DCT
3:18-cv-00561
Uniloc USA Inc v. LG Corp
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Uniloc USA, Inc. (Texas) and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (Luxembourg)
- Defendant: LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (Delaware), LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A. Inc. (California), and LG Electronics, Inc. (Korea)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Prince Lobel Tye LLP; Nelson Bumgardner Albritton PC
- Case Identification: 3:18-cv-00561, N.D. Tex., 07/02/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. having a regular and established place of business in Fort Worth, Texas, and both U.S.-based LG entities offering the accused products for sale within the Northern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a wide range of Defendant's electronic devices that operate in compliance with HSPA/HSPA+ wireless standards infringes a patent related to managing data transmission over logic and transport channels.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns resource allocation in wireless communication networks, specifically the method by which a device selects data transmission formats to ensure a minimum quality of service.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on July 2, 2018. Subsequent to the filing, the asserted patent was the subject of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. An IPR certificate issued on August 16, 2021, confirmed the cancellation of all claims asserted in this complaint (Claims 1, 3-6, and 12), a development that is dispositive for the litigation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-05-21 | '487 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-01-23 | '487 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-07-02 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2018-11-12 | IPR2019-00222 & IPR2019-00252 Filed |
| 2019-07-02 | IPR2019-01282 & IPR2019-01283 Filed |
| 2021-08-16 | IPR Certificate Issued Cancelling Claims 1-6 and 11-13 |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,167,487 - "NETWORK WITH LOGIC CHANNELS AND TRANSPORT CHANNELS"
- Issued: January 23, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In wireless networks conforming to standards like 3GPP, a device's Medium Access Control (MAC) layer is responsible for multiplexing data from various applications (logic channels) into transport blocks for transmission over the physical airwaves (transport channels). The patent describes the existing process for selecting transport format combinations (TFCs) and identifies a need for an "optimized selection process" ('487 Patent, Background, col. 1:8-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes integrating a quality of service parameter directly into the TFC selection process. The patent's solution is a selection algorithm that explicitly "uses a minimum bit rate criteria" when choosing how to package data for transmission ('487 Patent, col. 1:45-49, Abstract). This allows the MAC layer to more efficiently guarantee performance for applications like voice calls that require a consistent data rate ('487 Patent, col. 1:65-col. 2:2).
- Technical Importance: By embedding the minimum bit rate compliance check into the MAC layer's selection algorithm, the invention aimed to provide a more accurate and efficient method for managing Quality of Service (QoS) compared to handling it at higher, application-level layers of the network protocol stack ('487 Patent, col. 2:55-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A network with a first plurality of logic channels and an associated second plurality of transport channels.
- The transport channels transmit transport blocks formed from packet units of the logic channels.
- A plurality of valid transport format combinations is allocated to the transport channels.
- A selection algorithm is provided for selecting the transport format combinations.
- The selection algorithm uses a minimum bit rate criteria applicable to the respective logic channel.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 3-6 and 12 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶16).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies a broad range of LG electronic devices, including dozens of models from the LG G-series, V-series, Stylo, and Optimus lines, designated collectively as the "Accused Infringing Devices" (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused functionality is tied to the devices' compliance with the "HSPA/HSPA+ standardized in UMTS 3GPP Release 6 and above" wireless communication standards (Compl. ¶14).
- The complaint alleges these devices implement a network architecture with logical and transport channels managed by a MAC layer (Compl. ¶17). It further alleges the devices use Transport Format Combinations (TFCs) and a selection algorithm that accounts for Quality of Service (QoS) requirements, including a "minimum guaranteed bit rate (GBR)," to allocate data packets (Compl. ¶¶18-19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Claim Chart Summary
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A network with a first plurality of logic channels with which is associated a second plurality of transport channels, | The Accused Infringing Devices implement a network where a MAC Layer associates logical channels with transport channels to communicate with a base station. | ¶17 | col. 1:4-7 |
| which transport channels are provided for transmitting transport blocks formed from packet units of the logic channels, | The devices' MAC Layer receives packet units (PDUs) on logical channels and multiplexes them into transport blocks for transmission over transport channels. | ¶17 | col. 1:6-8 |
| wherein a plurality of valid transport format combinations is allocated to the transport channels, which combinations indicate the transport blocks provided for transmission on each transport channel, | The devices are assigned transport format combinations (TFCs) and enhanced TFCs (E-TFCs) that define the characteristics of transport blocks for transmission. | ¶18 | col. 1:36-42 |
| wherein a selection algorithm is provided for selecting the transport format combinations, | The devices implement a network with a selection algorithm for choosing TFCs from a set of valid TFCs. | ¶19 | col. 1:43-45 |
| and wherein the selection algorithm uses a minimum bit rate criteria applicable to the respective logic channel. | The selection algorithm allegedly uses a minimum bit rate criteria by taking into account data flow priorities and QoS requirements via QCI classes, which can include a minimum guaranteed bit rate (GBR). | ¶19 | col. 1:45-49 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question is whether the term "network" as used in the patent can be met by a single terminal (e.g., an LG phone). The claim is for "A network," and the complaint's allegations focus on the functionality within each individual "Accused Infringing Device" (Compl. ¶17).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the use of a "minimum guaranteed bit rate (GBR)" within standard HSPA/HSPA+ QoS protocols equates to the claimed "selection algorithm [that] uses a minimum bit rate criteria" (Compl. ¶19). A key technical question is whether the standard-compliant GBR functionality operates in the specific manner described in the '487 patent's detailed embodiments, or if it represents a different technical approach to achieving a similar goal. The complaint does not detail the specific steps of the accused algorithm.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "selection algorithm uses a minimum bit rate criteria"
- Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core inventive concept. The outcome of the infringement analysis would likely depend on how broadly or narrowly this functional language is construed, specifically whether the accused HSPA+ standard's method for handling GBR falls within its scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from the prior art cited in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the invention broadly, stating that "selection of the transport format combinations is carried out while maintaining a minimum bit rate" ('487 Patent, Abstract). This language could support a construction that covers any algorithm that considers or is constrained by a minimum bit rate.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification details a specific, multi-step iterative process for selecting the TFC ('487 Patent, col. 9:15-col. 10:65). A defendant could argue this detailed disclosure limits the scope of "selection algorithm" to the specific embodiment described or its structural equivalents, potentially excluding the different algorithm used in the HSPA+ standard.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant intentionally instructs customers on how to use the devices in an infringing manner through "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, websites and installation and user guides" (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the software within the devices constituting a material part of the invention with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶25).
Willful Infringement
The willfulness claim is based on alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant will have been on notice of the patent "since, at the latest, the service of the Original Complaint" and has nonetheless "refused to discontinue its infringing acts" (Compl. ¶26).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A threshold procedural issue is the post-filing invalidation of the asserted patent claims. The cancellation of all asserted claims in IPR proceedings subsequent to the complaint's filing effectively extinguishes the legal basis for the lawsuit, making any further analysis of the original allegations a historical exercise.
- Had the claims survived, a central dispute would have been one of algorithmic equivalence: does the accused HSPA/HSPA+ standard's method of managing Quality of Service with a Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR) perform the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the specific, multi-iteration "selection algorithm" disclosed and claimed in the '487 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their technical operation?