DCT

4:25-cv-00175

Ax Wireless LLC v. Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00175, E.D. Tex., 02/20/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper for Sony Interactive Entertainment, Inc. as a foreign entity, and for Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC based on its regular and established place of business within the district and its commission of infringing acts there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s video game consoles and related components with wireless networking capabilities infringe four patents related to methods for improving communication reliability by using variable header repetition in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for enhancing the efficiency and reliability of data transmission over shared wireless channels, a foundational element of modern networking standards like Wi-Fi.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents claim priority to a U.S. provisional application filed in 2009 and arise from a long chain of continuation applications. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving these patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-08-21 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2021-02-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,917,272 Issues
2023-05-09 U.S. Patent No. 11,646,927 Issues
2023-10-03 U.S. Patent No. 11,777,776 Issues
2024-08-13 U.S. Patent No. 12,063,134 Issues
2025-02-20 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,917,272 - "Non-transitory computer-readable information storage media for variable header repetition in a wireless OFDM network," issued February 9, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background discusses communication systems where devices with different capabilities (e.g., wideband vs. narrowband) share a single network. A fixed method for transmitting packet headers can be unreliable for less capable devices or inefficiently add overhead for more capable ones ('272 Patent, col. 2:20-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a flexible system stored on computer media that allows a wireless transmitter to generate and send packets in one of two formats. A "first packet type" has a standard header, while a "second packet type" includes a repeated header transmitted over additional OFDM symbols for increased decoding reliability. The system can select the appropriate format to balance the trade-off between speed and robustness ('272 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-36).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a network to dynamically adapt its transmissions to suit the varying conditions and capabilities of receiving devices, thereby optimizing overall performance and reliability (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶27).
  • Independent Claim 1 (a computer-readable medium claim for a transmitter) requires: instructions for generating a first packet type with a two-part header over two OFDM symbols; generating a second packet type with a four-part header over four OFDM symbols, where the header bits are repeated; transmitting the repeated header bits in a "different order" for diversity; and transmitting the selected packet type.
  • Independent Claim 11 (a computer-readable medium claim for a receiver) requires: instructions for receiving a first packet type with a two-part header; receiving a second packet type with a four-part, repeated header; and demodulating the packets, including the repeated header bits received in a "different order."

U.S. Patent No. 11,646,927 - "Header repetition in packet-based OFDM systems," issued May 9, 2023.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same challenge of improving data transmission efficiency and reliability in multi-user OFDM systems where devices have heterogeneous capabilities (Compl. ¶20; '927 Patent, col. 2:20-34).
  • The Patented Solution: Rather than claiming the method as stored on media, this patent claims the physical apparatus—a "wireless communication device" with a transceiver configured to perform the invention. The transceiver generates and transmits packets using either a standard header format or a more robust repeated header format, where the repeated header bits are transmitted in a "different order" to improve the likelihood of successful decoding ('927 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:5-32).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a concrete hardware architecture for implementing the adaptive communication protocol, enabling devices like game consoles or routers to operate more reliably in congested or interference-prone wireless environments (Compl. ¶20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 1-2 (Compl. ¶33).
  • Independent Claim 1 (a device claim) requires: a transceiver configured to generate a packet of a first type with a two-part header; generate a packet of a second type with a four-part, repeated header; configure the repeated header bits to be transmitted in a "different order"; and transmit the packet.

U.S. Patent No. 11,777,776 - "Header repetition in packet-based OFDM systems," issued October 3, 2023.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent details a wireless communication device and method capable of receiving and decoding packets that come in two formats. One format uses a single header field, while the other includes a repeated header field in a subsequent OFDM symbol, allowing the device to distinguish between them to enhance decoding efficiency (Compl. ¶22).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-6 (Compl. ¶39).
  • Accused Features: The wireless networking functionality of Defendant's video game consoles and components are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶3, ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 12,063,134 - "Header repetition in packet-based OFDM systems," issued August 13, 2024.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on a header repetition scheme for packet-based OFDM systems to enhance communication robustness and efficiency. The invention is described as applicable to both software and hardware implementations, including in DSL modems and transceivers (Compl. ¶24).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-7 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The wireless networking functionality of Defendant's video game consoles and components are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶3, ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Accused Products" are broadly defined as "devices with wireless networking technology," including "video game consoles and components thereof" (Compl. ¶3). The complaint names the "Sony PlayStation 5 Pro" as the "Exemplary Sony Accused Product" (Compl. ¶4).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products incorporate wireless technology for data communication, which is a core feature of modern consumer electronics (Compl. ¶3). The infringement allegations center on the products' transmission and reception of data packets using OFDM protocols. The complaint does not provide specific details on the products' market positioning but asserts that Sony imports, offers for sale, and sells them throughout the United States (Compl. ¶7, ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of all four asserted patents but does not include the referenced claim chart exhibits (Exhibits E, F, G, H) that would detail its infringement theories. The analysis is therefore based on the narrative allegations.

'272 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, including the PlayStation 5 Pro, directly infringe at least claims 1 and 11 of the ’272 Patent, either literally or equivalently (Compl. ¶27). The core theory is that the products' wireless networking hardware and software function as or execute instructions from a "non-transitory computer-readable information storage media" to perform the claimed methods of generating, transmitting, and receiving OFDM packets with variable header repetition (Compl. ¶17, ¶28). Plaintiff states that detailed evidence of how the products meet each claim limitation is provided in the unattached Exhibit E (Compl. ¶28). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'927 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least claims 1-2 of the ’927 Patent (Compl. ¶33). The infringement theory is that the Accused Products are physical "wireless communication device[s]" containing transceivers that are configured to generate and transmit packets using the claimed dual-format header repetition scheme (Compl. ¶19, ¶32). Plaintiff asserts that the unattached claim charts in Exhibit F show that the accused devices satisfy all limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶34).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A key factual dispute will likely be whether Plaintiff can prove that Sony's products, which presumably operate on standard wireless protocols, actually implement the specific two-format packet system as claimed. Evidence will be needed to show that the devices not only repeat header information but do so by transmitting the bits in a "different order" as required by the claims.
  • Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether the functionality of a standard-compliant Wi-Fi chipset falls within the scope of the patent claims. Defendant may argue its products use a single, standardized packet format that does not map onto the distinct "first packet type" and "second packet type" structure required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "different order" (asserted in independent claims of the '272 and '927 Patents)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed mechanism for achieving improved reliability through diversity. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused devices' method of repeating header information constitutes transmission in a "different order."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that modulation of header bits can occur "in the same order or in a different order," which may support an interpretation that the term does not require a specific permutation but encompasses any re-ordering ('272 Patent, col. 6:58-60).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the term should be limited to a specific re-ordering scheme illustrated in an embodiment or that the term is indefinite without a more precise definition. The patent's illustrations of structured packet formats could be used to argue that "different order" implies a pre-defined, alternative modulation scheme ('272 Patent, Fig. 1).

The Term: "first packet type" / "second packet type" (asserted in independent claims of the '272 and '927 Patents)

  • Context and Importance: The claims require a system capable of generating and/or processing two distinct packet formats. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused products, which use flexible but standardized protocols, can be said to employ two separate "types" of packets as claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that any system that adaptively chooses between a non-repeated and a repeated header transmission meets this limitation, even if implemented within a single, flexible packet definition provided by a wireless standard.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the claims require two structurally distinct packet definitions, as depicted in the patent's abstract and figures, and that a single, variable packet format does not satisfy the two-type limitation ('272 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Sony is liable for indirect infringement, including inducement (Compl. ¶2). The factual basis for this allegation is that Sony "introduces infringing products and services into the stream of commerce knowing that they would be sold and/or used" for infringing purposes and "induc[es] others to commit acts of patent infringement" through its sales and distribution channels (Compl. ¶7, ¶10, ¶13, ¶14).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint does not make an explicit allegation of willful infringement or request enhanced damages in its prayer for relief (Compl. p. 12).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that Sony’s products, which likely conform to industry-wide wireless standards, actually implement the specific dual-format packet generation and "different order" bit re-modulation required by the patent claims, or do they achieve reliability using a different, non-infringing technique?
  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How the court construes the term "different order" will be critical. The case may turn on whether the term is interpreted broadly to cover any re-ordering of repeated bits or narrowly to require a specific, patented scheme that may not be present in standard-compliant devices.
  • A central dispute will likely involve structural equivalence: Does the accused products' use of a single, adaptable packet structure, as defined by modern wireless protocols, fall within the claims' requirement for two discrete packet "types," or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed system and the accused technology?