DCT

2:25-cv-01175

Active Wireless Tech LLC v. OnePlus Technology Shenzhen Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01175, E.D. Tex., 11/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign company that may be sued in any judicial district and because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction and has committed acts of infringement in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 3GPP-compliant smartphones and tablets infringe six patents related to 5G wireless communication technologies, covering functions such as uplink power control, channel state reporting, and system information acquisition.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to specific methods for managing data transmission, power control, and channel state feedback in modern 5G New Radio (NR) and LTE cellular networks, which are critical for efficient and reliable device operation.
  • 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 never responded. This allegation may form the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-08-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,785,764 Priority Date
2017-06-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,805,955 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 sends notice letter to Defendant
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: In wireless systems using unlicensed frequency bands, such as Licensed-Assisted Access (LAA), a device must perform a "Listen-Before-Talk" (LBT) procedure to ensure the channel is clear before transmitting. This LBT period can prevent the device from using the initial symbols of a scheduled uplink transmission slot, creating a technical problem for how to correctly calculate the required transmit power, which depends on the number of symbols actually transmitted. (’955 Patent, col. 1:12-2:4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a terminal apparatus to calculate transmit power for a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH). The calculation is based on a number of Single Carrier-Frequency Division Multiple Access (SC-FDMA) symbols for an initial transmission, where this number accounts for symbols that are not transmitted due to procedures like LBT. (’955 Patent, Abstract; col. 15:10-25). Specifically, a value NLBT is defined as 1 in cases where the signal for a given symbol is generated based on the content of a subsequent symbol, reflecting a scenario where the first symbol is skipped. (’955 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This solution provides a mechanism to maintain accurate power control for uplink transmissions even when the available transmission time is dynamically shortened by channel access procedures required in unlicensed spectrum. (’955 Patent, col. 2:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶28).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • 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 (NPUSCH-initial symb) for an initial transmission.
    • Wherein the number of symbols is given based on NLBT and a number of symbols in an uplink slot (NUL symb).
    • And wherein 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.

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: 5G networks allow a user equipment (UE) to operate over different portions of the available spectrum, known as bandwidth parts (BWPs). A UE needs to report channel state information (CSI) for these BWPs, using resources like Channel State Information-Reference Signals (CSI-RS). A technical challenge arises in managing these CSI resources efficiently when a BWP is activated or deactivated. (’432 Patent, col. 1:29-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method where a UE receives activation and deactivation commands for semi-persistent CSI-RS and CSI-Interference Measurement (CSI-IM) resource configurations that are associated with a specific downlink BWP (DL BWP). The core of the solution is that the processing circuitry is configured to "consider" that these semi-persistent CSI resource configurations are "suspended" when the associated DL BWP is deactivated. (’432 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-12). This prevents the UE from unnecessarily monitoring or using resources for an inactive BWP.
  • Technical Importance: This approach improves device efficiency by clarifying the state of CSI resources tied to inactive BWPs, reducing power consumption and eliminating ambiguity in resource management. (’432 Patent, col. 1:46-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶41).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • 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/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 semi-persistent CSI-RS and CSI-IM resource configuration is suspended in a case that the associated DL BWP is deactivated.

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 addresses how a user equipment (UE) should report Hybrid ARQ Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) feedback for data received on a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH). The patented solution involves adapting the feedback format based on whether the PDSCH was scheduled in a common search space (CSS) versus a UE-specific search space (USS), allowing for more efficient use of uplink resources. (’443 Patent, col. 2:60-67).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶53).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Accused Products which implement 3GPP standards adapt their HARQ-ACK reporting for code block groups (CBGs) by transmitting one bit for the entire transport block if scheduled in a CSS, and all CBG bits if scheduled in a USS. (Compl. ¶¶53-56).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to the process by which a UE acquires system information (SI) that is periodically broadcast by a base station. The invention defines a procedure for handling a failure in this SI message acquisition process, specifying that upon such a failure, the UE should initiate a re-acquisition process to re-acquire the first type of system information block (SIB1). (’557 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, in compliance with 3GPP standards, are configured to initiate a re-acquisition of SIB1 upon determination of a failure of an SI message acquisition process. (Compl. ¶¶64, 69).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This invention concerns a method for notifying a UE about changes to Single-Cell Multicast Control Channel (SC-MCCH) information. The solution involves using different Downlink Control Information (DCI) formats on different narrowband physical downlink control channels (NPDCCHs), where the subframe periods for receiving the change notification and the actual information update are different. (’764 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶77).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Accused Products, per 3GPP standards, receive SC-MCCH change notifications via a second DCI format and acquire the updated SC-MCCH information based on a first DCI format, where the transmissions occur over different subframe periods. (Compl. ¶¶77-81).

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: The patent describes a design for a PUCCH transmission that spans multiple time slots. The invention specifies methods for determining frequency hopping and ensuring that the number and location of symbols used for the PUCCH transmission are the same in each of the multiple slots. (’566 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶89).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Accused Products implement 3GPP-compliant multi-slot PUCCH transmissions where frequency hopping is configured and the number and location of PUCCH symbols are consistent across each slot involved in the transmission. (Compl. ¶¶89-92).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies a range of OnePlus smartphones and tablets, including but not limited to the OnePlus 13R, OnePlus 13, OnePlus Open, OnePlus 12, OnePlus 11 5G, and various models from the OnePlus Nord, 10, 9, and 8 series. (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these devices are sold and offered for sale in the United States and operate in compliance with 3GPP wireless communication standards for 5G NR and LTE. (Compl. ¶20). Their infringing functionality is alleged to arise directly from their implementation of these standards, which purportedly practice the patented methods for PUSCH power control, CSI resource management, HARQ-ACK reporting, SI acquisition, SC-MCCH information changes, and multi-slot PUCCH design. (Compl. ¶¶28, 41, 53, 64, 77, 89). The complaint provides screenshots from Defendant's website, as well as online retailers like Amazon and Walmart, as evidence of their commercial availability in the U.S. and within the judicial district. (Compl. ¶21, pp. 7-8). The complaint provides a screenshot from Walmart's website showing delivery and pickup options for a OnePlus phone, which supports the allegations of sales within the district. (Compl. p. 8, Image 5).

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 ... and physical layer processing circuitry... The Accused Products are terminal apparatuses containing transmission and processing circuitry. (Compl. ¶29). ¶29 col. 15:10-14
the transmission circuitry configured to ... transmit a transport block on a Physical Uplink Channel (PUSCH) The Accused Products, being 3GPP compliant, have circuitry to transmit transport blocks on the PUSCH. (Compl. ¶29). ¶29 col. 15:15-16
the physical layer processing circuitry configured to ... determine transmit power for the PUSCH at least based on a number of Single Carrier (SC)-Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) symbols... The Accused Products determine PUSCH transmit power according to 3GPP standards, which base the calculation on the number of SC-FDMA symbols. (Compl. ¶30). ¶30 col. 15:17-21
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, and The Accused Products calculate the number of SC-FDMA symbols for initial PUSCH transmission based on formulas in 3GPP standards that account for the number of symbols in an uplink slot and symbols not transmitted due to LBT. (Compl. ¶31). ¶31 col. 15:21-25
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. In LAA mode, when the Accused Products perform LBT and the PUSCH does not start at the first symbol, the value for the starting position (NPUSCH-initialstart, alleged to correspond to NLBT) is set to 1, fulfilling this condition. A visual from the 3GPP standard shows that PUSCH starting position values of '01' or '10' indicate a start after symbol 0. (Compl. p. 15, Table 5.3.3.1.1A-1). ¶32 col. 15:25-29

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the term NLBT in the claim can be construed to be equivalent to the NPUSCH-initialstart parameter from the 3GPP standard as alleged by the complaint. The defense may argue that the patent's definition of NLBT is distinct from the standard's parameter.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused devices' signal generation process, when a transmission starts late due to LBT, meets the specific claim limitation 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 precise nature of this "generation based on" relationship will be a focal point.

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 compliance with 3GPP standards. (Compl. ¶42). ¶42 col. 29:3-6
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 channel state information-interference measurement (CSI-IM) resource configuration... the... resource configuration being associated with a DL BWP... The Accused Products receive activation commands (via a MAC CE) for semi-persistent CSI-RS/CSI-IM resource sets that are associated with a specific DL BWP, as defined by 3GPP standards. (Compl. ¶43). ¶43 col. 29:7-13
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 receive deactivation commands (via a MAC CE) for the same semi-persistent CSI-RS/CSI-IM resource sets. (Compl. ¶44). ¶44 col. 29:14-17
and processing circuitry configured to consider that the at least one of the semi-persistent CSI-RS and CSI-IM resource configuration is suspended in a case that the associated DL BWP is deactivated. The Accused Products operate according to 3GPP standards which state that an active semi-persistent CSI resource configuration is "considered suspended" if the corresponding DL BWP is not active. The complaint includes a visual excerpt of this standard language. (Compl. p. 25). ¶45 col. 29:18-22

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary dispute may center on the meaning of "consider that the... resource configuration is suspended." The defense might argue this requires a specific internal state or process within the UE's software, beyond merely following a standard that dictates this outcome. Plaintiff may argue that operating in compliance with the standard inherently satisfies this limitation.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question may arise as to how the Accused Products' baseband processors actually handle the state of semi-persistent CSI resources when a DL BWP is deactivated. Does the software architecture explicitly use a "suspended" state, or does it achieve the same functional result through other means?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • The Term: "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 functional heart of the "NLBT=1" condition. Its construction will determine whether the standard-compliant operation of starting a PUSCH transmission after the first symbol meets the claim's specific requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to describe a technical dependency between adjacent symbols that could be interpreted narrowly.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's abstract states the invention relates to calculating transmit power when a "part of a PUSCH ... is not transmitted by LBT," which could support construing this term to cover any standard mechanism for handling such a scenario. (’955 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that this condition addresses a time-continuous signal s(p)l(t) being generated based on the content of a subsequent symbol, s(p)l(t-NCP,0Ts). (’955 Patent, col. 16:1-5). A defendant might argue this requires a specific signal processing relationship (like a time shift) that is not necessarily implemented in all LAA-compliant devices.

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

  • The Term: "consider that the... resource configuration is suspended"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement hinges on whether the accused device's processing circuitry performs this "consideration." A defendant may argue this is an active mental or software step, while a plaintiff may argue it is the inherent state of the system as defined by the standard.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes the invention as circuitry "configured to consider that the semi-persistent ... configuration is suspended when the associated DL BWP is being deactivated," framing it as a direct and automatic consequence of BWP deactivation. (’432 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description may contain flowcharts or state diagrams that depict "considering" as an explicit logical step or decision block. A defendant could point to such descriptions to argue that merely behaving as if the resource is suspended is insufficient without an explicit internal state change labeled as "suspension."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all six patents-in-suit. The inducement theory is based on Defendant manufacturing and selling the Accused Products with knowledge of the patents and providing user manuals, technical support, and marketing that instruct and encourage end-users to use the devices in their intended, infringing manner (i.e., connecting to 5G networks). (Compl. ¶¶34, 46, 57, 70, 82, 93). 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 Defendant to be especially adapted for infringement. (Compl. ¶¶35, 47, 58, 71, 83, 94).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all six patents. The complaint bases this allegation on Defendant having received actual notice of the patents-in-suit via a letter dated April 11, 2025, and having subsequently failed to respond while continuing its allegedly infringing activities. (Compl. ¶¶36, 48, 59, 72, 84, 95).

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

  • A central issue across all six patents will be one of claim scope versus standard compliance: Does the specific language of the asserted claims map precisely onto the mandatory implementations of the 3GPP standards, or did the patentee claim a specific embodiment or variant that allows for a non-infringing, standard-compliant alternative? The complaint's strategy of relying on standard-compliance as the basis for infringement will be tested against any subtle differences between the claim language and the technical standards.
  • A key legal question will be one of functional claiming: For apparatus claims reciting circuitry "configured to" perform functions, such as "to consider that the... resource configuration is suspended" in the ’432 Patent, the court will need to determine whether infringement requires a specific structure or software implementation, or if it is sufficient that the accused device's operation, as dictated by the 3GPP standards, achieves the claimed functional result.
  • The case will also turn on claim construction of technical phrases: The resolution of the dispute, particularly for patents like the '955 Patent, may depend on the construction of highly technical, functional language, such as the relationship between signals of adjacent SC-FDMA symbols. The outcome of claim construction will likely determine whether the standards-based evidence presented in the complaint is sufficient to establish infringement.