DCT

5:19-cv-00075

Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:19-cv-00075, E.D. Tex., 07/19/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because each Defendant maintains regular and established places of business, operates or leases cell towers, and has sold the accused infringing products within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain HTC One smartphones sold by Defendants infringe a patent related to a universal wireless communication and control system.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns a unified, microprocessor-controlled portable device capable of commanding various external appliances using multiple communication methods, such as both infrared and radio frequency signals.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint notes that Defendant Verizon has admitted to jurisdiction and proper venue in the district in prior, unrelated litigation. No other significant procedural events, such as prior licensing or administrative patent challenges, are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-09-28 Earliest Priority Date for '467 Patent
1998-09-01 '467 Patent Issued
2019-07-19 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,802,467, WIRELESS AND WIRED COMMUNICATIONS, COMMAND, CONTROL AND SENSING SYSTEM FOR SOUND AND/OR DATA TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION (Issued Sep. 1, 1998)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a market in the mid-1990s where remote control devices were fragmented. Devices typically used either infra-red (IR) signals, which required a direct line of sight, or combined radio frequency (RF) and IR in a limited manner, often tied to specific hardware like a cable television converter. (’467 Patent, col. 1:15-31). This created a lack of a single, unified device that could flexibly control a wide variety of home, business, or industrial appliances using different communication standards. (’467 Patent, col. 1:52-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a microprocessor-based system, such as a portable handset, that acts as a universal controller for external appliances. (’467 Patent, Abstract). It integrates both RF and IR transceivers, allowing it to communicate using the most suitable method for a given environment or device. (’467 Patent, col. 2:27-46). A central feature is a method for efficiently storing the large number of command codes needed to control many different products. Instead of storing the entire signal waveform for every command, the system stores a smaller set of "parameters" from which the microprocessor can "recreate" the full "command code set" as needed, significantly reducing memory requirements. (’467 Patent, col. 8:22-34).
  • Technical Importance: The invention proposed a unified and adaptable architecture for a universal remote control, aiming to consolidate the function of numerous separate remote controls into a single, programmable wireless device. (’467 Patent, col. 2:10-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶18).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A microprocessor that generates control signals and creates reprogrammable communication protocols.
    • Each protocol includes a "command code set" defining the signals for communicating with an external device.
    • A memory device storing "parameter sets" that are retrieved by the microprocessor to "recreate" a desired command code set.
    • The memory space for the parameters is smaller than the memory space that would be required to store the command code sets directly.
    • A user interface for receiving user selections and displaying menu options, with the microprocessor generating a communication protocol in response to user selections.
    • An infra-red frequency transceiver for transmitting and receiving IR signals according to the communication protocols.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the HTC One M7, HTC One M8, and HTC One M9 smartphones, collectively referred to as the "HTC One phone(s)." (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as Android-based smartphones that include microprocessors, memory, user interfaces, and infra-red (IR) transceivers. (Compl. ¶19). They are alleged to function as a "communications, command, control and sensing system" that communicates with external devices like televisions. (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges that the phones' operating systems (e.g., Google Android, HTC Sense) and applications enable them to implement a complete command and control system using various communication methods, including IR. (Compl. ¶30). The Defendants are major U.S. wireless carriers alleged to have offered for sale and sold these devices. (Compl. ¶5, ¶7, ¶9, ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'467 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
[Preamble] a communications, command, control and sensing system for communicating with a plurality of external devices comprising: The HTC One phones allegedly operate as a complete system to communicate with external devices like televisions via wired, RF, and IR communications, enabled by the operating system and apps. ¶30 col. 1:7-14
a microprocessor for generating a plurality of control signals ... said microprocessor creating a plurality of reprogrammable communication protocols, for transmission to said external devices The phones include a microprocessor (e.g., Qualcomm Snapdragon) that generates control signals and uses software with its Bluetooth transceiver to implement reprogrammable protocols. ¶31-32 col. 25:58-64
wherein each communication protocol includes a command code set that defines the signals that are employed to communicate with each one of said external devices The phones' IR communication protocol allegedly includes a command code set defining the signals used to communicate with an external device. ¶33 col. 25:64-68
a memory device coupled to said microprocessor configured to store a plurality of parameter sets retrieved by said microprocessor so as to recreate a desired command code set The phones' microprocessor is coupled to memory (e.g., RAM, Flash) allegedly configured to store parameter sets used to recreate command code sets. ¶34 col. 26:1-4
such that the memory space required to store said parameters is smaller than the memory space required to store said command code sets The complaint alleges that the memory space required to store the parameters in the accused phones is smaller than that required to store the command code sets. ¶35 col. 26:4-6
a user interface coupled to said microprocessor for sending a plurality of signals corresponding to user selections ... and displaying a plurality of menu selections... said microprocessor generating a communication protocol in response to said user selections The phones include a user interface for sending user selection signals to the microprocessor and displaying menus, with the microprocessor generating a communication protocol in response. ¶36-37 col. 26:7-14
an infra-red frequency transceiver coupled to said microprocessor for transmitting to said external devices and receiving from said external devices, infra-red frequency signals in accordance with said communications protocols The phones include an IR transceiver coupled to the microprocessor for transmitting and receiving IR signals in accordance with the alleged communication protocols. ¶38 col. 26:15-20
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the method of storing IR codes in the accused Android smartphones falls within the scope of the patent’s specific memory-saving architecture. The patent describes a detailed hierarchical structure of "parent" and "child" arrays for storing parameters (’467 Patent, col. 8:35-58). A question for the court is whether the claim term "parameter sets" is limited to this disclosed structure or can read on any set of data points used to generate an IR signal.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused phones store "parameter sets" and that the memory space required for them is smaller than for the "command code sets." (Compl. ¶34-35). A key technical question is what evidence exists to support this. The allegation is conclusory and does not explain how the accused phones store IR codes. The infringement analysis will depend on evidence showing that the accused devices perform the specific function of "recreating" a command code set from stored parameters, as opposed to using a different technical method, such as storing and transmitting pre-compiled or raw signal data.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "parameter sets"

    • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's asserted novelty of memory efficiency. The infringement dispute will likely hinge on whether the data stored in the accused smartphones for their IR functionality constitutes "parameter sets" from which command codes are "recreated," as claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegations are not supported by technical details showing how the accused devices store IR command data.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not explicitly define "parameter sets," which could support an argument that the term encompasses any collection of data points (e.g., pulse timings, carrier frequency) used to generate a signal.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an extensive and detailed description of "parameter sets" as elements of a specific hierarchical array structure (parent/child arrays) designed to minimize data redundancy. (’467 Patent, col. 8:35-58). This detailed disclosure could be used to argue that the term should be construed as being limited to this specific data architecture, as it is the only embodiment described for achieving the claimed memory-saving function.

  • The Term: "recreate a desired command code set"

    • Context and Importance: This phrase describes the function performed by the microprocessor using the "parameter sets." The distinction between "recreating" a command code set and simply transmitting a stored signal will be critical to the infringement analysis.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "recreate" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any act of generating or producing the required signal based on stored data elements.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently distinguishes between the stored "parameters" and the "command code sets" themselves. (’467 Patent, col. 26:1-6). This suggests that "recreating" is a specific step of using the compressed parameter data to first construct the full command code set, which is then used to generate the signal. This interpretation treats the process as the inverse of the data compression achieved by storing only parameters.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants marketed the infringing capabilities of the HTC One phones and provided instructions and support that encouraged infringement by end-users. (Compl. ¶20-22). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that Defendants knew the devices were infringing and not suitable for substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶25-26).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, asserting that Defendants acted with "full knowledge, or willful blindness to knowledge, of the ‘467 Patent." (Compl. ¶28). The complaint further alleges, upon information and belief, that Defendants had knowledge of the patent since its issuance in September 1998. (Compl. ¶23).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the software architecture of the accused smartphones, specifically how they store and generate IR signals, embody the claimed method of using "parameter sets" to "recreate a desired command code set," or does it employ a fundamentally different, non-infringing technical approach?
  • A central question for claim construction will be one of definitional scope: Should the term "parameter sets" be interpreted broadly to cover any data elements used for signal generation, or will it be limited by the specification's detailed description of a hierarchical, memory-saving data structure?
  • A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness: What factual basis, if any, can the Plaintiff establish to support the allegation of pre-suit knowledge, particularly the claim that Defendants were aware of the ’467 patent since its issuance in 1998?