the allegations are based on knowledge obtained through the filing and service of the current complaint, suggesting a theory of post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶38, ¶50, ¶62, ¶74).

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

This dispute will likely center on the following key questions for the court:

  1. A core issue of functional operation for the ’369 Patent: Does the channel-adaptive beamforming employed in Nokia's standard-compliant 5G products perform the specific method of "pre-equalization" recited in claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the standardized process and the claimed invention for mitigating multipath delay?
  2. A central question of architectural scope for the ’511 Patent and its family: Can the claim term "corresponds to" be construed to cover the integrated MIMO and beamforming architecture in Nokia's products, or does the patent's specification limit the claim to a more specific signal-routing structure not present in the accused systems?
  3. An evidentiary question regarding willfulness: For the ’369 Patent, does knowledge from a prior lawsuit establish the requisite intent for willful infringement by the currently accused products? For the remaining patents, can willfulness be established based solely on notice provided by the filing of the complaint itself?