DCT

3:19-cv-02315

Aperture Net LLC v. BlackBerry Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:19-cv-02315, N.D. Tex., 01/24/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendants have minimum contacts, purposefully conduct business in the district, and because Defendant Blackberry has a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Blackberry-branded smartphones infringe a patent related to power control and frequency correction in spread-spectrum wireless communication systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for mobile devices to efficiently set their initial transmission power and correct for frequency shifts when connecting to a cellular base station in a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) network.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-01-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,711,204 Priority Date
2004-03-23 U.S. Patent No. 6,711,204 Issue Date
2020-01-24 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,711,204, "Channel Sounding for a Spread-Spectrum Signal," issued March 23, 2004.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In CDMA cellular systems, a key challenge is the "near-far" problem, where a remote station (mobile phone) close to a base station can transmit with so much power that it drowns out signals from more distant stations (’204 Patent, col. 3:56-65). Conventional "open-loop" power control, where a phone estimates the necessary transmit power based on the received signal strength from the base station, is often ineffective because the transmit and receive frequencies have different, statistically independent channel characteristics (’204 Patent, col. 1:49-60). This leads to inefficient and delayed connections as the phone incrementally increases its power until the base station can hear it (’204 Patent, col. 1:61-2:5).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a method for a remote station to have "knowledge, a priori to transmitting, of a proper power level" (’204 Patent, col. 2:7-10). The invention calls for the base station to transmit a special "channel-sounding signal" at the same frequency the remote station uses for its own transmissions (the "second frequency"). By receiving and measuring this sounding signal, the remote station can directly assess the path loss on its transmit channel and set its initial power level appropriately. The same signal can be used to measure and compensate for Doppler frequency shifts caused by motion (’204 Patent, col. 2:11-13; col. 5:44-60). Figure 2 of the patent illustrates the base station transmitting to the remote station on frequencies f1 and f2, while the remote station transmits back on a frequency adjusted from f2.
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to solve a fundamental power control issue in early CDMA systems, potentially enabling faster call setup, more reliable connections, and increased overall network capacity by mitigating the near-far problem.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 3, which depends on independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites the essential elements of the system improvement:
    • A base station and multiple remote stations (RS) in a spread-spectrum system.
    • The base station transmits a "BS-channel-sounding signal" at the second frequency (the RS transmit frequency).
    • The remote stations receive this channel-sounding signal.
    • The remote stations use the received sounding signal to "compensat[e] to the second frequency" their own transmitted signals.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’204 Patent (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a range of Blackberry-branded devices, including the Classic, DTEK50, DTEK60, Evolve, Evolve X, Key2, Key2 LE, KeyOne, Leap, Motion, Passport, Priv, Porsche Design P9983, and Z3 (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶14). The Blackberry KeyOne is depicted in Figure 1 of the complaint (Compl. p. 1).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these devices infringe when they communicate via CDMA networks (Compl. ¶25). The allegedly infringing functionality involves the systems and methods used by the devices to establish and maintain a wireless connection with base stations, including when operating in hotspot mode (Compl. ¶19). A screenshot from Verizon's website for the BlackBerry KEY2 LE is included as Figure 2, which states, "Your device, our network," to support the allegation that the devices are used on these networks (Compl. ¶21, Fig. 2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

The complaint provides a high-level infringement theory, alleging that the Accused Products, when used on CDMA networks, practice the claimed invention (Compl. ¶19-20, 25). The following table maps the elements of independent Claim 1 to the functionality alleged in the complaint.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An improvement to a spread-spectrum system having a base station and a plurality of remote stations (RS)... The Accused Products (remote stations) operate on wireless carrier networks that utilize base stations as part of a CDMA system. ¶19, ¶20 col. 4:29-35
said base station for transmitting a BS-channel-sounding signal at the second frequency; The base stations of the wireless carriers with which Defendants have contractual relationships transmit signals that function as the claimed channel-sounding signal. ¶20 col. 4:45-50
said plurality of remote stations for receiving the BS-channel-sounding signal at the second frequency... The Accused Products are capable of and do receive the signals from the base stations on the relevant frequency. ¶19 col. 5:21-26
...with said base station for transmitting the plurality of BS-spread-spectrum signals at the first frequency outside a correlation bandwidth of the plurality of RS-spread-spectrum signals transmitted by the plurality of remote stations at the second frequency; The Accused Products and associated base stations operate using separate transmit and receive frequencies (Frequency Division Duplex), a standard feature of the CDMA networks they use. ¶25 col. 4:36-44
and said plurality of remote stations, responsive to the BS-channel-sounding signal, for compensating to the second frequency the respective plurality of RS-spread-spectrum signals. The Accused Products utilize signals received from the base station to adjust their own transmissions for power control and frequency accuracy to communicate on CDMA networks. ¶25 col. 5:29-41

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether standard pilot or control signals transmitted by a modern CDMA base station constitute a "BS-channel-sounding signal" as specifically defined and contemplated by the ’204 patent. The patent describes this signal as having a relatively narrow bandwidth for the purpose of probing the channel (’204 Patent, col. 4:48-54). The court may need to determine if the signals used by the accused system meet this structural and functional definition.
  • Technical Questions: A factual dispute may arise over how the Accused Products actually perform power and frequency adjustments. The infringement allegation hinges on the claim that the devices perform the "compensating" step in response to the specific "BS-channel-sounding signal." It raises the question of what evidence demonstrates that the accused devices' general frequency correction mechanisms are functionally equivalent to the specific Doppler shift compensation method described in the patent, which is directly tied to receiving the sounding signal.
  • Divided Infringement: The asserted claim includes steps performed by both the base station (transmitting the sounding signal) and the remote station (receiving and compensating). The Plaintiff alleges Defendants "control" the system and "put...the Patent-in-Suit's inventions into service" (Compl. ¶20), citing Centillion. The court will have to analyze whether Defendants' actions and relationships with wireless carriers are sufficient to attribute the actions of the base stations to them for the purpose of direct infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "BS-channel-sounding signal"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. Its definition will determine whether the patent reads on the functionality of modern CDMA networks or is limited to a more specific, and potentially obsolete, implementation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the Plaintiff's case depends on showing that a signal transmitted by a standard network base station is the specific "sounding signal" claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the signal "may be a continuous wave signal, also known as a carrier signal," which could support an argument that it encompasses a wide variety of simple, unmodulated signals (’204 Patent, col. 5:1-3).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the signal as having a narrow bandwidth, "preferably not more than one percent of the spread-spectrum bandwidth," to limit interference (’204 Patent, col. 4:51-54). It is also explicitly distinguished from the primary "BS-spread-spectrum signals" used for data communication (’204 Patent, col. 4:36-40). This suggests the term refers to a distinct, purpose-built signal rather than a component of the general broadcast channel.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendants providing instruction manuals that allegedly guide customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (i.e., connecting to CDMA networks) (Compl. ¶25). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused functionality has no substantial non-infringing use and that end users do not have the option to disable it (Compl. ¶22).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on imputed knowledge. Plaintiff argues that because Blackberry has prosecuted at least 84 patents in the related field of spread-spectrum technology, its inventors and counsel would have become aware of the ’204 Patent during prior art searches (Compl. ¶23(b), ¶27).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's answers to several central questions:

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "BS-channel-sounding signal," as described in the ’204 Patent with specific characteristics like a narrow bandwidth, be construed to cover the standard pilot and control signals transmitted by modern CDMA base stations?
  2. A second issue involves divided infringement liability: Can the Plaintiff prove that Defendants exercise sufficient "control" over the entire system—including network base stations owned and operated by third-party carriers—to be held directly liable for infringement of claims that require actions by both the handset and the network?
  3. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the evidence show that the Accused Products perform power and frequency adjustments in the specific manner required by the claims—that is, "responsive to" a dedicated "sounding signal"—or do they use different methods that fall outside the patent's scope?