DCT
3:23-cv-01744
Omnitek Partners LLC v. Huawei Tech USA Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Omnitek Partners, LLC (New York)
- Defendant: Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:23-cv-01744, N.D. Tex., 08/04/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a "regular and established place of business" in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartwatches infringe a patent related to using a device's physical casing as a communication bus for its internal electronic components.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the miniaturization of electronic devices by replacing conventional, space-consuming internal wiring with communication pathways integrated directly into the device's housing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patent. The patent's front page indicates it is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-08-12 | ’293 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-09-18 | ’293 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-08-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,272,293 - "Device having a casing and/or interior acting as a communication bus between electronic components," issued September 18, 2007.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional internal wiring in electronic devices as suffering from several disadvantages, including susceptibility to noise and shock, brittleness, consumption of significant interior space, and the potential for poor connections (’293 Patent, col. 1:30-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using the device's casing itself as the communication medium, thereby eliminating the need for traditional wires. The solution describes a casing, or a portion thereof, that is constructed to function as a waveguide (e.g., for optical or ultrasonic signals) to transmit information between the various electronic components housed within the device (’293 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-52; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach can enable the creation of smaller, more durable electronic devices with a more flexible internal layout, as it frees up space otherwise occupied by wiring and removes a common point of mechanical failure (’293 Patent, col. 6:40-47).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 17, and 18.
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus):
- A device other than a projectile, comprising:
- a plurality of electronic/electrical components; and
- a casing having at least a portion thereof acting as a communication bus for transmitting a signal in a "point-to-many links manner" between the components,
- wherein the signal is available to each of the components on the bus.
- Independent Claim 17 (Apparatus):
- A device other than a projectile, comprising:
- a casing for holding a plurality of electronic/electrical components; and
- a communication bus formed at least in part by the casing;
- wherein the components are operatively connected to the bus in a "point-to-many links manner," are capable of transmitting and detecting a signal on the bus, and the signal is available to each component.
- Independent Claim 18 (Method):
- A method for communicating a signal between components in a device (other than a projectile) having a casing, comprising:
- providing the casing with at least a portion acting as a communication bus; and
- operatively connecting the components to the bus such that a signal transmitted in a "point-to-many links manner" is available to each component.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claim 2 and states Plaintiff may later assert other claims (Compl. ¶22).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the "Huawei GT and Ultimate Watches, as well as the Band and Fit products," referred to collectively as the "Huawei Smartwatches" (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Huawei Smartwatches contain multiple electronic components within a casing (Compl. ¶23). It further alleges that a portion of this casing functions as an optical waveguide, with one component acting as a transmitter to send optical signals into the waveguide and another component acting as a detector to receive them (Compl. ¶24). The complaint alleges that Huawei has derived "substantial revenues" from the sale of these products but provides no specific market data or context (Compl. ¶11). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’293 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A device other than a projectile, the device comprising: a plurality of electronic/electrical components; | The Huawei Smartwatches are devices other than projectiles and have a plurality of electronic/electrical components. | ¶23, ¶26 | col. 10:30-31 |
| and a casing, the casing having at least a portion thereof acting as a communication bus for transmitting a signal in a point-to-many links manner between the plurality of electronic/electrical components, | The smartwatches possess a casing, and a portion of that casing allegedly acts as a communication bus to transmit signals between the components in a point-to-many links manner. | ¶23 | col. 10:32-36 |
| wherein the transmitted signal is available to each of the plurality of electronic/electrical components on the communication bus. | The signal transmitted on the communication bus is allegedly available to each of the electronic components. | ¶23, ¶25 | col. 10:35-38 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be the proper construction of "casing... acting as a communication bus." The dispute may turn on whether the accused device's structural housing itself functions as the signal-carrying medium, or if it merely contains a separate, conventional communication bus (e.g., a flexible printed circuit) that is not part of the "casing" as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the casing functions as an optical waveguide (Compl. ¶24). A key factual question is whether technical analysis of the Huawei Smartwatches substantiates this specific allegation. The complaint does not provide evidence, such as from a product teardown, to show that the physical material of the watch casing is in fact used as a waveguide. Another question is whether the accused devices' architecture meets the "point-to-many links manner" limitation, which suggests a broadcast-style capability.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "casing... acting as a communication bus"
Context and Importance: This phrase is the central inventive concept. Infringement hinges on whether the accused smartwatch casing is the communication medium itself, not merely a structure that encloses a separate bus. Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between a casing being a bus versus containing a bus is dispositive.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that a "communication bus [is] formed at least in part by the casing" (’293 Patent, col. 2:42-43), which could suggest that the bus need not be composed entirely of the casing's structural material.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments consistently depict the waveguide (108) as being deposited directly onto, or formed as an integral part of, the structural casing (106), implying a functional integration rather than mere colocation (’293 Patent, Figs. 2A-2C; col. 5:10-14, "The inner waveguide material can be formed on the casing").
The Term: "point-to-many links manner"
Context and Importance: This term defines the required communication architecture. Its construction will determine whether the claims read on systems with a broadcast-like function or are limited to a specific topology. The defense may argue its products use a collection of point-to-point links that do not meet this limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The "Background of the Invention" section states that transmission "may be a simple point-to-point link... or a point to many links" (’293 Patent, col. 1:18-20). A party could argue this suggests the patentee did not intend to draw a sharp distinction.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself requires that the signal transmitted in this manner be "available to each of the plurality of electronic/electrical components on the communication bus" (’293 Patent, col. 10:35-38). This suggests a functional requirement where a single transmission is accessible by multiple, if not all, components connected to the bus.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement but does not plead specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and intent, such as by citing defendant's user manuals, marketing materials, or other evidence of active inducement (Compl. ¶10).
- Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness is based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’293 Patent acquired "at least by virtue of service or acknowledged delivery of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶27-28). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit knowledge of the patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case appears to depend on the answers to two primary questions:
A core issue will be one of structural identity: Does the accused smartwatch "casing" itself functionally "act as a communication bus" as required by the claims, or does it merely house a conventional, physically distinct bus? The answer will likely require detailed expert analysis of the accused products' physical construction.
A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural function: Does the communication system within the Huawei Smartwatches operate in a "point-to-many links manner" where a signal is "available to each" component, as the claim language dictates? The court will need to determine if the conclusory allegations in the complaint are supported by technical evidence of the system's actual operation.