DCT

1:19-cv-00225

Bandspeed LLC v. Curtis Intl Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00225, W.D. Tex., 07/03/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(c), which governs venue for defendants not resident in the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s consumer electronics incorporating Bluetooth Classic (BR/EDR) and Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) functionalities infringe eight patents related to adaptive frequency hopping for managing wireless communications channels.
  • Technical Context: The patents address adaptive frequency hopping, a technology designed to mitigate interference in crowded radiofrequency bands like the 2.4 GHz ISM band, which is shared by prevalent standards such as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges sending Defendant a notice letter detailing the alleged infringement on June 27, 2018, over a year before filing the complaint. Public records for the lead patents-in-suit indicate they have survived post-grant validity challenges. U.S. Patent No. 7,027,418 underwent inter partes reexamination, resulting in the cancellation of numerous original claims and the amendment of asserted claim 5. U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624 underwent inter partes review, which confirmed the patentability of asserted claim 15 while cancelling other claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-25 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2006-04-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,027,418 Issued
2009-01-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624 Issued
2009-08-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,570,614 Issued
2011-03-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,903,608 Issued
2013-09-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,542,643 Issued
2014-10-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,873,500 Issued
2016-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,379,769 Issued
2018-01-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,883,520 Issued
2018-06-27 Plaintiff allegedly sent infringement Notice Letter to Defendant
2019-07-03 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,027,418 - "Approach for Selecting Communications Channels Based on Performance"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,027,418, "Approach for Selecting Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued April 11, 2006.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses "coexistence problems" that arise when frequency hopping (FH) communication systems, such as Bluetooth, operate in the same frequency band as non-frequency hopping (NFH) systems, such as Wi-Fi (Compl. ¶21; ’418 Patent, col. 2:51-3:2). This shared-spectrum operation can lead to interference, resulting in data transmission errors, reduced performance, and the need for data retransmission (’418 Patent, col. 3:17-20). The patent notes that prior solutions, such as simply increasing transmission power or skipping a single "bad" channel, were inadequate to address the dynamic nature of such interference (Compl. ¶¶22-23; ’418 Patent, col. 3:12-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method of "adaptive frequency hopping" where a system dynamically manages its set of communication channels. The system first determines the performance of a plurality of available channels and selects an initial set of "good" channels based on specified criteria (’418 Patent, Abstract). At a later time, the system re-determines channel performance and selects a new set of channels, allowing it to adapt to changing interference conditions over time (Compl. ¶24; ’418 Patent, col. 4:50-55). This involves periodically testing channel quality and communicating the selected "good" channel set to other devices in the network (’418 Patent, col. 6:55-65).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for short-range wireless technologies like Bluetooth to operate more reliably in the increasingly crowded 2.4 GHz ISM band, enhancing coexistence with other prevalent wireless technologies.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claim 5, which depends on claim 1 (Compl. ¶226).
  • Claim 1, the asserted independent claim, requires a method with the essential elements of:
    • Selecting, based upon performance of a plurality of communications channels at a first time and channel selection criteria, a first set of two or more communications channels.
    • Selecting, based upon performance at a second, later time, a second set of two or more communications channels.
    • Wherein the system is a frequency hopping system and the channels correspond to frequencies used in a hopping protocol.
    • Wherein at each hop, only one communications channel is used for communications between a pair of participants.
  • Dependent claim 5 adds the steps of generating first channel identification data for the first set, transmitting that data, generating second channel identification data for the second set, and transmitting that second data.

U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624 - "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued January 13, 2009.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’624 Patent addresses the same coexistence and interference problems as its parent ’418 Patent, arising from FH and NFH systems sharing a frequency band (Compl. ¶21; ’624 Patent, col. 3:12-20).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent describes a communications device (comprising a processor, memory, and transceiver) that implements an adaptive frequency hopping method. The device selects a first set of channels at a first time and a second set at a later time based on performance. A key aspect is that after selecting a channel set, the device causes the set to be loaded into registers on both its own device and the other device it is communicating with, ensuring both participants use the same adapted channel map (’624 Patent, Abstract, col. 4:50-55). The patent also discloses a "referendum" approach, where multiple participants in a network can "vote" on whether a channel is "good" or "bad," and a channel must receive a specified number of votes to be selected for use (Compl. ¶26; ’624 Patent, col. 16:47-66).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific apparatus-based implementation for adaptively managing channel sets in a multi-participant wireless network, including a mechanism for collaborative channel assessment.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claim 15, which depends on claim 13 (Compl. ¶246).
  • Claim 13, the asserted independent claim, requires a communications device with the essential elements of:
    • A memory, a processor, and a transceiver.
    • The processor is configured to select a first set of two or more channels at a first time based on performance, and a second set at a later time.
    • The device uses the first set for a first period of time and then uses the second set for a second period of time.
    • After selecting each set, the processor causes the set to be loaded into a first register on its own device and a second register on the other device.
  • Dependent claim 15 adds the limitation that the channel selection criteria specifies that for a channel to be selected, it must receive a specified number of votes from a plurality of votes.

U.S. Patent No. 7,570,614 - "Approach for Managing Communications Channels Based on Performance"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,570,614, "Approach for Managing Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued August 4, 2009.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for managing channels in a master-slave network. A master participant selects a channel based on performance, generates identification data specifying that the channel is not to be used, provides this data to a slave, and then exchanges further communications with the slave to receive performance quality data back from the slave's perspective.
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 100 (dependent on claim 1) (Compl. ¶264).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" (Compl. ¶263).

U.S. Patent No. 7,903,608 - "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,903,608, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued March 8, 2011.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a communications device that selects a first set of channels at a first time and a second set at a second time. A key limitation is that the number of distinct channels in the first set varies from the number of distinct channels in the second set.
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶282).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products and Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" (Compl. ¶281).

U.S. Patent No. 8,542,643 - "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,542,643, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued September 24, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for managing channels using memory registers. A device loads a set of default channels into a default register and a set of good channels into a good channel register. If a selection kernel addresses a "bad" channel in the default register, that bad channel is replaced with a "good" channel from the good channel register.
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 5 (dependent on claim 1) (Compl. ¶302).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products and Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" (Compl. ¶301).

U.S. Patent No. 8,873,500 - "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,873,500, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued October 28, 2014.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a frequency hopping device that communicates using a default hopping sequence, tests channels to select a subset for an "adapted" sequence, communicates on the adapted sequence, monitors that subset, and then reverts back to the default sequence based on monitoring results or a time period.
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 28 (dependent on claim 16) (Compl. ¶322).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products and Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" (Compl. ¶321).

U.S. Patent No. 9,379,769 - "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,379,769, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued June 28, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a wireless device that monitors a plurality of channels, classifies them as "good" and "bad" based on the monitoring, transmits this classification information to another device, and then communicates with the other device over the "good" channels while avoiding the "bad" ones.
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶342).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products and Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" (Compl. ¶341).

U.S. Patent No. 9,883,520 - "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,883,520, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued January 30, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a device configured to send packet data that specifies a subset of channels to be used and includes timing information for when to begin using that subset. The device then identifies a channel from the full set and uses either that channel (if it's not in the new subset yet) or a channel from the new subset, depending on whether the switchover time has passed.
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶362).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products and Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" (Compl. ¶361).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies two categories of accused products: "Infringing Bluetooth Classic (BR/EDR) Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth Low Energy Products" (Compl. ¶¶28, 112). The Bluetooth Suction Cup Shower Speaker (Model No.: SP230) is named as an exemplary Classic product, and the Sylvania SB377W Sound Bar is named as an exemplary LE product (Compl. ¶¶29, 113).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products are consumer electronics that implement and comply with the Bluetooth Core Specification, specifically Version 2.0+EDR or higher for Classic products and Version 4.0 or higher for LE products (Compl. ¶¶28, 34, 112, 118). The core accused functionality is "adaptive frequency hopping" (AFH), which the complaint alleges is material to practicing the patented inventions (Compl. ¶¶31, 48, 120). The complaint asserts that Defendant certifies its products' compliance with Bluetooth specifications requiring AFH capabilities, including "Support of Channel Classification" (Compl. ¶¶34, 41-42). This functionality allegedly enables the products to select and change the set of communication channels used during a connection to avoid interference (Compl. ¶¶64-65). The complaint includes an image from the exemplary product's packaging, which markets its "[n]ew Bluetooth v 3.0 Technology" that allows users to "[c]onnect wirelessly up to 33 feet (10 meters) away" (Compl. p. 18, ¶94).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts but alleges that the accused products meet the limitations of the asserted claims by virtue of their compliance with the Bluetooth Core Specification and their capability to perform adaptive frequency hopping.

U.S. Patent No. 7,027,418 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claim 5) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
selecting, based upon performance of a plurality of communications channels at a first time and channel selection criteria, a first set of two or more communications channels... The accused products are capable of classifying channels as at least used or unused, or as good, bad, and/or unknown, which constitutes a selection based on performance. (Compl. ¶¶74-75, 84-85) ¶¶74, 84 col. 4:50-55
selecting, based upon performance ... at a second time that is later than the first time ... a second set of two or more communications channels... The accused products are capable of changing the set of channels on which they communicate during the lifetime of a connection. (Compl. ¶¶64-65) ¶64 col. 4:56-61
generating first channel identification data that identifies the first set...; and transmitting the first channel identification data... The accused products are capable of sending and receiving data packets that include the AFH_Channel_Map parameter, which identifies the selected channel set to other devices. (Compl. ¶¶70-71) ¶70 col. 4:62-67

U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13 and Dependent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a communications device ... comprising: a memory for storing instructions; a processor ... a transceiver... The accused products are wireless communication devices that inherently contain these standard hardware components. (Compl. ¶¶16, 28) ¶¶16, 28 col. 5:15-20
selecting, based upon performance of a plurality of communications channels at a first time, a first set...; selecting...at a second time... a second set... The accused products are capable of performing adaptive frequency hopping, which involves selecting and changing the set of channels used for communication based on interference or other performance factors over time. (Compl. ¶¶48, 64) ¶¶48, 64 col. 4:50-55
after selecting the first set ... causing the first set ... to be loaded into a first register of the communications device and a second register of the other communications device... The accused products are capable of using one or more registers or functionally equivalent data structures to store representations of frequency channels for use in communication. (Compl. ¶¶78-79) ¶78 col. 5:29-38
the channel selection criteria specifies that for a particular communications channel to be selected, the particular communications channel receives a specified number of votes... The complaint does not allege a specific product feature that performs this function, but describes a "referendum" approach from the patent's specification as an embodiment of the invention. (Compl. ¶26) ¶26 col. 16:47-54

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether compliance with the Bluetooth standard's generic "Adaptive Frequency Hopping" feature constitutes "selecting, based upon performance" as required by the claims. The defense may argue the patent requires a specific, active testing and classification method not mandated by the standard, while the plaintiff may argue the standard's channel classification scheme meets the limitation.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’624 Patent, the complaint describes a "referendum" or "voting" mechanism for channel selection as taught by the patent (Compl. ¶26), but it does not specifically allege how the accused products perform this claimed function. This raises the evidentiary question of whether the accused products actually implement a multi-participant voting scheme for channel selection as required by asserted claim 15. The complaint provides an image from a user manual showing how to activate Bluetooth pairing, but does not explain how this user action results in the claimed method steps being performed (Compl. p. 19, ¶98).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "selecting, based upon performance"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase is at the core of all asserted patents. Its construction will determine whether the accused products' standard Bluetooth channel management functions meet the claims' requirements. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely center on whether merely using a channel map provided by a Bluetooth master device qualifies as "selecting" based on "performance," or if a more active, proprietary measurement and decision-making process is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the ’418 Patent describes performance metrics broadly to include bit error rate (BER), packet loss rate (PLR), and received signal strength indicator (RSSI) (’418 Patent, col. 5:29-48). This language may support an interpretation where any channel choice informed by these common metrics qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ’418 Patent's detailed description emphasizes a specific process of exchanging "master test packet 360" and "slave test packet 380" to test channels and calculate errors (’418 Patent, col. 10:17-11:51). This may support a narrower construction requiring a specific, two-way test packet exchange, not just passive observation.

The Term: "channel selection criteria"

  • Context and Importance: This term is crucial for claim 15 of the ’624 Patent, which requires the criteria to involve receiving a "specified number of votes." The definition will determine whether the accused products' operation falls within the scope of this claim. The complaint's lack of specific allegations mapping a voting feature to the accused products suggests this term will be a focal point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The ’624 Patent specification states generally that "selection criteria may be to select the good channels but not the bad channels" (’624 Patent, col. 6:62-64). This general statement could be argued to support a broad definition not limited to any specific mechanism.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same patent provides a specific embodiment of a "referendum" approach where a "passing mark" of votes is required for a channel to be judged 'good' (’624 Patent, col. 16:47-17:7). This detailed example may be used to argue that the term requires a concrete, multi-participant voting mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides user manuals that instruct customers on how to activate and use the infringing Bluetooth functionality (Compl. ¶¶230, 250). An image from a product manual provides instructions to "Long press 'Power ON/OFF' button" and "select 'Sylvania' from the list of available Bluetooth devices" to activate the functionality (Compl. p. 19, ¶¶98-99). It is also alleged that the accused products' infringing functionality has no substantial non-infringing use, supporting a claim for contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶109, 241).

Willful Infringement

  • The willfulness allegation is based on Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving a Notice Letter on June 27, 2018, which allegedly provided "detailed allegations about its infringing conduct" (Compl. ¶¶17, 381-382).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical specificity: can infringement be established by alleging compliance with a general industry standard (Bluetooth's AFH), or must Plaintiff demonstrate with particularity how the accused devices perform the specific, multi-step methods of testing, selecting, communicating, and re-selecting channels as recited in the asserted claims?
  • A key dispute will be one of claim scope: can the term "channel selection criteria" as used in the ’624 Patent, which requires a "specified number of votes," be construed to cover the standard channel management protocols in Bluetooth, or is it limited to the specific "referendum" embodiment described in the patent, for which the complaint provides no evidence of implementation in the accused products?
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of inducement: does providing a user manual that instructs a user on basic Bluetooth pairing suffice to show that Defendant specifically intended to encourage its customers to perform every step of the patented methods, particularly the complex, iterative channel selection processes claimed?