DCT

5:21-cv-00086

Bandspeed LLC v. Qorvo Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:21-cv-00086, E.D. Tex., 12/14/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s semiconductor controllers for Zigbee and Bluetooth Low Energy devices infringe a portfolio of eleven patents related to adaptively managing wireless communications channels and power levels based on performance.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses interference in crowded wireless frequency bands by dynamically selecting optimal communication channels and power settings, a critical function for protocols like Zigbee and Bluetooth LE that underpin the Internet of Things (IoT) market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent an initial notice letter to Defendant on February 5, 2019, followed by three supplemental notice letters on May 28, 2019, November 30, 2020, and April 1, 2021, which may be relevant to allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-25 Earliest Priority Date ('608, '643, '500, '769, '520, '528, '565 Patents)
2001-04-27 Earliest Priority Date ('955, '893, '856 Patents)
2006-01-17 U.S. Patent No. 6,987,955 Issued
2011-03-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,903,608 Issued
2013-09-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,542,643 Issued
2014-10-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,873,500 Issued
2016-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,379,769 Issued
2018-01-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,883,520 Issued
2019-02-05 Plaintiff sends initial Notice Letter to Defendant
2019-05-28 Plaintiff sends First Supplemental Notice Letter
2020-03-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,602,528 Issued
2020-09-29 U.S. Patent No. 10,791,565 Issued
2020-11-30 Plaintiff sends Second Supplemental Notice Letter
2021-01-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,887,893 Issued
2021-04-01 Plaintiff sends Third Supplemental Notice Letter
2021-05-04 U.S. Patent No. 10,999,856 Issued
2021-12-14 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,987,955 - "Approach for Managing Power for Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued January 17, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of managing power consumption in wireless communication systems where different channels may experience varying levels of interference and require different power levels for effective transmission (U.S. Patent 6,987,955, col. 2:45-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method of adaptive power control where the performance of different communication channels is monitored, and based on this data, distinct transmit power levels are determined and assigned to different channels to ensure acceptable performance while managing power consumption (Compl. ¶24; ’955 Patent, col. 6:63-7:8). The system continually monitors performance and adjusts transmit powers to adapt to changing interference environments (Compl. ¶25).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows devices in a wireless network to use only the necessary power for each specific channel, which can conserve battery life and reduce the device's interference footprint in shared frequency bands (Compl. ¶25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶165).
  • Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential steps:
    • generating performance data based on communications at a first power over a first channel and a second power over a second channel;
    • based on the performance data, determining a third power different than the first power;
    • causing the third power to be used for subsequent communications over the first channel;
    • based on the performance data, determining a fourth power that is different than the second power, wherein the fourth power is also different than the third power; and
    • causing the fourth power to be used for subsequent communications over the second channel.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶167).

U.S. Patent No. 7,903,608 - "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued March 8, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "coexistence problem" where a frequency hopping (FH) system (like Bluetooth) and a non-frequency hopping (NFH) system (like WLAN) operate in the same frequency band, causing mutual interference that degrades performance (U.S. Patent 7,903,608, col. 3:45-54). Simple approaches like skipping a single "bad" channel are insufficient because the next channel may also have interference, and channel quality changes dynamically (Compl. ¶28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a communications device that adaptively manages the set of channels used for communication. It selects a first set of channels at a first time based on performance, and later selects a second set of channels based on updated performance, where the number of channels in the two sets can vary (Compl. ¶26, ¶183). This allows the device to dynamically adjust its channel map to avoid interference (U.S. Patent 7,903,608, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows FH systems to intelligently avoid frequencies occupied by interfering systems, improving reliability and performance in crowded environments like the 2.4 GHz ISM band (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶183).
  • Claim 1 is a device claim comprising:
    • a memory for storing instructions;
    • a processor coupled to the memory;
    • a transceiver coupled to the memory;
    • wherein the processor is caused to select a first set of two or more channels at a first time based on performance;
    • and select a second set of two or more channels at a later second time based on performance;
    • wherein the first set is used for a first period of time, and the second set is used for a second period of time instead of the first set;
    • and wherein the number of distinct channels in the first set varies from the number in the second set.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶185).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,542,643

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,542,643, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued September 24, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for managing interference in a frequency hopping system by maintaining registers of "default" and "good" channels. When a "bad" channel is selected from the default sequence, it is replaced by a "good" channel from the good channel register (Compl. ¶30, ¶201).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 5 (Compl. ¶201-202).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are those in the Infringing Bluetooth LE Products that comply with the Bluetooth Core Specification Version 4.0 or later, which allegedly perform adaptive frequency hopping (Compl. ¶47-48, ¶81).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,873,500

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,873,500, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued October 28, 2014.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a frequency hopping wireless device that communicates using a default hopping sequence, tests channels to select a subset, communicates using an adapted hopping sequence over that subset, and then reverts back to the default sequence based on monitoring or a specified time period (Compl. ¶219).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 28 (Compl. ¶219-220).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are those in the Infringing Bluetooth LE Products that allegedly perform adaptive frequency hopping by selecting and using subsets of channels (Compl. ¶48, ¶81, ¶91).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,379,769

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,379,769, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued June 28, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a wireless device that monitors communication channels, classifies them as "good" or "bad," transmits this classification information to another device, and then communicates using only the "good" channels while avoiding the "bad" ones (Compl. ¶237).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶237-238).
  • Accused Features: Infringing Bluetooth LE Products are accused of infringing by monitoring and classifying channels and using a channel map to communicate only over "used" channels (Compl. ¶48, ¶104, ¶130).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,883,520

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,883,520, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued January 30, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a wireless device configured to send packet data that specifies a subset of channels for frequency hopping and includes timing information indicating when to begin using that subset. The device then uses an identified channel, deciding whether to use one from the new subset or the old set based on whether the time to switch has occurred (Compl. ¶255).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶255-256).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are those in the Infringing Bluetooth LE Products that allegedly use timing information (such as an "Instant" field) to coordinate channel map updates (Compl. ¶48, ¶110, ¶148).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,602,528

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,602,528, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communication Channels Based on Performance," issued March 24, 2020.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a wireless device that manages power levels by assessing channel performance, excluding channels outside a target threshold, and sending packet data defining a "current instance" of the usable subset of channels to another device for use in frequency hopping (Compl. ¶273).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶273-274).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are those in the Infringing Bluetooth LE Products that allegedly assess channel performance and adapt a frequency hopping pattern to exclude channels with interference (Compl. ¶48, ¶90-91).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,791,565

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,791,565, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued September 29, 2020.
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology described is similar to the ’528 Patent, focusing on a device adapted to manage power by determining a subset of available channels, excluding those with performance outside a target threshold, and sending data defining this subset to another device (Compl. ¶290).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶290-291).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are those in the Infringing Bluetooth LE Products that allegedly assess channel performance and adapt a frequency hopping pattern to exclude channels with interference (Compl. ¶48, ¶90-91).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,887,893

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,887,893, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued January 5, 2021.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a device in a wireless network that manages power consumption by performing a channel assessment to determine if using a different channel would improve performance, and causing communication to switch to that different channel if it does (Compl. ¶307).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶307-308).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are those of the Infringing Zigbee Products that allegedly assess and select communication channels to improve performance (Compl. ¶32, ¶44).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,999,856

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,999,856, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued May 4, 2021.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a device that receives channel performance information for a plurality of channels and determines a subset of those channels that excludes channels failing to meet a specified performance level. The device then causes spread spectrum communications to occur using a channel from that subset (Compl. ¶324).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶324-325).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are those of the Infringing Zigbee Products that allegedly assess and select a subset of communication channels based on performance (Compl. ¶32, ¶44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies two categories of accused products: "Infringing Zigbee Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" (Compl. ¶31, ¶47).
    • The "Exemplary Infringing Zigbee Product" is the Qorvo QPG6095 Smart Home Communications Controller (Compl. ¶33).
    • The "Exemplary Infringing Bluetooth LE Product" is the Qorvo QPG6100 Smart Home Communications Controller (Compl. ¶49).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The QPG6095 is described as a communications controller compliant with the IEEE 802.15.4 standard for Zigbee and Thread protocols, designed for smart home devices like thermostats and sensors (Compl. ¶39). The complaint includes a product brief for the QPG6095, which highlights its compliance with the IEEE 802.15.4 standard (Compl. p. 9).
  • The QPG6100 is described as a multi-standard controller for smart home communications that supports Zigbee, Thread, and Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) protocols, and is compliant with Bluetooth Specification v. 5.1 (Compl. ¶156-157). The complaint provides a functional block diagram of the QPG6100, illustrating its key components including the radio, real-time link layer, and processor (Compl. p. 25).
  • The complaint alleges these products are integrated circuits sold by Defendant for incorporation into end-user devices, and that their normal and intended operation requires practicing the patented inventions (Compl. ¶35, ¶44, ¶51, ¶160). Defendant is alleged to provide software development kits (SDKs) and evaluation tools that instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶42, ¶159). A screenshot from Defendant's website shows the QPG6095 SDK, which is described as enabling customers to build software applications using the controller (Compl. p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,987,955 Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the Infringing Zigbee Products meet every limitation of claim 1 of the ’955 Patent but does not provide a detailed, element-by-element mapping of the accused product's functionality to the claim limitations (Compl. ¶166). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis in a claim chart format.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The asserted claim is a method claim, while the accused products are integrated circuits. A central issue may be whether Defendant, as a component supplier, can be held liable for direct infringement of a method performed by end-user devices incorporating its components. The complaint appears to anticipate this by alleging joint infringement, stating Defendant "directs and controls its customers to use Zigbee functionality in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶169).
    • Technical Questions: A key question will be whether the power management functionalities inherent in the Zigbee standard, as implemented by the QPG6095, perform the specific steps of claim 1, including determining third and fourth power levels that are different from each other and from the initial first and second power levels.

U.S. Patent No. 7,903,608 Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the Infringing Bluetooth LE Products meet every limitation of claim 1 of the ’608 Patent but does not provide a detailed, element-by-element mapping of the accused product's functionality to the claim limitations (Compl. ¶184). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis in a claim chart format.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the term "selecting," as used in the claim, requires a device to perform its own real-time performance evaluation, or if it can read on a device that implements a pre-defined channel management scheme dictated by a standard like Bluetooth LE.
    • Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question may be whether the accused products' implementation of the Bluetooth LE adaptive frequency hopping feature involves selecting a "second set" of channels where the "number of distinct channels...varies" from the "first set," as required by the claim's final "wherein" clause. The complaint alleges the products are capable of performing adaptive frequency hopping and can exclude channels based on performance, which suggests a mechanism for varying the number of used channels (Compl. ¶81, ¶91). The QPG6100 product brief highlights its compliance with Bluetooth v. 5.1, which includes features for adaptive frequency hopping (Compl. p. 24).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’955 Patent:

  • The Term: "generating performance data"
  • Context and Importance: The entire method of claim 1 depends on this initial step. The construction of this term will define the type and source of data required to trigger the subsequent power adjustment steps. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could determine whether standard Zigbee operations, such as link quality indication (LQI), meet the claim limitation or if a more specific, non-standard performance measurement is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification is not highly specific, stating performance can be based on "data transmission errors, such as an increase in the bit error rate (BER) or the loss of data packets" (’955 Patent, col. 4:14-16), which could encompass a wide range of quality metrics.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description focuses on an embodiment using an equalizer's signal and error outputs to calculate a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (’955 Patent, col. 8:50-57). A defendant may argue this context limits "performance data" to metrics derived directly from equalizer outputs.

For the ’608 Patent:

  • The Term: "selecting, based upon performance"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining whether the accused devices perform the claimed invention. The dispute may turn on whether the device must actively and intelligently "select" channels based on its own analysis of performance, or if merely operating according to the adaptive frequency hopping protocol of the Bluetooth standard, which itself is based on performance principles, constitutes "selecting."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states the invention involves "selecting sets of communications channels... based on the results of performance testing and specified criteria," which does not explicitly require the end device itself to conduct the tests and make the selection in real-time. This could support a reading where implementing a standard designed around such principles is sufficient.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "master" device testing channels, classifying them as "bad" or "good," and then generating a channel set (’608 Patent, FIG. 6A; col. 12:35-43). This could support a narrower reading that requires an active, device-level process of testing, classifying, and then selecting, rather than passive compliance with a standard.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents.
    • Inducement is alleged based on Defendant providing products with infringing functionality and instructing customers on how to use them through "tutorials, user guides, product guides, help library, and other documentation" (e.g., Compl. ¶175, ¶193). The provision of Software Development Kits is specifically mentioned as encouraging infringing use (Compl. ¶42).
    • Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products are components constituting a material part of the patented inventions and are not "staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for non-infringing use" (e.g., Compl. ¶179, ¶197).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patents dating back to an initial notice letter on February 5, 2019, and three subsequent supplemental letters. The complaint alleges that Defendant "actually knew of, or was willfully blind to, the Patents and the infringing nature of its activities" and continued its conduct despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶340-344).

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

This case presents a broad challenge to core functionalities in widely adopted wireless standards. The litigation will likely focus on the following central questions:

  • A core issue will be one of mapping standard-compliant operation to claim limitations: can the generalized, standard-mandated behaviors of Zigbee and Bluetooth LE devices (e.g., power control, adaptive frequency hopping) be shown to practice the specific, multi-step methods and device configurations recited in the asserted claims? The infringement analysis may turn on whether routine protocol operations meet limitations such as "selecting" a channel set or "determining" a specific power level.
  • A key threshold question will be one of liability for indirect and divided infringement: for method claims asserted against a component supplier, can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant "directs or controls" the actions of end-users to the extent required to prove direct infringement, or alternatively, satisfy the high standards for inducement, particularly regarding the specific intent to cause infringement of each claim limitation?
  • The case may also hinge on definitional scope and claim construction: The viability of the infringement claims will depend heavily on the court's construction of foundational terms like "communications channel performance" and "selecting, based upon performance." The outcomes of these constructions will determine whether the patents cover the ordinary operation of standard-compliant devices or are limited to the specific embodiments described in the patent specifications.