DCT

2:25-cv-01169

Active Wireless Tech LLC v. TCL Technology Group Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-08-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,805,955 Priority Date
2016-08-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,785,764 Priority Date
2017-06-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,531,443 Priority Date
2017-08-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,601,566 Priority Date
2018-01-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,855,432 Priority Date
2018-05-10 U.S. Patent No. 11,019,557 Priority Date
2020-01-07 U.S. Patent No. 10,531,443 Issued
2020-03-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,601,566 Issued
2020-09-22 U.S. Patent No. 10,785,764 Issued
2020-10-13 U.S. Patent No. 10,805,955 Issued
2020-12-01 U.S. Patent No. 10,855,432 Issued
2021-05-25 U.S. Patent No. 11,019,557 Issued
2025-04-11 Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter of infringement to Defendants
2025-11-26 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,805,955 - "Terminal Apparatus, Base Station Apparatus, Communication Method, and Integrated Circuit"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent does not explicitly state a problem in its background section but describes the context of Licensed Assisted Access (LAA), where cellular communication occurs in an unlicensed band, requiring a device to "listen before talk" (LBT) to avoid interference (’955 Patent, col. 1:19-41). This LBT procedure can delay transmissions, creating technical challenges for maintaining scheduled communication timing.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a terminal apparatus (e.g., a smartphone) to determine its transmit power for a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission ('955 Patent, col. 2:1-12). The power calculation is based on a number of Single Carrier-Frequency Division Multiple Access (SC-FDMA) symbols, and this number is adjusted based on a variable, NLBT, which accounts for transmission timing shifts caused by procedures like LBT ('955 Patent, col. 15:15-30). This allows the device to adjust its power settings to account for delays inherent in using unlicensed spectrum.
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a mechanism to maintain reliable uplink communication performance in LAA deployments, which are critical for expanding 5G network capacity by using unlicensed spectrum. (Compl. ¶49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶45).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A terminal apparatus comprising transmission circuitry and physical layer processing circuitry.
    • The transmission circuitry is configured to transmit a transport block on a PUSCH.
    • The physical layer processing circuitry is configured to determine transmit power for the PUSCH based on a number of SC-FDMA symbols for an initial transmission.
    • The number of SC-FDMA symbols is given based on NLBT and the number of SC-FDMA symbols in an uplink slot.
    • NLBT is 1 in a case that a signal of a SC-FDMA symbol with index l is generated based on a content for resource elements corresponding to a SC-FDMA symbol with index l+1.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,855,432 - "User Equipments, Base Stations and Methods"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes advanced 5G NR systems where a User Equipment (UE) can operate using multiple "bandwidth parts" (BWPs) within a single, wider carrier (’432 Patent, col. 1:47-51). Managing communication resources, such as those for channel state feedback (CSI-RS), across multiple active or inactive BWPs creates complexity in ensuring the UE and base station are synchronized.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention defines a procedure where a UE manages semi-persistent channel state information resources (CSI-RS and CSI-IM) that are associated with a specific downlink BWP (DL BWP) ('432 Patent, col. 2:6-19). The UE's processing circuitry is configured to "consider that the... resource configuration is suspended in a case that the associated DL BWP is deactivated." This provides a clear rule for the UE to pause using certain measurement resources when the corresponding network slice (the BWP) is turned off, preventing errors and conserving power ('432 Patent, col. 2:16-19).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides an efficient way to manage complex resource configurations in 5G systems that use bandwidth parts, improving reliability and device power efficiency. (Compl. ¶¶58, 62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶58).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A user equipment that communicates with a base station on one or more downlink bandwidth parts (DL BWPs).
    • Receiving circuitry configured to receive an activation command for a semi-persistent CSI-RS and CSI-IM resource configuration associated with a DL BWP.
    • The receiving circuitry is also configured to receive a deactivation command for that same resource configuration.
    • Processing circuitry configured to consider that the resource configuration is suspended in a case that the associated DL BWP is deactivated.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,531,443 - "Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) Format Adaptation for 5th Generation (5G) New Radio (NR)"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to adapting the format of the physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), which carries essential feedback like HARQ-ACKs (acknowledgments for data reception) (’443 Patent, col. 1:15-20). The invention provides a method for a user equipment to report different numbers of HARQ-ACK bits depending on where the corresponding data was scheduled: a single bit is reported if scheduled in a "common search space" (CSS), but bits for all code block groups (CBGs) are reported if scheduled in a "UE-specific search space" (USS) ('443 Patent, col. 21:62-67, col. 23:13-24:14). This allows the system to use the uplink channel more efficiently.
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶70).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the 3GPP-compliant functionalities in TCL's devices for receiving data (PDSCH) and transmitting corresponding HARQ-ACK feedback based on whether the data was scheduled in a CSS or USS. (Compl. ¶¶71-73).

U.S. Patent No. 11,019,557 - "Apparatus and Method for Acquisition of Periodically Broadcasted System Information in Wireless Communication"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses how a user equipment acquires system information (SI), which is necessary to access and operate on a network. The invention defines a process where, upon failure to acquire a periodically broadcast SI message, the user equipment initiates a re-acquisition of the first-level system information block (SIB1) (’557 Patent, Abstract). SIB1 contains the scheduling information for other SI messages, so re-acquiring it allows the device to restart the process, providing a robust failure recovery mechanism.
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶81).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the 3GPP-compliant procedures in TCL's devices for acquiring system information, including the alleged process of re-acquiring SIB1 upon a failure to receive another scheduled SI message. (Compl. ¶¶82-86).

U.S. Patent No. 10,785,764 - "Information Change Transmission Method and Device for Single-Cell Multicast Service"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to how a user equipment is notified of changes to multicast control channel (SC-MCCH) information, used for services like broadcasting to multiple users. The invention describes a method where different Downlink Control Information (DCI) formats, received in different subframe periods, are used to signal an information change and provide the resources for acquiring the new information (’764 Patent, Abstract). This allows for flexible and efficient updates of multicast service information.
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the 3GPP-compliant functionalities in TCL's devices for monitoring downlink control information (DCI) on a narrowband channel (NPDCCH) to receive notifications about changes to SC-MCCH information. (Compl. ¶¶95-98).

U.S. Patent No. 10,601,566 - "Multiple Slot Long Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) Design for 5th Generation (5G) New Radio (NR)"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent concerns the design of an uplink control channel (PUCCH) that spans multiple time slots, which is useful for transmitting larger amounts of control information. The invention specifies methods for determining frequency hopping and ensuring that the number and location of symbols used for the PUCCH are the same in each slot of the multi-slot transmission (’566 Patent, col. 3:3-14, col. 46:50-62). This provides a structured and reliable way to handle long PUCCH transmissions.
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶106).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are the 3GPP-compliant functionalities in TCL's devices that determine how to configure a multi-slot PUCCH based on signaling from a base station, including determining frequency hopping and symbol allocation. (Compl. ¶¶107-109).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are a wide range of TCL-branded smartphones and tablets, including but not limited to the TAB 10 NXTPAPER 5G, 60 XE NXTPAPER 5G, TCL 50 XE 5G, 20 Pro 5G, and Stylus 5G. (Compl. ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these devices are compliant with the 3GPP 5G wireless communication standards. (Compl. ¶29). Their accused functionality stems from this compliance, which allegedly requires them to perform the methods claimed in the patents-in-suit for uplink and downlink channel management, system information acquisition, and power control. (Compl. ¶¶45, 58, 70, 81, 94, 106). The complaint presents evidence of TCL's significant market presence in North America, referencing a financial report stating that 72.6% of its small-and-medium-sized display business revenue comes from North America and Europe. (Compl. ¶36, p. 17). This pie chart graphic illustrates the geographic breakdown of TCL's revenue for its mobile device business segment. (Compl. p. 17). The devices are sold through major U.S. carriers and retailers such as Verizon, T-Mobile, Amazon, and Walmart. (Compl. ¶¶30, 33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 10,805,955 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a terminal apparatus comprising: transmission circuitry ... configured to ... transmit a transport block on a Physical Uplink Channel (PUSCH), and physical layer processing circuitry ... The Accused Products are terminal apparatuses compliant with 3GPP standards and include circuitry to transmit transport blocks on a PUSCH. ¶46 col. 15:15-18
configured to determine transmit power for the PUSCH at least based on a number of Single Carrier (SC)-Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) symbols ... for an initial transmission ... The Accused Products' processing circuitry determines PUSCH transmit power based on a number of SC-FDMA symbols for an initial transmission, as required by 3GPP standards. ¶47 col. 15:18-24
wherein: the number of the SC-FDMA symbols ... is given based on NLBT and a number of SC-FDMA symbols included in a uplink slot NULsymb ... The number of SC-FDMA symbols used for the power calculation is based on parameters defined in the 3GPP standards, which the complaint alleges correspond to NLBT and NULsymb. ¶48 col. 15:24-27
and the NLBT is 1 in a case that a signal of a SC-FDMA symbol with index l is generated based on a content for resource elements corresponding to a SC-FDMA symbol with index l+1. This allegedly occurs when the device operates in Licensed Assisted Access (LAA) mode and performs a Listen-Before-Talk (LBT) procedure, causing the PUSCH starting position to be shifted from the beginning of a symbol. ¶¶49-50 col. 15:27-30
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the highly specific claim language "a signal ... with index l is generated based on a content for resource elements corresponding to a ... symbol with index l+1" can be construed to read on the alleged PUSCH starting position shift that occurs during LAA operation under the 3GPP standard. The defense may argue that the standard's implementation is technically distinct from the specific generation method claimed.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused devices actually perform this specific shifted signal generation, beyond general allegations of 3GPP compliance? The analysis may require a deep technical dive into how the accused devices' chipsets implement the LAA/LBT procedure specified in the standards cited by the complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 10,855,432 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A user equipment that communicates with a base station apparatus on one or more downlink bandwidth parts (DL BWPs) in at least one serving cell The Accused Products, being 5G-compliant, are user equipments that communicate using one or more DL BWPs in a serving cell as defined by 3GPP standards. ¶59 col. 2:6-9
comprising: receiving circuitry configured to receive an activation command for at least one of a semi-persistent channel state information-reference signal (CSI-RS) and a ... (CSI-IM) resource configuration... The Accused Products' receiving circuitry receives activation commands for semi-persistent CSI-RS/CSI-IM resource sets via a MAC CE message, which is associated with a specific DL BWP as per 3GPP standards. ¶60 col. 2:9-14
the receiving circuitry configured to receive a deactivation command for the at least one of semi-persistent CSI-RS and CSI-IM resource configuration... The Accused Products' receiving circuitry is also configured to receive deactivation commands for the same semi-persistent CSI-RS/CSI-IM resource sets, also via a MAC CE message. ¶61 col. 2:14-16
and processing circuitry configured to consider that the ... resource configuration is suspended in a case that the associated DL BWP is deactivated. The complaint alleges this is directly taught by the 3GPP standard, which states that an activated semi-persistent resource configuration is "considered suspended" if the corresponding DL BWP is not active (i.e., is deactivated). ¶62 col. 2:16-19
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the precise meanings of "suspended" and "deactivated" as used in the patent versus how those or similar concepts are implemented in the 3GPP standard. Does the standard's concept of a resource being "considered suspended" when a BWP is "not active" equate to the claim's requirement that the configuration "is suspended in a case that the associated DL BWP is deactivated"?
    • Technical Questions: The infringement allegation appears to rest heavily on a direct textual mapping from the 3GPP standard to the claim language. A key question will be whether TCL's actual implementation of this standard performs the claimed function, or if there are nuances in the operation of the accused devices that create a technical distinction.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 10,805,955:

  • The Term: NLBT is 1 in a case that a signal of a SC-FDMA symbol with index l is generated based on a content for resource elements corresponding to a SC-FDMA symbol with index l+1
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the infringement allegation for claim 1. Its definition will determine whether the operational behavior of a 3GPP-compliant device performing a Listen-Before-Talk (LBT) procedure falls within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff's case depends on mapping this specific signal-generation language to the functional outcome of a PUSCH transmission being delayed by a fraction of a symbol time during LAA operation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes that one aspect of the invention is a communication method where "a value of NLBT is 1 in a case that a time continuous signal of a first SC-FDMA symbol included in the PUSCH is generated based on a content of a resource element corresponding to a second SC-FDMA symbol following the first SC-FDMA symbol." ('955 Patent, col. 15:24-30). This broad, functional description could support an interpretation that covers any process resulting in this signal relationship, such as the alleged LBT-induced shift.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not appear to offer an explicit definition of the term beyond its functional description in the claims and summary. A defendant may argue that the absence of more detailed embodiments or definitions limits the term to a specific method of signal generation not practiced by the accused devices, raising the question of whether the claim language describes a result or a specific mechanism.

For U.S. Patent No. 10,855,432:

  • The Term: suspended in a case that the associated DL BWP is deactivated
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute, as infringement hinges on whether the accused devices perform this specific action. The plaintiff alleges the 3GPP standard itself mandates this behavior. The case will likely involve determining if the standard's operational state of a resource being "considered suspended" when a BWP is "not active" is the same as the claimed configuration being "suspended" when the BWP is "deactivated."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract states, "Processing circuitry is configured to consider that the semi-persistent CSI-RS and CSI-IM resource(s) configuration is suspended when the associated DL BWP is being deactivated." ('432 Patent, Abstract). The consistent use of this functional language throughout the patent may support an interpretation based on the resulting state of the system, rather than a specific software or hardware mechanism for achieving it.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description does not provide an explicit definition of "suspended" or "deactivated" beyond their plain and ordinary meaning in the context of wireless resource management. A defendant may argue that there is a technical distinction between a BWP being "deactivated" (a specific command) and being "not active" (a state that could arise for other reasons), and that the term "suspended" as used in the patent implies a specific, commanded state change not present in the accused functionality.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is alleged based on TCL manufacturing and selling the Accused Products while providing user manuals, technical support, and other documentation that instruct customers on how to use the devices in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶51, 63, 74, 87, 99, 110). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused components are material to the inventions, not staple articles of commerce, and are known by TCL to be especially adapted for infringement. (Compl. ¶¶52, 64, 75, 88, 100, 111).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The basis for this allegation is a notice letter detailing the infringement that Plaintiff allegedly sent to Defendants on April 11, 2025, which Plaintiff claims went unanswered. (Compl. ¶¶53, 65, 76, 89, 101, 112).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of technical and definitional mapping: can the specific, and at times complex, terminology of the patent claims be demonstrably and unequivocally mapped to the operational descriptions within the 3GPP standards? For example, does the signal generation process described in the '955 patent accurately capture the real-world function of a PUSCH transmission shift during an LBT procedure?

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of proof of practice: beyond establishing that the accused devices are 3GPP-compliant, what specific evidence will be presented to show that the devices, as sold and operated, actually perform the functions precisely as recited by the claims? This moves the dispute from a theoretical comparison of documents (patent vs. standard) to a factual inquiry into the actual operation of the accused hardware and software.

  3. A significant legal question will be the interpretation of functional states: for the '432 patent, the case may turn on whether the standard's description of a resource being "considered suspended" when a BWP is "not active" is legally and technically equivalent to the patent's requirement that the resource "is suspended" when the BWP "is deactivated." The outcome may depend on whether these terms describe identical system states or technically distinct conditions.