DCT

4:24-cv-00797

Mobility Workx LLC v. Nokia Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00797, E.D. Tex., 09/02/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains regular and established places of business in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless communication products and services, which facilitate network handovers, infringe patents related to the proactive allocation of network resources for mobile devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses latency and data loss in mobile networks that occur when a device moves between coverage areas (a "handoff") by predicting the device's movement and pre-registering it with the next network access point.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417 was subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR), and the asserted claims (3 and 6) survived the proceeding and "remain valid and enforceable." This post-grant challenge and survival may be presented by the Plaintiff as evidence of the patent’s strength and validity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-07-31 Priority Date for ’508 and ’417 Patents (Provisional App. 60/491,436)
2010-04-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,697,508 Issued
2012-07-03 U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417 Issued
2024-09-02 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,697,508 - "System, Apparatus, and Methods for Proactive Allocation of Wireless Communication Resources," issued April 13, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In conventional mobile networks, when a device moves from one cell to another, there are "registration delays and associated information losses" because the new connection is only established after the device arrives in the new cell's coverage area (’508 Patent, col. 2:20-22). This delay can cause dropped data packets and degraded performance, especially for devices moving at high speeds (’508 Patent, col. 2:50-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "preemptive and predictive solution" using two novel components: a "ghost-mobile node" and a "ghost-foreign agent" (’508 Patent, col. 2:40-41). The ghost-mobile node predicts the future location of the actual mobile device and, acting on its behalf, proactively registers with the foreign agent (network access point) in the predicted next location before the device physically arrives there (’508 Patent, col. 3:60-65). The ghost-foreign agent helps facilitate this by advertising the presence of an upcoming foreign agent to a mobile node that is not yet in its coverage area (’508 Patent, col. 4:1-7). This proactive setup aims to make the handoff seamless.
  • Technical Importance: This predictive approach sought to overcome the inherent latency of reactive handoff mechanisms in Mobile IP protocols, improving the reliability of connections for users in transit.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent claims 7 and 14, which depend on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires a system for handling mobile devices in a wireless network, comprising:
    • a mobile node
    • at least one ghost mobile node associated with the mobile node, which can announce its own presence to a foreign agent
    • a ghost-foreign agent associated with the foreign agent, which can announce its presence to the mobile node
    • means for registering the ghost mobile node or mobile node with the associated agent while the mobile node is in its current state
    • means for linking the mobile node with a foreign agent when the mobile node enters the future state
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417 - "System, Apparatus, and Methods for Proactive Allocation of Wireless Communication Resources," issued July 3, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’508 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem of communication delays and data loss during handoffs in mobile networks (’417 Patent, col. 2:20-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention again describes a predictive system using "ghost-entities" (’417 Patent, col. 2:45-47). It claims a system where a "ghost-foreign agent" advertises the presence of a network access point to a mobile node that is not yet physically in that access point's range, and a "ghost-mobile node" signals the network based on a "predicted physical location" to proactively allocate resources and initiate mobility functions (’417 Patent, Claim 1). This is intended to ensure network resources are ready the moment the mobile device requires them.
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for reducing handoff latency, which is critical for applications like VoIP or streaming media on mobile devices.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 3 and 6, which are dependent on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22). The IPR Certificate for the ’417 Patent confirms that claim 1 was cancelled, but claims 3 and 6 remain patentable.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Cancelled) required a system comprising:
    • at least one mobile node
    • at least one home agent
    • at least one foreign agent
    • a ghost-foreign agent that advertises on behalf of a foreign agent when the mobile node is not physically present in its area
    • a ghost-mobile node that creates replica IP messages and triggers signals based on a predicted location of the mobile node
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific products by name. It refers broadly to "certain products and services ('Accused Handover Products/Services')" made, used, or sold by Nokia (Compl. ¶13, ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these unidentified products and services perform handovers for mobile devices in wireless communication networks (Compl. ¶13, ¶22). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical functionality of the accused instrumentalities or their market context beyond these general allegations.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Nokia’s "Accused Handover Products/Services" infringe the ’508 and ’417 patents (Compl. ¶13, ¶22). For both patents, the complaint states that the infringement allegations are "set forth in the preliminary infringement claim chart attached as Exhibit 2" and "Exhibit 4," respectively (Compl. ¶13, ¶22). As these exhibits were not filed with the complaint and are not publicly available, a detailed element-by-element analysis of the infringement theory is not possible based on the provided documents. The complaint itself offers only conclusory statements of infringement without mapping specific product features to claim limitations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’508 Patent

  • The Term: "ghost mobile node" (from Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This is a non-standard term coined by the inventor and is central to the novelty of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether any component or process in Nokia’s accused systems can be characterized as a "ghost mobile node." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will likely determine the outcome of the infringement case.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to a physical device, stating it "can be a virtual node and need not reside at the same physical location as the mobile node" and can be a "set of software instructions running on a device that is remote from the mobile node" (’508 Patent, col. 5:20-26).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue the term is tied to the specific implementation details described, such as the use of a Kalman filter to predict the mobile node's future state (’508 Patent, col. 7:13-20) or the creation of "spoofed" UDP packets (’508 Patent, col. 9:18-20).

For the ’417 Patent

  • The Term: "ghost-foreign agent" (from Claim 1, which informs asserted claims 3 and 6)
  • Context and Importance: Similar to the "ghost mobile node," this is a patent-specific term. Its scope will be critical, as it defines the mechanism for proactively informing a mobile device about an upcoming network access point. The dispute will center on whether Nokia’s systems perform a comparable function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes its function broadly as transmitting "an advertisement notifying the mobile node 250 of the existence of a next foreign agent 230" from a foreign agent currently connected to the mobile node (’417 Patent, col. 10:20-24). This could potentially cover any mechanism that provides advance notice of nearby access points.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description suggests a specific function where one foreign agent explicitly advertises on behalf of another, making "the mobile node aware of the foreign agent 230 before it arrives in the predefined region" (’417 Patent, col. 9:26-32). A defendant may argue this requires a specific proxy-like advertisement, not just a generic list of neighboring cells.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Nokia "actively encourage[s] users of its products and services to make and use the Accused Handover Products/Services" with knowledge and intent (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the accused products "have no substantial non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶16, ¶24).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents based on Nokia’s purported knowledge of the patents and their infringement "Prior to, or at least through, the filing and service of this complaint" and its continued infringement thereafter (Compl. ¶14, ¶17, ¶23, ¶25).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope and evidentiary proof: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that Nokia’s unnamed "Accused Handover Products/Services" contain structures or perform methods that meet the patent-specific definitions of a "ghost mobile node" and "ghost-foreign agent"? Given the lack of specific product identification in the complaint, an initial battle may arise over whether the allegations are sufficiently pleaded.

  2. A key technical question will be one of predictive functionality: The core of the patented invention is its predictive and preemptive nature. A dispositive question will be whether Nokia’s systems merely provide information about adjacent network cells (a standard feature) or if they perform the claimed active steps of predicting a mobile node’s future location and using that prediction to proactively register the node with a future access point before it arrives.

  3. A significant legal question for the ’417 patent will be the impact of the IPR history: While the asserted claims (3 and 6) survived, the independent claim from which they depend (Claim 1) was cancelled. The court will need to determine the scope of the surviving dependent claims in light of the cancellation of their broader parent claim, which could influence the infringement and validity analyses.