DCT

2:25-cv-01174

Active Wireless Tech LLC v. LG Electronics Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01174, E.D. Tex., 11/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A. has regular and established places of business within the district and has committed acts of infringement there. Venue over foreign Defendant LG Electronics Inc. is alleged to be proper in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 3GPP-compliant 5G mobile devices infringe six patents related to various aspects of wireless communication technology, including uplink power control, channel state reporting, and system information acquisition.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to foundational technologies for 5G New Radio (NR), the global standard for modern high-speed wireless mobile networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement via a letter dated April 11, 2025, to which Defendant allegedly did not respond; this allegation forms the basis for a 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 Issued
2020-03-24 ’566 Patent Issued
2020-09-22 ’764 Patent Issued
2020-10-13 ’955 Patent Issued
2020-12-01 ’432 Patent Issued
2021-05-25 ’557 Patent Issued
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," Issued October 13, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In wireless systems utilizing unlicensed spectrum, such as Licensed Assisted Access (LAA), a device must perform a "Listen-Before-Talk" (LBT) procedure to ensure the channel is clear before transmitting (’955 Patent, col. 1:12-25). This LBT check can delay the start of an uplink transmission, causing it to begin partway through a standard transmission symbol, which complicates the calculation of appropriate transmit power (’955 Patent, col. 2:26-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a terminal apparatus to determine the transmit power for a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH). The power calculation is based on the number of Single Carrier-Frequency Division Multiple Access (SC-FDMA) symbols used for the transmission, where that number is specifically adjusted by a parameter ("NLBT") to account for cases where the transmission is delayed and does not begin at the start of a symbol due to procedures like LBT (’955 Patent, col. 2:48-61, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for accurate and compliant power control for uplink data transmissions in complex shared-spectrum environments, enhancing the efficiency and reliability of 5G communications that leverage both licensed and unlicensed bands (’955 Patent, col. 1:26-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
  • 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 at least on a number of SC-FDMA symbols ("NPUSCH-initial symb").
    • The number of SC-FDMA symbols is given based on a parameter "NLBT" and the total number of SC-FDMA symbols in an uplink slot ("NUL symb").
    • "NLBT" is defined as 1 in the specific case that a signal for a symbol with index "l" is generated based on content from resource elements corresponding to a symbol with index "l+1".
  • The complaint seeks relief for infringement of "one or more claims of each of the Patents-in-Suit" (Compl. p. 53, ¶a).

U.S. Patent No. 10,855,432 - "User Equipments, Base Stations and Methods," Issued December 1, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In 5G New Radio (NR), user equipment (UE) may operate across multiple different downlink "bandwidth parts" (BWPs) to flexibly manage data reception. Managing the resources for reporting Channel State Information (CSI), which tells the base station about channel quality, can be inefficient if the UE must maintain active reporting configurations for BWPs that are not currently in use (’432 Patent, col. 1:45-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a UE that receives activation and deactivation commands for semi-persistent CSI reporting resources (CSI-RS and CSI-IM) that are associated with a specific DL BWP. The UE's processing circuitry is configured to "consider" that these CSI resource configurations are "suspended" when the associated DL BWP is deactivated, thereby saving power and processing resources by not maintaining or acting on configurations for inactive bandwidths (’432 Patent, col. 2:22-38, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This solution provides an efficient mechanism for power and resource management in 5G devices by linking the activity state of CSI reporting configurations to the activity state of the associated bandwidth part, which is a core feature of 5G network flexibility (’432 Patent, col. 2:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • A user equipment that communicates with a base station on one or more DL BWPs.
    • Receiving circuitry configured to receive an activation command for a semi-persistent CSI-RS and/or CSI-IM resource configuration associated with a DL BWP.
    • The receiving circuitry is also configured to receive a deactivation command for that 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 seeks relief for infringement of "one or more claims of each of the Patents-in-Suit" (Compl. p. 53, ¶a).

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.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses efficient Hybrid ARQ (HARQ-ACK) feedback when data is transmitted in code block groups (CBGs). The patented solution is a UE that adapts its feedback method, sending a single HARQ-ACK bit for a whole transport block if scheduled in a common search space (CSS), but sending HARQ-ACK bits for all CBGs if scheduled in a UE-specific search space (USS), optimizing feedback granularity (’443 Patent, col. 2:39-50, col. 21:61-67).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products' receiving and transmitting circuitry, which handles PDSCH reception and CBG-based HARQ-ACK feedback according to 3GPP standards, infringes the ’443 patent (Compl. ¶¶51-53).

U.S. Patent No. 11,019,557 - "Apparatus and Method for Acquisition of Periodically Broadcasted System Information in Wireless Communication," issued May 25, 2021.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses how a UE should recover from a failure to acquire necessary System Information (SI) messages. The solution is a UE that, upon determining a failure in its SI message acquisition process, is configured to initiate a re-acquisition process to re-acquire the first type System Information Block (SIB1), which contains the scheduling information for all other SI messages (’557 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the Accused Products' receiver and processor circuitry, which are configured to manage the acquisition of system information blocks as defined by 3GPP standards (Compl. ¶¶61-65).

U.S. Patent No. 10,785,764 - "Information Change Transmission Method and Device for Single-Cell Multicast Service," issued September 22, 2020.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses how to efficiently notify a UE about changes to Single-Cell Multicast Control Channel (SC-MCCH) information. The solution involves a UE that monitors a second Downlink Control Information (DCI) format for a change notification and, upon receiving one, uses a first DCI format to find and acquire the updated SC-MCCH information, where the monitoring periods for the two DCI formats are different (’764 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶72).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the UE's receiving and processing circuitry, which is alleged to implement the 3GPP-standardized procedure for receiving SC-MCCH change notifications and acquiring updated information (Compl. ¶¶73-76).

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.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the design of an uplink control channel (PUCCH) that spans multiple time slots. The solution describes a UE that determines such a multi-slot PUCCH based on signaling from a base station, determines a frequency hopping method, and transmits uplink control information (UCI) ensuring the number and location of symbols for the PUCCH are the same in each slot (’566 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶83).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the UE's processor and memory, which are configured to determine and transmit UCI on a multi-slot PUCCH with frequency hopping in compliance with 3GPP standards (Compl. ¶¶84-86).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are LG-branded 5G-capable mobile phones, including the LG K92 5G, LG WING 5G, LG VELVET 5G UW, LG VELVET 5G, LG V60 ThinQ 5G UW, LG V60 ThinQ 5G, LG V60 ThinQ 5G Dual Screen, and LG V50 ThinQ 5G (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these devices are compliant with 3GPP standards for 5G wireless communication (Compl. ¶20). The core of the infringement allegations rests on the assertion that by implementing these standards, the devices necessarily practice the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶¶27, 39, 50, 60, 72, 83). While Defendant LG discontinued its mobile business unit as of July 31, 2021, the complaint alleges that accused products remain for sale through retailers like Amazon and Walmart and that LG continues to provide software and OS updates (Compl. ¶20, fn. 1). The complaint provides a screenshot from Amazon.com showing an "LG Velvet (5G)" device offered for sale, which supports the allegation of ongoing infringing activity (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'955 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a terminal apparatus comprising: transmission circuitry...and physical layer processing circuitry... The Accused Products are terminal apparatuses with transmission and processing circuitry compliant with 3GPP standards. ¶28 col. 4:10-21
transmission circuitry, configured to... transmit a transport block on a Physical Uplink Channel (PUSCH) The Accused Products' transmission circuitry is configured to transmit transport blocks on the PUSCH as defined in 3GPP TS 36.212. ¶28 col. 2:48-50
physical layer processing circuitry configured to... determine transmit power for the PUSCH at least based on a number of... (SC-FDMA) symbols NPUSCH-initial symb... The Accused Products' physical layer processing circuitry determines PUSCH transmit power based on a number of SC-FDMA symbols as required by 3GPP TS 36.213. ¶29 col. 2:50-54
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 NUL symb... The number of SC-FDMA symbols used in the power calculation is based on parameters including "NUL symb" and a parameter corresponding to "NLBT" ("NPUSCH-initial start") per 3GPP TS 36.212. ¶30 col. 2:55-59
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. This condition is met when an Accused Product operates in a Licensed Assisted Access (LAA) cell and performs Listen-Before-Talk (LBT), causing the PUSCH transmission to not start at the beginning of the first symbol, as described in 3GPP TS 36.211 and 36.212. ¶¶31-32 col. 2:59-65
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement theory maps the claim term "NLBT" to the 3GPP standards-defined variable "NPUSCH-initial start" (Compl. ¶31). A central question may be whether the claim's highly specific definition of when "NLBT" is 1—"a signal of a... symbol with index l is generated, based on a content for resource elements corresponding to a... symbol with index l+1"—is definitionally equivalent to the conditions under which the 3GPP variable is set to 1.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations are premised on the Accused Products' full compliance with the cited 3GPP standards. The dispute may raise the factual question of whether LG's specific implementation of LAA/LBT functionality in its devices performs the exact signal generation and timing operations required to satisfy the "NLBT" limitation as claimed.

'432 Patent 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)... The Accused Products are user equipment compliant with 3GPP standards for operation in bandwidth parts of a serving cell. ¶40 col. 1:19-21
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 resource sets via a MAC CE, with each resource setting being associated with a DL BWP, per 3GPP standards. ¶41 col. 1:22-29
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 these same CSI resource sets via a MAC CE, as specified in 3GPP standards. ¶42 col. 1:29-32
and processing circuitry, configured to consider that the... resource configuration is suspended, in a case that the associated DL BWP is deactivated. The processing circuitry in the Accused Products considers the activated semi-persistent CSI resource configurations to be suspended when the corresponding DL BWP is inactive, as mandated by 3GPP TS 38.214. ¶43 col. 1:32-36
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A point of contention may arise over the term "consider that the... resource configuration is suspended." The infringement analysis will question whether the functional outcome mandated by the 3GPP standard—where a UE does not act on a CSI configuration when its BWP is inactive—is sufficient to meet this "consider" limitation, or if the claim requires a specific internal software state or flag labeled "suspended."
    • Technical Questions: The case may present an evidentiary question regarding how the Accused Products' software architecture actually manages CSI resource configurations. The analysis would explore whether the device's operating system and baseband processor perform a distinct step that can be characterized as "considering" the configuration "suspended," or if the behavior is merely an implicit result of the BWP deactivation procedure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '955 Patent

  • The Term: "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"
  • Context and Importance: This clause defines the specific technical condition that triggers the patent's novel power calculation adjustment. The infringement allegation hinges on this language covering the real-world scenario of a delayed PUSCH transmission due to an LBT procedure in an LAA cell. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claim reads on the 3GPP standardized behavior or is limited to a narrower, potentially non-infringed, technical implementation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's background discussion of problems arising from LBT procedures may support an interpretation where this language is intended to encompass the functional outcome of a delayed transmission, regardless of the precise signal generation mechanism (’955 Patent, col. 1:12-36).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific, describing a relationship between the signal of symbol "l" and the content of symbol "l+1". The detailed description and figures may define this relationship in a very particular way, potentially limiting the claim's scope to a specific embodiment that does not perfectly align with the 3GPP standard's implementation (’955 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:59-65).

For the '432 Patent

  • The Term: "consider that the... resource configuration is suspended"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis, as it describes the required action of the processing circuitry. The case will likely dispute whether "consider... suspended" means simply behaving as if the configuration is inactive (the functional result of 3GPP compliance) or requires a specific internal state change or logical determination within the processor.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract states the invention relates to a UE where the configuration "is considered to be suspended when the associated DL BWP is being deactivated," which may support a functional interpretation where the suspension is an automatic consequence of the BWP's deactivation state (’432 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description may describe a process where the UE's processor actively checks the BWP status and then makes a determination to change the state of the CSI configuration to "suspended." Such language could support a narrower construction requiring a more explicit procedural step than what might be implicit in the 3GPP standard (’432 Patent, col. 10:4-10).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all patents-in-suit. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant provides user manuals, marketing materials, and technical support that instruct and encourage end-users to operate the Accused Products in a manner that practices the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 44, 54, 66, 77, 87). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused components are material to the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are known by Defendant to be especially made for use in an infringing way (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 45, 55, 67, 78, 88).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. This knowledge is purportedly established by a notice letter sent by Plaintiff on April 11, 2025, which Plaintiff claims LG never responded to (Compl. ¶22). The prayer for relief requests treble damages as a result (Compl. p. 53, ¶d).

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

  • A core issue will be one of standards equivalence: For each asserted patent, the central question is whether compliance with the cited 3GPP technical specifications—the foundation of Plaintiff's infringement theory—is legally sufficient to meet every limitation of the asserted claims as construed by the court.
  • A second key question will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely turn on the judicial construction of narrow technical phrases, such as the signal-generation condition for "NLBT" in the '955 patent and the requirement to "consider" a configuration "is suspended" in the '432 patent. The outcome of these construction disputes may determine whether the 3GPP-compliant functionality of the accused devices falls within the scope of the claims.
  • A third issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Assuming claim construction favors the Plaintiff, an evidentiary question will remain as to whether the specific software and hardware in Defendant's accused devices operate exactly as prescribed by the 3GPP standards, or if there are implementation-specific details that could differentiate their operation from the claimed methods.