Bandspeed LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bandspeed, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DINOVO PRICE LLP
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00765, W.D. Tex., 03/13/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States and may be sued in any judicial district. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges Defendant has purposefully directed infringing activities toward Texas by placing products into the stream of commerce through U.S. distributors, targeting U.S. customers at trade shows, and selling components to companies whose end-products are sold in Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Bluetooth-enabled semiconductor chips infringe eight patents related to adaptive frequency hopping in wireless communications systems.
• Technical Context: The patents address methods for avoiding radio frequency interference in crowded spectrums by dynamically selecting and deselecting communication channels based on performance, a technology central to modern Bluetooth standards.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges sending a notice letter to Defendant on July 2, 2018, followed by a notice email with claim charts on October 10, 2019. The complaint notes that the Western District of Texas has presided over prior lawsuits involving one or more of the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-25	Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2006-04-11	U.S. Patent No. 7,027,418 Issues
2009-01-13	U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624 Issues
2009-08-04	U.S. Patent No. 7,570,614 Issues
2011-03-08	U.S. Patent No. 7,903,608 Issues
2013-09-24	U.S. Patent No. 8,542,643 Issues
2014-10-28	U.S. Patent No. 8,873,500 Issues
2016-06-28	U.S. Patent No. 9,379,769 Issues
2017-01-01	Alleged start of period Realtek unveiled infringing products at CES
2018-01-30	U.S. Patent No. 9,883,520 Issues
2018-07-02	Plaintiff sends Notice Letter to Defendant
2019-10-10	Plaintiff sends Notice Email with claim charts to Defendant
2020-07-09	Date of alleged purchase of infringing Asustek laptop
2022-03-04	Date of check for availability of infringing Roku Ultra in Austin, TX
2022-03-09	Date of alleged offer for sale of infringing Realtek chip
2022-03-13	Complaint Filing Date

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the "coexistence problem" where frequency hopping (FH) communication systems, such as Bluetooth, experience interference from non-frequency hopping (NFH) systems, like Wi-Fi, operating in the same frequency band, which degrades performance and causes data errors (’418 Patent, col. 2:50-61; Compl. ¶47).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for dynamically managing channel usage. It involves determining the performance of a plurality of communication channels, selecting a subset of channels based on that performance, and then, at a later time, re-evaluating performance to select a new subset of channels, thereby adaptively avoiding channels with interference (’418 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1A).
• Technical Importance: This adaptive frequency hopping technique allows wireless technologies like Bluetooth to operate more reliably in the increasingly crowded 2.4 GHz spectrum by coexisting with other signals rather than being disrupted by them (Compl. ¶¶46-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts dependent claim 5, which incorporates independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶96).
• Claim 1 Elements: A computer-implemented method comprising:
  • 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 of the channels at a second, later time and the selection criteria, a second set of two or more communications channels;
  • wherein the communications system is a frequency hopping system using a hopping sequence; and
  • wherein at each hop, only one channel is used for communications between a pair of participants.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same coexistence problem as the ’418 Patent: interference between wireless systems operating in the same frequency band, which degrades communication quality (’624 Patent, col. 2:12-24).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims a communications device comprising a processor, memory, and transceiver. The processor is configured to execute instructions to perform the adaptive frequency hopping method: selecting a first set of channels based on performance at a first time, and a second set of channels at a later time, and then using these selected sets for communication. The invention also specifies loading the selected channel sets into registers on the communicating devices (’624 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:47-61).
• Technical Importance: This patent claims the device architecture for implementing adaptive frequency hopping, a core feature for ensuring robust Bluetooth performance in environments with significant radio frequency interference (Compl. ¶¶46-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts dependent claim 15, which incorporates independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶109).
• Claim 13 Elements: A communications device comprising:
  • a memory for storing instructions;
  • a processor that, when executing the instructions, causes the selecting of a first set of channels based on performance at a first time, and a second set of channels based on performance at a later time; and
  • a transceiver configured to use the first set for a first period of time and the second set for a second period of time;
  • wherein the memory further includes instructions to cause the selected channel sets to be loaded into registers of the communicating devices.

U.S. Patent No. 7,570,614 - "Approach For Managing The Use Of Communications Channels Based On Performance"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for managing channel selection between a "master" and "slave" participant in a frequency hopping system. The method involves the master selecting a channel, generating identification data for it, providing that data to the slave, and then receiving performance quality data back from the slave regarding a separate communication channel, which is then used to update a channel data set (’614 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶122).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 100 (reciting claim 1) is asserted (Compl. ¶122).
• Accused Features: The accused features are those in the "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" that allegedly practice the claimed master-slave communication and channel performance feedback method (Compl. ¶¶121, 123).

U.S. Patent No. 7,903,608 - "Approach For Managing The Use Of Communications Channels Based On Performance"

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a communications device that performs adaptive frequency hopping, adding the specific limitation that the number of channels in the first selected set varies from the number of channels in the second selected set. This reflects the dynamic nature of an adaptive channel map, where the number of "good" channels can change over time (’608 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶135).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶135).
• Accused Features: The accused features are those in both "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" that allegedly vary the number of channels in their adaptive hopping sequence over time (Compl. ¶¶134, 136).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method involving the use of specific memory structures: a "default channel register" and a "good channel register." If a selection kernel points to a "bad channel" stored in the default register, the system replaces it with a "good channel" selected from the good channel register, ensuring only usable channels are selected for hopping (’643 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶150).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted via dependent claim 5 (Compl. ¶150).
• Accused Features: The accused features are those in both Classic and LE products that allegedly use a register-based replacement scheme for bad channels in a hopping sequence (Compl. ¶¶149, 151).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a device that communicates on a "default hopping sequence," tests channels to select a subset, communicates on an "adapted hopping sequence" using that subset, monitors the subset, and then "reverting back" to the default sequence based on monitoring results or the expiration of a time period (’500 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶165).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 16 is asserted via dependent claim 28 (Compl. ¶165).
• Accused Features: The accused features are those in both Classic and LE products that allegedly switch from a default to an adapted hopping sequence and then revert back based on certain criteria (Compl. ¶¶164, 166).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a device that monitors a plurality of channels, classifies them as "good" and "bad," transmits this classification information to another device, and then communicates using the good channels while avoiding the bad ones (’769 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶180).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶180).
• Accused Features: The accused features are those in both Classic and LE products that allegedly monitor, classify, and share channel status information to create an adaptive hopping sequence (Compl. ¶¶179, 181).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a device configured to send packet data that specifies both a subset of channels to be used and timing information indicating when to begin using that subset. The device then determines whether to use a given channel based on whether it is inside or outside that specified subset at the specified time (’520 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶195).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶195).
• Accused Features: The accused features are those in both Classic and LE products that allegedly send channel map and timing information to coordinate a switch to an adaptive hopping sequence (Compl. ¶¶194, 196).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are integrated circuits ("chips") manufactured and sold by Defendant Realtek that are compliant with Bluetooth standards, including "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" (Version 2.0+EDR or higher) and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" (Version 4.0 or higher) (Compl. ¶¶51-53). Specific exemplars cited include the RTL88xx series (e.g., RTL8822CE) and RTL8763B series chips (Compl. ¶¶61, 63, 75).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused chips provide Bluetooth wireless communication capabilities for consumer electronics. The complaint alleges these chips necessarily implement adaptive frequency hopping (AFH) to comply with the relevant Bluetooth Core Specifications (Compl. ¶¶91, 102). Defendant is alleged to provide these chips as components to manufacturers such as Roku, Asustek, and JLab, for incorporation into widely distributed end-products like the Roku Ultra streaming device, ASUS TUF Gaming Laptop, and JLab GO Air earbuds (Compl. ¶¶23, 25, 27). The complaint includes a screenshot from Realtek's user manual for the RTL8822CE chip, which provides instructions for installation and use (Compl. p. 18). It also includes a screenshot of an FCC Grant of Equipment Authorization for the same chip, authorizing its "operation at approved frequencies and sale within the USA" (Compl. ¶70, p. 19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’418 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	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, in complying with the Bluetooth AFH standard, perform an initial assessment of channel quality to create a first channel map of "good" channels.	¶¶91, 102	col. 6:10-20
selecting, based upon performance of the plurality of communications channels at a second time that is later than the first time and the channel selection criteria, a second set of two or more communications channels...	The accused products periodically re-assess channel quality to update the channel map, selecting a new set of "good" channels to adapt to changing interference conditions.	¶¶91, 102	col. 6:58-65
wherein the communications system is a frequency hopping communications system...	The accused products operate according to the Bluetooth standard, which is a frequency hopping protocol.	¶¶51, 91	col. 2:40-44
wherein at each hop in the hopping sequence, only one communications channel is used for communications between a pair of participants.	The Bluetooth protocol uses one channel per time slot for communication between two connected devices.	¶¶91, 102	col. 33:1-4

’624 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a memory for storing instructions; a processor that is communicatively coupled to the memory...	The accused integrated circuits contain memory and a processor to execute firmware that implements the Bluetooth stack and its functions.	¶¶109, 115	col. 4:32-34
...instructions which, when processed by the processor, causes: selecting, based upon performance...a first set...and...a second set of...communications channels...	The processor executes firmware that implements the Bluetooth AFH standard, which requires assessing channel performance at a first time to create a channel map and later re-assessing to create an updated map.	¶¶109, 115	col. 4:34-40
a transceiver...configured to transmit to and receive...wherein: for a first period of time, the first set...is used...and for a second period of time...the second set...is used...	The accused products' transceivers use the initial channel map for a period of time, and then switch to using the updated channel map for subsequent communications.	¶¶109, 115	col. 4:40-46
...causing the first set of two or more communications channels to be loaded into a first register of the communications device and a second register of the other communications device...	The firmware causes the selected channel map to be loaded into a designated memory location or hardware register on both the local and remote communicating devices to synchronize their hopping sequence.	¶¶109, 115	col. 5:49-65

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the patent term "selecting, based upon performance" can be construed to read on the specific channel classification and selection methods mandated by the Bluetooth Core Specification. The defense may argue the patent's teachings are narrower than the standard's implementation.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused chips' operation literally meets every limitation? For the ’624 Patent, a key question will be whether the memory structures used in the accused products to store the channel map qualify as a "register" as that term is used and defined within the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "selecting, based upon performance"

• Context and Importance: This phrase is the core of the asserted claims across multiple patents. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the methods used by the accused products to evaluate and choose communication channels fall within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely center on the technical equivalence between the general method claimed in the patents and the specific AFH routines implemented in the Bluetooth standard.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests "performance" is a broad concept, listing numerous possible metrics such as "Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI)," "Header Error Check (HEC)," "Packet Loss Ratio (PLR)," and "Bit Error Rate (BER)" (’418 Patent, col. 5:41-46).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific embodiments for determining performance and making a selection, such as using "special test packets" or a "referendum" approach where multiple devices "vote" on channel quality, which could be argued to narrow the scope of the claim (’418 Patent, col. 10:17-32, col. 15:42-53).

• The Term: "register" (’624 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term in claim 13 of the ’624 Patent requires a specific hardware or software structure. Infringement will turn on whether the accused chips use a memory location that legally constitutes a "register" for storing the list of selected channels.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be given its ordinary meaning in the art, which can broadly refer to a location in a computer's memory used for quick access or storage.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification includes Figure 5A, which depicts a "Register With Default Channels" being addressed by a "Selection Kernel." A defendant may argue this context limits the term "register" to a specific type of hardware structure that is directly addressable by a kernel, rather than any general-purpose memory location (’418 Patent, Fig. 5A; ’624 Patent, col. 5:49-65, incorporating by reference).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both inducement and contributory infringement. The inducement allegation is based on Defendant allegedly providing its customers with products, software, firmware, user manuals, and technical support that instruct and encourage the use of the infringing Bluetooth AFH functionality (Compl. ¶¶102, 115). The contributory infringement allegation is based on the assertion that Defendant's chips are a material component of the patented invention, are specially made to infringe, and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶106, 119).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents. It cites a notice letter sent on July 2, 2018, and a subsequent email with detailed claim charts sent on October 10, 2019, after which Defendant allegedly continued its infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶210-213).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can broad patent claim terms such as "selecting, based upon performance" be construed to cover the specific, standardized Adaptive Frequency Hopping (AFH) protocols that Defendant’s chips are designed to implement? The case may turn on whether the patent's disclosures are limited to the particular embodiments described or are broad enough to read on the industry standard.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the hardware and software architecture of the accused Realtek chips literally meet the structural limitations of the device claims, such as the requirement in the ’624 patent for loading channel maps into a "first register" and a "second register of the other communications device"? This will require a granular comparison of the accused product's internal operation against the claim language.
• A central question for damages and willfulness will be one of intent: what evidence demonstrates that Realtek, by providing Bluetooth-compliant chips and associated software and manuals to its customers, possessed the specific intent required to encourage or contribute to the infringing acts of third parties, particularly after receiving notice letters and claim charts from Bandspeed?