DCT

3:18-cv-00560

Uniloc USA Inc v. LG Corp

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:18-cv-00560, N.D. Tex., 07/02/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. allegedly having a regular and established place of business in the district and offering the accused products for sale to customers located within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic devices capable of using Bluetooth 3.0+HS technology infringe a patent related to multi-mode radio communication systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for efficiently integrating multiple wireless communication standards within a single device, particularly for handling asymmetric data loads where one standard may be used for control and another for high-speed data transfer.
  • Key Procedural History: Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2019-00219) was instituted against the patent-in-suit. The IPR concluded with the cancellation of asserted independent claim 15 and dependent claim 17. Asserted dependent claim 16 was found patentable. This outcome significantly narrows the scope of the dispute to the single surviving asserted claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-08-10 '106 Patent Priority Date
2006-03-28 '106 Patent Issue Date
2018-07-02 Complaint Filing Date
2018-11-12 IPR2019-00219 Filing Date
2022-08-22 IPR Certificate Issued Cancelling Claims 15, 17; Upholding 16

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,020,106 - *"RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEM"*

  • Issued: March 28, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency of conventional wireless systems in handling asymmetric data traffic, such as web browsing, where downlink data rates far exceed uplink rates (’106 Patent, col. 1:7-18). It also notes the high cost and complexity of multi-mode terminals that must incorporate a complete, independent transceiver architecture for each wireless standard they support (’106 Patent, col. 2:61-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a multi-mode communication system where a device uses a first, fully bi-directional communication mode (e.g., UMTS) and a second, limited-direction mode (e.g., a high-speed, downlink-only HIPERLAN/2) (’106 Patent, col. 9:21-29). To reduce hardware complexity, control information required to operate the second mode can be sent over the channels of the first mode, obviating the need for a full transmitter/receiver for the second mode in the mobile station (’106 Patent, col. 9:29-35; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method to create more economical and power-efficient multi-mode devices capable of supporting high-speed data applications by reusing the protocol stack of one wireless standard to manage the operation of another.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16-17 (’106 Patent, col. 13:24-14:60; Compl. ¶19).
  • As noted, an IPR proceeding has since cancelled claims 15 and 17. The analysis below focuses on the elements of independent claim 15, as they are incorporated into the sole surviving asserted claim, claim 16.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 15 include:
    • A first transceiver for communicating in a first mode.
    • At least one of a transmitter and receiver for communicating in a second mode.
    • A condition where, if a link in the first mode is "not available," information is communicated via a link in the second mode.
    • A capability for transmitting "specification information" defining the second mode over a link in the first mode to another station.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses a wide range of LG products, including smartphones, laptops, wireless speakers, and projectors, that implement "Bluetooth Core Specification v. 3.0 + HS and above" (Compl. ¶14). These are collectively referred to as the "Accused Infringing Devices."

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused functionality centers on the devices' implementation of the Bluetooth 3.0 + High Speed (HS) standard (Compl. ¶15). This standard allows a device to use a conventional Bluetooth Basic Rate/Enhanced Data Rate (BR/EDR) radio for initial discovery, connection establishment, and low-speed communication (Compl. ¶16).
  • For high-speed data transfer, the standard provides for an Alternate MAC/PHY (AMP) link, which in the accused products is allegedly a WiFi (IEEE 802.11) link (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges that once a BR/EDR connection is established, a device can discover if the other device supports a common AMP and then move data traffic from the lower-speed BR/EDR link to the higher-speed AMP link (Compl. ¶18).
  • The complaint alleges these products are imported and sold throughout the United States (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

The complaint’s infringement theory for independent claim 15, which underpins the sole remaining asserted claim 16, is summarized below.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first transceiver configured to at least one of transmit first information over a first communication link in a first mode, and receive second information over a second communication link in said first mode; The Accused Devices use a Bluetooth BR/EDR radio transceiver to perform discovery, association, and connection establishment, which constitutes communication in a "first mode." ¶15, ¶16 col. 9:37-39
at least one of a transmitter and receiver configured to at least one of transmit and receive third information over a third communication link in a second mode; The Accused Devices use a WiFi (IEEE 802.11) radio to communicate via an Alternate MAC/PHY (AMP) physical link, which constitutes communication in a "second mode." ¶17 col. 9:40-42
wherein when at least one of said first communication link and said second communication link is not available, then at least one of said first information and said second information is communicated to said communication station via said third communication link... The complaint alleges that once a BR/EDR connection is established, data traffic can be "moved from BR/EDR to AMP controller(s)." This hand-off is presented as satisfying this limitation. ¶18 col. 8:22-26
...wherein at least one of said first transceiver and said transmitter is configured for transmitting specification information about a radio interface specification defining said second mode, said specification information being transmitted to said further station... After establishing a connection using the first mode (BR/EDR), the first device "can discover whether the second device has a common AMP." This discovery process is alleged to be the transmission of "specification information" about the second mode (AMP/WiFi). ¶18 col. 10:20-29

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central point of contention may be the interpretation of "when... not available." The complaint alleges a routine, managed hand-off of data traffic from the BR/EDR link to the AMP link (Compl. ¶18). This raises the question of whether this language can be construed to cover a planned traffic shift, or if it requires a link failure or other state of actual unavailability.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory maps Bluetooth BR/EDR to the "first mode" and WiFi/AMP to the "second mode." A technical question is whether the operational details of the Bluetooth 3.0+HS protocol, specifically how control and data are handled during the transition to an AMP link, correspond to the specific architecture described in the patent, which is based on UMTS and HIPERLAN/2 protocols.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "when at least one of said first communication link and said second communication link is not available"

  • Context and Importance: This conditional phrase from claim 15 is critical because the infringement reading hinges on whether a routine data traffic hand-off constitutes a situation where a link is "not available." The viability of the infringement case for the sole remaining asserted claim (claim 16) depends on this interpretation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract speaks generally of enabling "the traffic for an absent communication channel of one mode to be carried by the corresponding channel of the other mode." This could be argued to support a broader view where "not available" means "not being used for a particular purpose," such as high-speed data, thus allowing a hand-off.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's specification frequently uses the term "absent" to describe a channel that is intentionally omitted from the hardware design (e.g., an omitted uplink) to save cost, not one that is temporarily inactive (e.g., ’106 Patent, col. 8:24). This could support a narrower construction requiring a link to be physically missing or in a state of failure, which the complaint does not appear to allege.

  • The Term: "specification information about a radio interface specification defining said second mode"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term will determine what type of control data must be exchanged between devices to meet the claim limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges that the "discover[y]" of a common AMP (Compl. ¶18) satisfies the element, which may be a point of dispute.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a conceptual "RRC interlink" for exchanging information between the protocols to configure the links (e.g., ’106 Patent, Fig. 5, 530; col. 10:20-29). This could support an interpretation where any control signaling that identifies and enables the setup of the second mode qualifies as "specification information."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly contemplates that "radio interface specifications (or optionally software modules to implement them) can be downloaded" (’106 Patent, col. 12:1-12). This could support a narrower definition requiring the transmission of a more comprehensive set of parameters or even a software module, beyond a simple discovery message.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that LG instructs its customers to infringe through materials such as "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and user guides" available on its websites (Compl. ¶22).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that LG has had notice of the ’106 Patent since, at the latest, the service of the original complaint (Compl. ¶24). It further alleges that LG, despite this knowledge, has "refused to discontinue its infringing acts," which provides a basis for alleging post-suit willfulness and seeking enhanced damages.

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

  • Impact of IPR: The primary issue facing the plaintiff is the post-filing cancellation of independent claim 15 and dependent claim 17. The case can now only proceed on dependent claim 16. This will require the plaintiff to prove infringement of all limitations of the cancelled claim 15, plus the additional limitation of claim 16, significantly altering the strategic landscape of the litigation.
  • Conditional Scope: A core legal question will be one of definitional scope: can the claim phrase "when... not available," which is part of the sole remaining asserted claim's antecedent basis, be construed to cover the routine, managed hand-off of data traffic from a low-speed to a high-speed channel as alleged, or does it require an actual link failure or physical absence?
  • Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key evidentiary question will be one of technical correspondence: what evidence will be presented to show that the discovery and hand-off mechanisms in the Bluetooth 3.0+HS standard perform the functions required by the patent's claims, particularly concerning the transmission of "specification information" and the operational logic of the dual-mode system?