Stormborn Tech LLC v. bec Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: BEC Technologies Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
• Case Identification: 4:22-cv-00823, E.D. Tex., 09/26/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant maintains its principal place of business in Richardson, Texas, which falls within the Eastern District of Texas, and therefore "resides" in the district for purposes of patent venue.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless communication products infringe a patent related to dynamically adjusting data transmission rates in a spread-spectrum system based on a closed-loop feedback mechanism that measures channel error rates.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of maintaining reliable high-speed data transmission in wireless networks, such as cellular or Wi-Fi, particularly in the presence of interference.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in prior litigation involving the same patent (Stormborn Technologies, LLC v. TopCon Positioning Systems, Inc.), the patent was found to describe a specific technological solution and was not directed to an abstract idea. The complaint also references statements made during patent prosecution to characterize the nature of the claimed invention.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,199 - "Variable throughput reduction communications system and method," issued May 7, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In wireless spread-spectrum systems, a remote device (e.g., a mobile phone) near the edge of a transmission cell can suffer from significant interference from adjacent cells, which degrades signal quality and increases error rates (Compl. ¶15; ’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Conventional methods to combat this interference, such as increasing the processing gain, often required reducing the data rate in a way that necessitated fundamental changes to the receiver's architecture (Compl. ¶16; ’199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a closed-loop feedback system to dynamically manage the data rate without altering the receiver's core design. A receiver decodes incoming data across multiple subchannels and calculates an "error rate" (Compl. ¶18). Based on this error rate, a "command processor" in the receiver generates a "data-rate control signal" and transmits it back to the original transmitter. This signal instructs the transmitter to adjust the data rate—for example, by sending redundant data over some channels—to maintain a target quality of service in response to real-time channel conditions (’199 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:58-65).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for adaptive data rate control that responds directly to the measured performance of the communication link, improving the robustness and efficiency of data transmission in environments with fluctuating interference levels (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 13 and dependent claim 14, and discusses corresponding independent apparatus claim 11.
• Independent Claim 11 (A receiver):
  • demodulator circuitry for detecting the transmitted signals in a plurality of demodulated channels;
  • decoder circuitry for FEC decoding and de-interleaving the plurality of demodulated channels, providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate;
  • command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels for generating a data-rate control signal to produce a desired data rate to be sent by the data symbol transmitter;
  • transmitting circuitry for conveying the error rate dependent rate control signal back to the data symbol transmitter; and
  • multiplexer circuitry for combining the multiplicity of decoded channels into a signal stream of received data.
• Independent Claim 13 (A method):
  • detecting the transmitted signals in a plurality of demodulated channels;
  • FEC decoding and de-interleaving the plurality of demodulated channels, providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate;
  • using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels to generate a data-rate control signal;
  • transmitting the error rate dependent data-rate control signal back to the data symbol transmitter; and
  • multiplexing the multiplicity of decoded channels into a single stream of received data.
• The complaint reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶74).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the "BEC Technologies MX-200A ODU" as the Accused Product, while noting that Plaintiff's investigation is ongoing and other products may be added (Compl. ¶56 & fn. 1).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Product is a wireless communication device that practices the patented method (Compl. ¶56). The infringement allegations assert, in a conclusory fashion, that the product performs each step of the asserted claims, including detecting signals, performing Forward Error Correction (FEC) decoding, generating a data-rate control signal responsive to a measured error rate, and transmitting that signal back to a transmitter (Compl. ¶¶57-62). The complaint does not provide independent technical details about the Accused Product's operation beyond alleging that it aligns with the claim elements.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit C, which was not included with the filed document. The narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint is summarized below. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that the Accused Product infringes method claim 13 of the ’199 Patent by practicing each of its recited steps (Compl. ¶¶57-62). The theory posits that the Accused Product, when in use, recovers wireless data by:

• Detecting transmitted signals in multiple demodulated channels (Compl. ¶58).

• Performing FEC decoding and de-interleaving on those channels to produce decoded channels, each having an error rate (Compl. ¶59).

• Using a "command processor circuitry" that is responsive to this error rate to generate a data-rate control signal intended to produce a desired data rate at the transmitter (Compl. ¶60).

• Transmitting this error-rate-dependent control signal back to the transmitter (Compl. ¶61).

• Multiplexing the decoded data channels into a single output stream (Compl. ¶62).

• The complaint further alleges infringement of dependent claim 14, which requires the decoding step to include decoding FEC codes of different rates (Compl. ¶63).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the proper construction of "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels." The patent appears to distinguish this specific mechanism from other forms of channel quality feedback, such as those based on a known pilot signal (Compl. ¶46). The dispute may turn on whether the accused product’s rate adaptation is driven by the specific error rate from the FEC decoder, as the claim requires, or by a different, more general metric of signal quality (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio).
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary issue will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the Accused Product's hardware and software actually perform the specific feedback loop described in the claim. The complaint's allegations are conclusory and rely entirely on a missing exhibit. The defense may challenge whether the accused device generates and transmits a "data-rate control signal" that is functionally tied to a post-decoding "error rate" in the manner claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels" (from Claim 11 and Claim 13)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the functional core of the invention, defining how the system adapts to changing channel conditions. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused device's rate-control logic meets this specific "error rate" input requirement, as opposed to other known methods for assessing signal quality.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the command processor as determining a "desired-data rate" in response to a "syndrome signal" from the decoder, which could be argued to encompass any signal indicative of errors (’199 Patent, col. 4:58-64).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language explicitly ties the processor's response to the "error rate of the decoded channels," and the specification links this to the output of the "FEC decoder and de-interleavers" (’199 Patent, col. 4:58-61). This may support a narrower construction requiring the input to be a metric derived directly from the FEC decoding process (i.e., a syndrome), rather than a more general channel quality indicator.

• The Term: "data-rate control signal" (from Claim 11 and Claim 13)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this signal is critical for determining what action at the transmitter constitutes infringement. The question is whether it refers to any signal that affects transmission speed or one that operates in the specific manner described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim broadly defines the signal by its purpose: "to produce a desired data rate to be sent by the data symbol transmitter" (Claim 13). This could be argued to cover any feedback that results in a change to the transmitted data rate.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and Figure 4 illustrate that the control signal works by controlling a "demultiplexer" at the transmitter, which adjusts the number of channels carrying unique versus redundant data to vary the effective data rate (’199 Patent, col. 7:26-31; Fig. 4). This could support an argument that the claimed signal must be one that controls this channel allocation mechanism, not one that merely adjusts modulation or coding schemes.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement "upon information and belief," asserting that Defendant encouraged infringement with knowledge and that the accused products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶69-70). The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations to support these claims, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶67). This forms a basis for potential post-suit willfulness but does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent or infringement.

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

1. A core issue will be one of technical and definitional specificity: can the claimed limitation "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels" be met by a system that adapts its data rate based on a general signal quality metric (like SNR), or must the system's control logic be directly driven by an error signal generated from the Forward Error Correction (FEC) decoder, as the patent specification appears to emphasize?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: given the conclusory infringement allegations, can the Plaintiff produce technical evidence from the accused product’s firmware, hardware, or operational logs demonstrating that it actually performs the closed-loop process of (1) calculating a post-decoding error rate, (2) generating a specific "data-rate control signal" based on that rate, and (3) transmitting that signal back to a transmitter to modify its behavior?