DCT

6:12-cv-00895

Ericsson Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:12-cv-00895, E.D. Tex., 11/27/2012
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants conducting business and selling the accused products in the Eastern District of Texas, and Plaintiff Ericsson Inc. having its principal place of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunications products, including cellular handsets, tablets, and televisions, infringe numerous patents related to wireless communication standards and device functionality, following Defendant’s refusal to renew an expired patent license on terms Plaintiff considers fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND).
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to foundational technologies in mobile telecommunications, including methods for network access, user interface controls, and efficient data and voice processing in devices compliant with standards such as GSM, WCDMA, and LTE.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the parties have a prior licensing history, with a license agreement first established in 2001 and renewed in 2007, which has since expired. The current suit was filed after nearly two years of unsuccessful negotiations to renew the license. Plaintiff alleges that several of the asserted patents were previously licensed by Defendant and/or presented to Defendant during the failed renewal negotiations, a fact which may be material to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1996-10-15 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568
1996-10-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,259,724
1998-09-16 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,732,069
1998-10-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,985,474
1998-12-21 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,400,376
1999-02-19 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,865,233
1999-07-29 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,597,787
1999-12-09 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,502,063
2000-12-22 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,769,078
2001 Samsung initially licenses Ericsson's standard-essential patents
2001-07-10 U.S. Patent No. 6,259,724 Issues
2002-06-04 U.S. Patent No. 6,400,376 Issues
2002-10-15 U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568 Issues
2002-12-31 U.S. Patent No. 6,502,063 Issues
2003-07-22 U.S. Patent No. 6,597,787 Issues
2003-10-10 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,707,592
2004-05-04 U.S. Patent No. 6,732,069 Issues
2004-09-10 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,660,417
2005-03-08 U.S. Patent No. 6,865,233 Issues
2006-01-10 U.S. Patent No. 6,985,474 Issues
2007 Samsung renews license with Ericsson
2007-01-08 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,961,709
2007-10-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,036,150
2010-02-09 U.S. Patent No. 7,660,417 Issues
2010-04-27 U.S. Patent No. 7,707,592 Issues
2010-08-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,769,078 Issues
2011-06-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,961,709 Issues
2011-10-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,036,150 Issues
2012-11-27 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,259,724 - "Random Access in a Mobile Telecommunications System"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses inefficiencies in mobile communication systems where multiple devices attempt to gain access to a network simultaneously over a random access channel (RACH) (’724 Patent, col. 1:12-23). Conventional systems could often only detect one access request at a time, leading to collisions, access failures, and delays as devices repeatedly re-transmit their requests (’724 Patent, col. 2:6-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that can distinguish and process multiple, simultaneous random access requests. Each mobile device transmits an access request packet containing a preamble with a unique "signature pattern" selected from a predefined set (’724 Patent, col. 8:45-54). The base station receiver is equipped with a bank of accumulators, with each accumulator tuned to detect a specific signature pattern (’724 Patent, Abstract). This architecture allows the base station to differentiate between requests arriving at the same time, thereby reducing collisions and improving the efficiency of the access process (’724 Patent, col. 6:60-67).
  • Technical Importance: This method enhances the capacity and stability of random access channels, a critical component for cellular networks experiencing increasing traffic from both voice and data services (’724 Patent, col. 2:17-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims (Compl. ¶38). Independent claim 1 is representative and recites:
    • A system for use in demodulating a plurality of random access request messages, comprising:
    • at least one matched filter adapted to despread an input;
    • a first accumulator connected to the matched filter output and associated with a first signature pattern;
    • a second accumulator connected to the matched filter output and associated with a second signature pattern;
    • wherein the first signature pattern differs from the second, allowing substantially simultaneously received messages to be distinguished and processed. (’724 Patent, col. 9:55-10:3).

U.S. Patent No. 6,400,376 - "Display Control for Data Processing Device"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Navigating a "virtual page" of data (e.g., a map or webpage) larger than the small physical screen of a hand-held device is often difficult (’376 Patent, col. 1:11-25). Traditional control methods like scroll bars are not well-suited for one-handed operation on portable devices (’376 Patent, col. 1:36-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a control system using motion sensors (e.g., accelerometers) to pan the virtual page across the screen in response to the physical movement of the device (’376 Patent, Abstract). A user enters a "panning mode" by touching a designated "first area" on the screen, such as a corner (’376 Patent, col. 2:25-30). While in this mode, tilting the device moves the view. Touching a "second area"—defined as the part of the virtual page currently displayed—exits the panning mode, fixing the view (’376 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-30).
  • Technical Importance: This invention provides an intuitive and ergonomic method for one-handed navigation on early portable data devices like PDAs and smartphones, improving their usability (’376 Patent, col. 2:5-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims (Compl. ¶41). Independent claim 1 is representative and recites:
    • A display control structure for a data storage device, comprising:
    • a screen for displaying part of a larger virtual page;
    • at least one sensor to sense changes in the device's position;
    • a control circuit that pans the virtual page in response to sensor signals when in a "panning mode";
    • a touch-responsive "first area" on the screen that, when touched, places the circuit in the panning mode;
    • a touch-responsive "second area" on the screen, being the currently displayed part of the virtual page, that, when touched, takes the circuit out of the panning mode. (’376 Patent, col. 10:1-22).

U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568 - "Multi-Rate Radiocommunication Systems and Terminals"

Technology Synopsis

This patent appears to address methods for managing connections that support multiple data rates, such as in TDMA systems. The technology allows for flexible bandwidth allocation by varying the format of time slots within a communication frame, potentially using an out-of-band channel to convey information about the service type (e.g., voice, video, or data) being transmitted (Compl. ¶23; ’568 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims (Compl. ¶44).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses a wide range of Samsung products, including cellular telephones, televisions, Blu-Ray players, notebook computers, and tablets, suggesting the infringement theory may relate to compliance with standards that support variable data rates (Compl. ¶44).

U.S. Patent No. 6,502,063 - "Method and Apparatus for Recursive Filtering of Parallel Intermittent Streams of Unequally Reliable Time Discrete Data"

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a signal processing method for generating a reliable estimate from multiple streams of intermittent and unequally reliable data (Compl. ¶24). The invention uses recursive filtering, weighting measurements by both their individual reliability and historical reliability, to produce an improved estimate of a time-varying attribute, a technique applicable to processing signals in a multipath wireless environment (’063 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims (Compl. ¶47).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses various Samsung cellular telephones of infringing this patent, suggesting the technology is used for signal processing within the devices' wireless transceivers (Compl. ¶47).

U.S. Patent No. 6,597,787 - "Echo Cancellation Device for Cancelling Echos in a Transceiver Unit"

Technology Synopsis

This patent relates to echo cancellation in a transceiver, particularly for suppressing residual echo that remains after initial cancellation (Compl. ¶25). The invention uses an adjustable residual echo filter and a noise generation means to remove or mask spectral characteristics of the far-end signal from the transmission path, improving call quality (’787 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims (Compl. ¶50).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses at least the Samsung Captivate Galaxy S (SGH-I897), indicating the alleged infringement relates to the acoustic echo cancellation hardware and software in Samsung's mobile phones (Compl. ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 6,732,069 - "Linear Predictive Analysis-by-Synthesis Encoding Method and Coder"

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a method for speech encoding, a technology central to digital voice communication in mobile devices (Compl. ¶26). The invention appears to involve a search algorithm and vector quantization of optimal gains across multiple sub-frames, with updates to the internal encoder state based on these quantized gains to maintain synchronization between the encoder and decoder (’069 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims (Compl. ¶53).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses a broad range of Samsung cellular telephones, suggesting infringement is based on the speech codecs used in these devices to process voice calls (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 6,865,233 - "Method and System for Control Signalling Enabling Flexible Link Adaptation in a Radiocommunication System"

Technology Synopsis

This patent discloses a system for control signaling that supports flexible link adaptation and incremental redundancy in a wireless system (Compl. ¶27). The invention allows a receiving device to send messages to a transmitting device indicating its preference for incremental redundancy or for resegmentation of retransmitted data blocks, enabling the transmitter to select an appropriate modulation and coding scheme (’233 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims (Compl. ¶56).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses numerous Samsung cellular telephones, suggesting infringement is tied to their implementation of link adaptation protocols in modern wireless standards like HSPA or LTE (Compl. ¶56).

U.S. Patent No. 6,985,474 - "Random Access in a Mobile Telecommunications System"

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes an improved method for processing random access requests in a mobile network (Compl. ¶28). A base station transmits an "acquisition indicator" signal upon detecting the energy of a random access transmission, before the message is fully decoded. This allows a mobile station to interrupt a failing transmission and re-transmit more quickly, enabling faster power ramping and reducing delays (’474 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims (Compl. ¶59).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Samsung cellular telephones and base station equipment (Evolved Node B) of infringement, targeting the implementation of random access channel procedures (Compl. ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 7,660,417 - "Enhanced Security Design for Cryptography in Mobile Communication Systems"

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses cryptographic security in mobile communication systems (Compl. ¶29). The invention enhances security by using an algorithm-specific modification of the security key generated during the standard key agreement procedure. The network selects an enhanced security algorithm and the basic security key is modified based on that selection, creating a unique key for that specific algorithm (’417 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims (Compl. ¶62).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses various Samsung cellular telephones and base station equipment, suggesting infringement relates to the implementation of security and encryption protocols in these products (Compl. ¶62).

U.S. Patent No. 7,707,592 - "Mobile Terminal Application Subsystem and Access Subsystem Architecture Method and System"

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a mobile terminal platform architecture divided into two independent subsystems: an "access subsystem" for connectivity services and an "application subsystem" for user services (Compl. ¶30). The two subsystems communicate via a defined interface, allowing each to be independently scaled and developed, providing greater flexibility in terminal design (’592 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims (Compl. ¶65).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses at least the Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket, suggesting infringement is based on the internal hardware and software architecture of the device (Compl. ¶65).

U.S. Patent No. 7,769,078 - "Apparatus, Methods, and Computer Program Products for Delay Selection in a Spread-Spectrum Receiver"

Technology Synopsis

This patent relates to signal processing in a spread-spectrum receiver, such as a RAKE receiver used in CDMA systems (Compl. ¶31). The invention determines combining weights for a plurality of candidate signal delays (or "fingers") based on channel characteristics. It then selects a group of delays based on those weights to process the signal and generate a symbol estimate, optimizing receiver performance (’078 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims (Compl. ¶68).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses at least the Samsung Captivate Galaxy S (SGH-I897), pointing to infringement by the device's baseband processor and its method for processing wireless signals (Compl. ¶68).

U.S. Patent No. 7,961,709 - "Secondary Synchronization Sequences for Cell Group Detection in a Cellular Communications System"

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a method for cell group detection using secondary synchronization signals in a cellular system like LTE (Compl. ¶32). A pair of sequences is transmitted in a specific order in one time slot and in a reversed order in another time slot. This ordering allows a mobile device to determine not only the cell group identity but also the radio frame timing from the synchronization signals (’709 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims (Compl. ¶71).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Samsung cellular telephones and base station equipment, targeting the implementation of cell search and synchronization procedures compliant with modern wireless standards (Compl. ¶71).

U.S. Patent No. 8,036,150 - "Method and a Device for Improved Status Reports"

Technology Synopsis

This patent relates to status reports in a communication system where data units can be segmented, such as in the RLC protocol layer of LTE (Compl. ¶33). The invention provides a method for a receiving device to report the status of partially received or non-received data units, including information that specifies which parts of a segmented data unit were not received, enabling more efficient retransmission (’150 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

One or more claims (Compl. ¶74).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Samsung cellular telephones and base station equipment, alleging infringement of their implementation of data transmission and error-correction protocols (Compl. ¶74).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are a wide array of Samsung's electronic devices with wireless capabilities. These include, but are not limited to, cellular telephones, smartphones, tablet computers, televisions, base stations, computers, Blu-Ray players, and cameras (Compl. ¶34, ¶35). The complaint lists dozens of specific product models for various patents, such as the Samsung Galaxy S II and S III, Galaxy Players, and various television and Blu-Ray player series (Compl. ¶38, ¶41, ¶44).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these devices are designed for use in wireless networks and implement technologies covered by the Ericsson patents (Compl. ¶34). The allegations span fundamental device operations, including accessing cellular networks, processing voice and data, displaying information on a screen, and ensuring secure communications. The complaint emphasizes the commercial success of these products, noting that Samsung has sold "hundreds of millions of unlicensed" devices since its license from Ericsson expired (Compl. p. 3).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim chart analysis. The infringement allegations are conclusory and do not map specific features of the accused products to the elements of the asserted claims. The general theory of infringement for the lead patents is summarized below.

'724 Patent Infringement Theory

The complaint alleges that various Samsung wireless devices infringe by implementing methods of random network access covered by the patent (Compl. ¶38). The implicit theory is that in complying with modern wireless standards (e.g., WCDMA, LTE), these devices must be capable of transmitting unique access signatures and that the network infrastructure must be capable of processing multiple such requests simultaneously, thereby practicing the patented invention.

'376 Patent Infringement Theory

The complaint alleges that Samsung's tablet computers and other wireless devices infringe by incorporating the patented display control method (Compl. ¶41). The unstated theory is that these devices use motion sensors to control display panning, and that this feature is activated and deactivated by touching specified areas of the screen in a manner that falls within the scope of the patent's claims.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary issue for many of the patents will be whether the functionality mandated by wireless standards (which Samsung's products implement) is coextensive with the specific limitations of the claims. For the ’724 Patent, a question is whether the access codes used in standards like LTE constitute the claimed "signature pattern" used to distinguish simultaneous requests. For the ’376 Patent, a key question is whether the user interface for motion-based panning in accused Samsung devices maps onto the specific "first area" (to enter mode) and "second area" (to exit mode) structure required by claim 1.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no technical evidence to support its allegations. A central question for the court will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that the accused products actually operate as claimed. For example, for the '724 patent, what is the evidence that Samsung's base stations use a "first accumulator" and a "second accumulator" associated with different signature patterns to process simultaneous requests?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from ’724 Patent: "signature pattern"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's method for distinguishing simultaneous access requests. Its construction will determine whether the various access codes and sequences used in modern wireless standards fall within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case depends on mapping standardized codes onto this claimed feature.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention using the general phrase "preamble bit or symbol pattern" (’724 Patent, col. 8:49-50) and notes the patterns may be used to "distinguish between multiple access attempts" (’724 Patent, col. 8:56-58), suggesting the term could cover any set of distinguishable codes used for this purpose.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment describes the signature patterns as "orthogonal to each other" (’724 Patent, col. 8:60-61) and Figure 5 illustrates a specific set of eight such patterns. This could support an argument that the term is limited to patterns with specific mathematical properties like orthogonality.

Term from ’376 Patent: "a touch-responsive first area on said screen portion... placing said control circuit in said panning mode"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific user action required to initiate the motion-controlled panning. The infringement analysis for the ’376 patent hinges on whether the user interface of the accused products includes this specific feature, as opposed to alternative methods like a long-press or a menu selection.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the "first area is located in a corner of the screen portion, preferably in all four corners" (’376 Patent, col. 2:31-34), suggesting a dedicated, spatially-defined zone for mode entry. This could be read to cover any designated screen region that activates the panning mode upon being touched.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim distinguishes this "first area" from a "second area" (the rest of the displayed page) used to exit the mode. This distinction could support a narrow construction requiring a physically separate and dedicated screen region for mode entry, potentially excluding interfaces where a gesture (e.g., touch-and-hold) performed anywhere on the screen initiates panning.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes boilerplate allegations of induced and contributory infringement for each asserted patent, stating that Defendants acted "by intending that others make, use, import into, offer for sale, or sell" infringing products (Compl. ¶38, ¶41). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts to support these claims, such as referencing user manuals or specific instructions that would encourage infringing acts.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The basis for these allegations is Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, arising from a prior license that covered some of the patents and from pre-suit licensing negotiations where Ericsson allegedly presented the patents to Samsung (Compl. ¶39, ¶42, ¶45, ¶48, ¶54, ¶57).

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

This dispute appears to be a large-scale licensing enforcement action rather than a targeted case focused on a few key technical features. The litigation will likely turn on the following central questions:

  • A core issue will be one of commercial reasonableness: Can the parties resolve what constitutes a FRAND royalty for Ericsson’s substantial portfolio of standard-essential and implementation patents, or will the court be required to determine a rate based on the evidence presented? The case's origin in failed license renewal negotiations places this commercial dispute at the forefront.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Can Ericsson, through discovery, produce evidence demonstrating that Samsung's products, which implement broad industry standards, practice the specific architectural and method limitations recited in the asserted patent claims? The complaint's lack of detailed infringement allegations suggests that proving a direct mapping will be a central challenge.
  • A critical legal question will be one of willfulness and damages: Given the alleged history of prior licensing and pre-suit notice, did Samsung's conduct after the license expired rise to the level of objective recklessness? The answer to this question could substantially impact the potential damages award through enhancement.