DCT

2:25-cv-01173

Active Wireless Tech LLC v. HTC Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01173, E.D. Tex., 11/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 5G-compliant mobile devices, including smartphones and a 5G hub, infringe six U.S. patents related to various technical aspects of the 5th Generation (5G) New Radio (NR) wireless communication standard.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to foundational technologies for managing data channels, power control, channel state feedback, and system information acquisition in modern 5G wireless networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of the patents-in-suit via a letter dated April 11, 2025, to which Defendant allegedly never responded. This allegation forms the primary basis for the claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-08-09 '955 Patent Priority Date
2016-08-11 '764 Patent Priority Date
2017-06-15 '443 Patent Priority Date
2017-08-10 '566 Patent Priority Date
2018-01-11 '432 Patent Priority Date
2018-05-10 '557 Patent Priority Date
2020-01-07 '443 Patent Issue Date
2020-03-24 '566 Patent Issue Date
2020-09-22 '764 Patent Issue Date
2020-10-13 '955 Patent Issue Date
2020-12-01 '432 Patent Issue Date
2021-05-25 '557 Patent Issue Date
2025-04-11 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant
2025-11-26 Complaint Filing Date

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"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,805,955, "Terminal Apparatus, Base Station Apparatus, Communication Method, and Integrated Circuit," issued October 13, 2020 (Compl. ¶8).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In wireless systems using unlicensed spectrum, such as Licensed Assisted Access (LAA), devices must perform a "Listen-Before-Talk" (LBT) procedure to avoid interference. This can delay the start of an uplink transmission, altering the number of transmission symbols used within a given time slot and complicating the calculations required for proper power control (’955 Patent, col. 15:20-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for a terminal to determine the transmit power for a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH). The calculation explicitly accounts for situations where a transmission is delayed, for instance due to LBT, by incorporating a parameter ("N_LBT") into the power determination formula. This parameter adjusts the calculation based on whether the transmission starts at the beginning of a slot or is delayed (’955 Patent, Abstract; col. 15:20-40).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables accurate and compliant uplink power control in complex shared-spectrum environments, which is critical for maintaining signal quality and adhering to regulatory limits in LAA and 5G networks (Compl. ¶32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Claim 1 requires a terminal apparatus with:
    • Transmission circuitry to transmit a transport block on a PUSCH.
    • Physical layer processing circuitry to determine transmit power for the PUSCH based on a number of Single Carrier-Frequency Division Multiple Access (SC-FDMA) symbols for an initial transmission.
    • The number of SC-FDMA symbols is determined based on a parameter "N_LBT" and the total number of SC-FDMA symbols in an uplink slot.
    • "N_LBT" is set to 1 in a specific case where the signal of an SC-FDMA symbol with index "l" is generated based on the content of a resource element corresponding to an SC-FDMA symbol with index "l+1".

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,855,432, "User Equipments, Base Stations and Methods," issued December 1, 2020 (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: 5G networks use Bandwidth Parts (BWPs) to allow devices to operate over smaller portions of a wide carrier, saving power. A technical challenge is managing the state of various reporting configurations, such as for Channel State Information (CSI), when the BWP they are associated with is deactivated to conserve energy (’432 Patent, col. 2:1-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a method for a user equipment (UE) to manage semi-persistent CSI reporting configurations. The UE receives activation and deactivation commands for its CSI resources. The invention specifies that the UE’s processing circuitry is configured to "consider" these CSI resource configurations to be suspended if the associated DL BWP is deactivated, thereby linking the CSI activity state to the BWP activity state (’432 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:1-10).
  • Technical Importance: This solution provides a clear and efficient mechanism for power saving by ensuring the UE does not perform unnecessary channel measurements or reporting when the relevant bandwidth part is inactive, which is essential for improving battery life in mobile devices (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
  • Claim 1 requires a user equipment that communicates using one or more DL BWPs, comprising:
    • Receiving circuitry configured to receive an activation command for a semi-persistent CSI-Reference Signal (CSI-RS) and/or CSI-Interference Measurement (CSI-IM) resource configuration associated with a DL BWP.
    • Receiving circuitry configured to receive a deactivation command for that resource configuration.
    • Processing circuitry configured to consider the resource configuration suspended in a case that the associated DL BWP is deactivated.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,531,443

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,531,443, "Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) Format Adaptation for 5th Generation (5G) New Radio (NR)," issued January 7, 2020 (Compl. ¶10).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses methods for providing Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ-ACK) feedback, which confirms successful or unsuccessful data reception. The invention provides for adapting the amount of feedback transmitted by the user equipment based on whether the data was scheduled in a "common search space" (CSS), for which abbreviated feedback is used, or a "UE-specific search space" (USS), for which more detailed feedback is provided, thereby optimizing uplink resource usage (’443 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62-67).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶53).
    • Accused Features: The functionality of the accused devices to receive a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) with code block groups (CBGs) and transmit HARQ-ACK feedback, wherein one HARQ-ACK bit is reported for a PDSCH scheduled in a CSS, and HARQ-ACK bits for all CBGs are reported for a PDSCH scheduled in a USS (Compl. ¶¶53, 55-56).

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,019,557

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,019,557, "Apparatus and Method for Acquisition of Periodically Broadcasted System Information in Wireless Communication," issued May 25, 2021 (Compl. ¶11).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to the procedure by which a UE acquires essential network information broadcast in System Information Blocks (SIBs). The invention provides a recovery mechanism whereby a failure in acquiring a secondary SI message triggers the UE to re-initiate the acquisition process for the primary, first-type SIB (SIB1), ensuring the device can reliably obtain necessary system parameters (’557 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶64).
    • Accused Features: The accused products' alleged implementation of a process to acquire a first type SIB, use it to attempt acquisition of a second type SI message, and, upon failure of that acquisition process, initiate a re-acquisition of the first type SIB (Compl. ¶¶64, 69).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,785,764

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,785,764, "Information Change Transmission Method and Device for Single-Cell Multicast Service," issued September 22, 2020 (Compl. ¶12).
    • Technology Synopsis: The technology concerns notifying a UE of changes to multicast service information (SC-MCCH). The method involves receiving control information on a first narrowband channel (NPDCCH) to acquire initial SC-MCCH information, and later receiving control information on a second NPDCCH that indicates a change, which then directs the UE to use the first NPDCCH again to acquire the updated information (’764 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶77).
    • Accused Features: The accused devices' alleged capability to receive SC-MCCH information and monitor different Downlink Control Information (DCI) formats on separate NPDCCHs, where one DCI format indicates a change notification and another indicates the resource for acquiring the new SC-MCCH information (Compl. ¶¶77-79).

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,601,566

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,601,566, "Multiple Slot Long Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) Design for 5th Generation (5G) New Radio (NR)," issued March 24, 2020 (Compl. ¶13).
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a design for an uplink control channel (PUCCH) that spans multiple time slots, which is used for transmitting larger amounts of control information. The invention specifies that the number and location of symbols used for the PUCCH transmission remain the same in each of the multiple slots, and defines a method for determining frequency hopping for this multi-slot transmission (’566 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶89).
    • Accused Features: The accused products allegedly determine that a PUCCH spans multiple slots based on signaling from a base station and transmit uplink control information such that the number and location of PUCCH symbols are the same in each slot of the multi-slot transmission (Compl. ¶¶89, 92).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are the HTC U20 5G, HTC Desire 21 Pro 5G, HTC Desire 22 Pro 5G, HTC U23 Pro 5G, HTC U24 Pro 5G mobile phones, and the HTC 5G Hub (collectively, "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶21).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products are identified as mobile devices that implement 3GPP wireless communication standards, enabling them to operate on 5G networks (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges these products are sold and offered for sale in the United States through various channels, including HTC's own website as well as major online retailers like Amazon and Walmart (Compl. ¶22). The complaint provides a screenshot from htc.com showing various smartphone models as evidence of Defendant's offers for sale (Compl. ¶22, p. 6). The infringement allegations cover a range of fundamental 5G operations allegedly performed by these devices, including uplink power control, channel state management, HARQ-ACK feedback, system information acquisition, and control channel signaling (Compl. ¶¶28, 41, 53, 64, 77, 89).

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...to transmit a transport block on a Physical Uplink Channel (PUSCH)... The Accused Products comprise a terminal apparatus with transmission circuitry that transmits a transport block on a PUSCH, as required by 3GPP standards. The complaint provides an excerpt from a 3GPP technical specification showing the mapping of uplink transport channels to the PUSCH (Table 4.1-1). ¶¶28-29; p. 9 col. 15:20-22
and physical layer processing circuitry...to determine transmit power for the PUSCH at least based on a number of Single Carrier (SC)-Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) symbols NPUSCH-initial symb for an initial transmission... The Accused Products' physical layer processing circuitry determines PUSCH transmit power based on formulas provided in 3GPP standards, which depend on the number of SC-FDMA symbols. ¶¶28, 30 col. 15:22-28
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... The number of SC-FDMA symbols is calculated based on parameters defined in 3GPP standards, which account for symbols in an uplink slot and a starting position offset that the complaint equates to "N_LBT". ¶¶28, 31 col. 15:28-32
and the NLBT is 1 in a case that a signal of a SC-FDMA symbol with index 1 is generated, based on a content for resource elements corresponding to a SC-FDMA symbol with index 1+1. The complaint alleges this condition is met in LAA scenarios where a Listen-Before-Talk procedure causes a delayed transmission start. It cites a 3GPP standard where a parameter ("NPUSCH-initial_start") is set to 1 when a PUSCH does not start at the beginning of a symbol, referencing a table of PUSCH starting positions. This is illustrated with Table 5.3.3.1.1A-1 from the standard, which specifies different starting positions within a symbol. ¶¶28, 32-33; p. 13 col. 15:32-40
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the highly specific and abstract final limitation—"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"—can be construed to cover the practical operation of a delayed PUSCH start under the 3GPP LAA standard. The defense may argue that the claim recites a specific signal generation dependency that is technically distinct from the standard's mechanism for handling a delayed transmission start.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products' implementation of the "NPUSCH-initial_start" parameter from the 3GPP standard is technically equivalent to the claimed "N_LBT" parameter? The analysis may turn on expert testimony regarding the underlying signal processing and how power calculations are affected in both the claimed method and the standardized implementation.

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 are user equipment that operate on one or more DL BWPs in a serving cell in compliance with 3GPP standards. ¶¶41-42 col. 17:63-66
comprising: receiving circuitry, configured to receive an activation command for at least one of a semi-persistent...CSI-RS and a...CSI-IM resource configuration, the...configuration being associated with a DL BWP... The Accused Products' receiving circuitry is configured to receive activation commands for semi-persistent CSI-RS/CSI-IM resource sets, which are associated with a specific DL BWP, as defined by 3GPP standards. ¶¶41, 43 col. 17:67-col. 18:6
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 configured to receive deactivation commands for the semi-persistent CSI-RS/CSI-IM resource sets. ¶¶41, 44 col. 18:7-10
and processing circuitry, configured to consider that the...resource configuration is suspended, in a case that the associated DL BWP is deactivated. The Accused Products' processing circuitry operates according to 3GPP standards, which explicitly state that an active semi-persistent CSI-RS/CSI-IM resource configuration is "considered suspended" if the corresponding DL BWP is not active. The complaint includes a direct quote from the standard illustrating this rule. ¶¶41, 45; p. 23 col. 18:11-15
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The claim requires processing circuitry "configured to consider" a configuration to be suspended. A potential point of dispute is the meaning of "consider." The defense might argue this is an unpatentable mental step or that it requires proof of a specific internal software state or flag, which may be difficult to obtain. The plaintiff will likely argue that the device's resulting behavior (i.e., not performing CSI reporting) is sufficient evidence that it "considers" the configuration suspended.
    • Technical Questions: Does the accused product's compliance with the 3GPP standard, which links the "suspended" state to BWP activity, satisfy the claim's sequence of receiving activation/deactivation commands and having circuitry that considers the resource suspended upon BWP deactivation? The question focuses on whether simply following the standard's rule constitutes infringement of the full claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • The Term: "the N_LBT 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 central technical limitation defining the condition under which the "N_LBT" parameter is set to 1. The plaintiff's infringement theory maps this language to the 3GPP standard's handling of delayed uplink transmissions in LAA scenarios. The case may turn on whether this mapping is technically and legally sound.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification may describe the relationship between adjacent symbols in a general context of signal generation dependency, which could support an argument that it covers any scenario where one symbol's generation depends on the next, such as a delayed start (’955 Patent, col. 15:32-40).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of specific indices "l" and "l+1" in the claim could be argued to limit its scope to the precise mathematical or signal-processing relationship described in a specific embodiment, potentially distinguishing it from the accused implementation under the 3GPP standard (’955 Patent, Abstract).

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

  • The Term: "consider that the ... resource configuration is suspended"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the required function of the processing circuitry. Its construction will determine the standard of proof for infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it touches upon the patentability of claim elements that describe a state of mind or an internal logical condition of a processor, which is a frequently litigated issue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the observable consequences of this state, such as the UE ceasing certain reporting activities, which may support an interpretation where the external behavior of the device is sufficient to prove that it "considers" the configuration suspended (’432 Patent, col. 18:11-15).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's use of the active verb "consider" and the phrase "configured to" could suggest that the claim requires a specific internal state, flag, or instruction within the processor's software or logic that explicitly represents the "suspended" status, potentially requiring more direct evidence like source code analysis.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that HTC provides instructions, documentation, technical support, and marketing that encourage customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶34, 46). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused components are material to the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by HTC to be adapted for infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶¶35, 47).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant’s alleged actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit from a notice letter dated April 11, 2025, and Defendant's subsequent failure to respond or cease its allegedly infringing activities (e.g., Compl. ¶¶36, 48).

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

This case presents a dispute centered on the intersection of patented technology and widely adopted industry standards. The resolution will likely depend on the court's determination of the following key questions:

  • A central issue will be one of technical alignment: do the accused products, by virtue of complying with the 3GPP standards cited in the complaint, necessarily practice the specific and often narrowly-defined limitations of the asserted claims, or is there a material difference between the standard's implementation and the patented methods?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: for claims directed at the internal logic of a device (e.g., circuitry "configured to consider" a state), what evidence—from observable behavior to device source code—is required to prove that the accused processor performs the claimed function, and does the 3GPP standard's description of that function suffice?
  • A core issue of claim construction will be whether the highly technical and abstract language used in certain claims (e.g., the "N_LBT" condition in the ’955 patent) can be interpreted broadly enough to read on the functionality of the accused devices, or if the patent’s own description limits the claims to a narrower scope that the accused devices do not practice.