DCT

3:18-cv-01884

Uniloc USA Inc v. BlackBerry Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:18-cv-01884, N.D. Tex., 08/08/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Blackberry has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous Blackberry mobile devices implementing the Bluetooth 3.0 + HS standard infringe a patent related to managing communications in multi-mode wireless systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems where a device can communicate using two or more different wireless protocols, enabling more efficient handling of asymmetric data traffic by using one protocol for basic control and another for high-speed data transfer.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the patent-in-suit was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2019-00219). The IPR resulted in the cancellation of claims 15, 17, and 18, while claim 16 was found patentable. As the complaint asserts claims 15-17, the cancellation of the independent claim (15) and a dependent claim (17) fundamentally impacts the viability of the case as pleaded.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-08-10 Patent Priority Date
2006-03-28 U.S. Patent No. 7,020,106 Issues
2018-08-08 First Amended Complaint Filed
2018-11-12 Inter Partes Review IPR2019-00219 Filed
2022-08-22 IPR Certificate Issued, Cancelling Claims 15, 17, and 18

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 addresses the inefficiency and high cost of multi-mode wireless terminals designed to handle asymmetric data flows, such as web browsing or video downloading (’106 Patent, col. 1:7-14). Conventional approaches required each communication mode (e.g., a cellular standard and a WLAN standard) to have its own complete, bi-directional transceiver hardware, which was expensive and power-intensive (’106 Patent, col. 1:55-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a device uses two communication modes, but not all channels for both modes need to be present. For example, a first, lower-speed mode (like UMTS) can be fully bi-directional, while a second, higher-speed mode (like HIPERLAN/2) might be implemented as a downlink-only connection to save costs. Control information normally sent on the absent uplink channel of the second mode is instead routed and transmitted over the existing uplink channel of the first mode (’106 Patent, col. 2:15-26). Figure 2 illustrates this concept, showing protocol stacks for a first mode (UMTS) and a second mode (HL/2), with internal communication channels (212, 216, 218) created to pass control data from the second mode's protocol stack through the first mode's physical layer.
  • Technical Importance: This design allows for more economical multi-mode terminals by omitting redundant hardware, such as a separate, high-power transmitter for a high-speed data protocol, while still enabling the device to benefit from that protocol's high-speed downlink capabilities (’106 Patent, col. 3:25-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16-17 (Compl. ¶19).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 15 are:
    • A first transceiver configured for communication in a first mode (with a first and second communication link, e.g., uplink and downlink).
    • At least one of a transmitter and receiver configured for communication in a second mode (with a third communication link).
    • A condition wherein if one of the first mode's links is "not available," information is communicated via the second mode's link.
    • The first transceiver is configured to transmit "specification information" about the second mode over one of the first mode's links.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies numerous Blackberry mobile devices, including the BlackBerry Z10, Priv, Motion, KEY2, and KEYone, that implement "Bluetooth version 3.0 + HS [High Speed] and above" (collectively, the "Accused Infringing Devices") (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Infringing Devices operate using two distinct communication modes as part of the Bluetooth 3.0 + HS standard (Compl. ¶15-18).
  • The first mode is the standard Bluetooth Basic Rate/Enhanced Data Rate (BR/EDR) radio, which is used for initial discovery, association, and connection maintenance (Compl. ¶15-16).
  • The second mode is an Alternate MAC/PHY (AMP) physical link, which allegedly uses Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) for high-speed data transfer (Compl. ¶18).
  • The accused functionality involves establishing a connection using the first mode (BR/EDR) and then "discover[ing]" whether the connected device has a common AMP, which can then be used to move data traffic from the BR/EDR controller to the higher-speed AMP controller (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’106 Patent Infringement Allegations

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 Infringing Devices use a BR/EDR (Bluetooth) transceiver to establish and maintain a bi-directional communication link. ¶15-16 col. 2:19-22
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 Infringing Devices use a Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) radio as an Alternate MAC/PHY (AMP) to communicate wirelessly in a second mode. ¶18 col. 2:22-23
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 in said second mode... The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. It alleges traffic is "moved" from BR/EDR to AMP, but does not describe this as occurring when a BR/EDR link is "not available." ¶17 col. 13:35-44
wherein at least one of said first transceiver...is configured for transmitting specification information about a radio interface specification defining said second mode...via at least one of said first communication link and said second communication link. Once a connection is established using BR/EDR (the first mode), the device can "discover" whether the second device has a common AMP, which suggests information defining the second mode is sent over the first mode's link. ¶17 col. 12:58-63
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of the limitation "when at least one of said first communication link...is not available." The complaint describes a deliberate hand-off to a higher-speed link (Compl. ¶17), not a failover or contingency operation that the claim language appears to suggest. The defense may argue that the BR/EDR link is fully "available" when the hand-off occurs, creating a mismatch with the claim.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused "discovery" process (Compl. ¶17) involves transmitting "specification information about a radio interface specification" as required by the claim? The court would need to determine if the information exchanged in the Bluetooth 3.0 + HS protocol rises to the level contemplated by the patent.

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" (Claim 15)

    • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the trigger for the claimed rerouting of information. Its construction is critical because the accused functionality is a voluntary hand-off for performance enhancement, not necessarily a response to a link being unavailable. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the accused products meet this prerequisite for infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "not available" means not in use for a particular purpose at a given moment, allowing for a proactive hand-off.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary embodiment describes a system where a channel is structurally "absent" by design to reduce cost (e.g., omitting an entire transmitter) (’106 Patent, col. 2:22-23). This suggests "not available" may be construed to mean a designed, permanent absence rather than temporary disuse or a network state.

  • The Term: "specification information about a radio interface specification defining said second mode" (Claim 15)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the type of data that must be transmitted over the first mode's link to set up the second mode. The case may turn on whether the actual data exchanged in the Bluetooth 3.0 + HS protocol (e.g., an AMP discovery packet) meets this definition.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general, and a party could argue that any data identifying the second mode and enabling its use (e.g., a flag indicating Wi-Fi capability) qualifies.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses an embodiment where entire "software modules to implement" a radio interface can be downloaded (’106 Patent, col. 10:2-4). This may support a narrower construction requiring the transmission of more substantial protocol-defining information than a simple discovery packet.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that Blackberry’s marketing materials, user guides, and websites instruct customers on using the infringing Bluetooth 3.0 + HS functionality (Compl. ¶21-22). It also alleges contributory infringement under § 271(c), stating that Blackberry knows the components enabling this functionality are especially made for infringement and not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶23).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Blackberry's continued infringement after having knowledge of the ’106 Patent, with knowledge dating from "at the latest, the service upon it of the Original Complaint in this case" (Compl. ¶24).

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

  1. Claim Viability Post-IPR: The foremost question is procedural: with independent claim 15 and dependent claim 17 cancelled by an Inter Partes Review, on what legal and factual basis can the case proceed based solely on the surviving dependent claim 16? This development, which occurred after the complaint was filed, presents a fundamental challenge to the plaintiff's pleaded theories.
  2. Infringement and Claim Language Mismatch: A core merits issue will be one of functional mapping: does the accused operation—a deliberate, performance-based hand-off from Bluetooth BR/EDR to a Wi-Fi AMP link—satisfy the claim limitation requiring the hand-off to occur "when" a link in the first mode is "not available"? This appears to be a significant potential mismatch between the accused system's operation and the patent's specific claim language.
  3. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what specific information is exchanged during the accused AMP "discovery" process, and does it constitute the "specification information about a radio interface specification" as required by claim 15 and arguably defined by the patent's disclosure?