DCT

1:20-cv-01222

Bandspeed LLC v. Intel Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01222, W.D. Tex., 12/15/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains corporate offices in Austin, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless communication products incorporating Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth Low Energy functionalities infringe a portfolio of ten patents related to adaptive frequency hopping (AFH) techniques.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is adaptive frequency hopping, a method used by wireless systems like Bluetooth to avoid interference by dynamically selecting and deselecting communication channels in crowded radio-frequency bands, such as the 2.4 GHz spectrum where Wi-Fi also operates.
  • Key Procedural History: Several of the asserted patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,027,418, 7,477,624, 7,570,614, 8,542,643, and 8,873,500, have been the subject of post-grant proceedings including ex parte reexaminations and inter partes reviews, which may have resulted in amendment or cancellation of certain claims and could influence claim construction.

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
2014-01-01 Alleged earliest date of Defendant's pre-suit knowledge
2014-10-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,873,500 Issues
2016-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,379,769 Issues
2018-01-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,883,520 Issues
2020-03-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,602,528 Issues
2020-09-29 U.S. Patent No. 10,791,565 Issues
2020-12-15 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"

  • 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 describes the "coexistence problem" that arises when frequency hopping (FH) communication systems, such as Bluetooth, operate in the same frequency band as non-frequency hopping (NFH) systems, like IEEE 802.11b Wi-Fi (Compl. ¶23; ’418 Patent, col. 4:44-54). This shared spectrum use leads to interference, resulting in data transmission errors, reduced performance, and the need to retransmit data (’418 Patent, col. 4:11-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method of "adaptive frequency hopping" where a communications system dynamically selects a set of channels based on their measured performance (’418 Patent, col. 4:40-43). The system periodically re-evaluates channel performance and selects new sets of channels to adapt to changing interference conditions, thereby avoiding channels with poor performance (’418 Patent, col. 5:1-13).
  • Technical Importance: This adaptive approach allows short-range wireless protocols to coexist more effectively with other powerful wireless systems in crowded, unlicensed frequency bands.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent claim 5, which incorporates independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶221).
  • Independent Claim 1 (as quoted in the complaint) requires a method comprising the steps 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 from the plurality of communications channels;
    • 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 from the plurality of communications channels;
    • wherein the communications system is a frequency hopping communications system and the plurality of communications channels correspond to a set of frequencies to be used based on a hopping sequence according to a frequency hopping protocol; and
    • wherein at each hop in the hopping sequence, only one communications channel is used for communications between a pair of participants.
  • Dependent Claim 5 further adds the steps of:
    • generating first channel identification data that identifies the first set of two or more communications channels;
    • transmitting the first channel identification data to one or more participants;
    • generating second channel identification data that identifies the second set of two or more communications channels; and
    • transmitting the second channel identification data to one or more participants.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’418 patent (Compl. ¶223).

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: Like the ’418 Patent, this patent addresses interference in frequency hopping systems that share a frequency band with other wireless technologies (’624 Patent, col. 2:42-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a specific communications device architecture for implementing adaptive frequency hopping. The device comprises a processor that selects sets of channels based on performance at different times and a transceiver for communicating over those selected sets (’624 Patent, Abstract). The invention also discloses loading the selected channel sets into registers on both communicating devices and a "referendum" approach where multiple network participants "vote" on which channels are "good" or "bad" (’624 Patent, col. 16:47-17:7).
  • Technical Importance: This patent provides a device-level implementation for the adaptive frequency hopping concept, including a mechanism for coordinating the selected channel map between devices in a network.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent claim 15, which incorporates independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶239).

  • Independent Claim 13 (as quoted in the complaint) requires a communications device comprising:

    • A memory storing instructions;
    • A processor that executes instructions to cause the selecting of a first set of channels at a first time and a second set of channels at a later second time, based on performance;
    • A transceiver configured to use the first set for a first time period and the second set for a second time period; and
    • Memory instructions that cause the first and second sets of channels to be loaded into registers on both the communications device and another device.

  • Dependent Claim 15 further specifies that:

    • The selection of channel sets is based on channel selection criteria; and
    • The channel selection criteria specifies that a channel must receive a specified number of votes to be selected.

  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’624 patent (Compl. ¶241).
    The following patents are analyzed in capsule format as they are asserted subsequent to the two lead patents.

  • 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 details a method for selecting communication channels in a master-slave system. The method involves a master selecting a channel based on performance, providing identification data to a slave specifying that the channel is not to be used, and then exchanging performance quality data to update a channel data set (Compl. ¶257; ’614 Patent, Abstract).

  • Asserted Claims: Claim 100 (dependent on claim 1) is asserted (Compl. ¶257).

  • Accused Features: The accused features are the adaptive frequency hopping capabilities of both Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth LE products (Compl. ¶256).

  • 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 describes a communications device that selects a first set of channels and later a second set of channels, with the specific limitation that the number of distinct channels in the first set varies from the number in the second set. This allows the device to adapt the size of its channel map over time based on performance (Compl. ¶274; ’608 Patent, Abstract).

  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶274).

  • Accused Features: The accused features are the adaptive frequency hopping capabilities of both Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth LE products (Compl. ¶273).

  • 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 claims a method of managing channels by loading a set of default channels and a set of good channels into separate registers. When a selection kernel addresses a bad channel in the default register, that bad channel is replaced by a good channel selected from the good channel register (Compl. ¶294; ’643 Patent, Abstract).

  • Asserted Claims: Claim 5 (dependent on claim 1) is asserted (Compl. ¶294).

  • Accused Features: The adaptive frequency hopping and register functionalities of both Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth LE products are accused (Compl. ¶¶80-81, 293).

  • 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 describes a device that first communicates using a default hopping sequence, then tests channels to select a subset for an adapted hopping sequence, monitors the performance of that subset, and eventually reverts to the default sequence based on monitoring results or time expiration (Compl. ¶314; ’500 Patent, Abstract).

  • Asserted Claims: Claim 28 (dependent on claim 16) is asserted (Compl. ¶314).

  • Accused Features: The adaptive frequency hopping capabilities of both Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth LE products are accused (Compl. ¶313).

  • 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 claims a device that monitors channels, classifies them as good or bad, transmits this classification information to another device, and then communicates using only the good channels while actively avoiding the bad channels (Compl. ¶334; ’769 Patent, Abstract).

  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶334).

  • Accused Features: The channel classification and adaptive frequency hopping features of both Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth LE products are accused (Compl. ¶333).

  • 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 describes a device configured to send packet data specifying a subset of channels and timing information for when to begin using that subset. The device then identifies a channel from the overall set and uses either that channel (if it is marked as "used") or a channel from the specified subset (if the identified channel is marked as "not used") (Compl. ¶354; ’520 Patent, Abstract).

  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶354).

  • Accused Features: The channel mapping, timing, and selection mechanisms of both Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth LE products are accused (Compl. ¶353).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,602,528, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued March 24, 2020.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a device that manages power levels by determining and using successive "instances" of a channel subset. It assesses channel performance to exclude poorly performing channels from each instance, sends packet data defining the current instance, uses it, and then causes a next instance to be determined and communicated (’528 Patent, Abstract).

  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶374).

  • Accused Features: The power control and adaptive frequency hopping capabilities of both Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth LE products are accused (Compl. ¶¶45-48, 373).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,791,565, "Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance," issued September 29, 2020.

  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’528 Patent, this patent describes a device that manages power levels by determining a subset of channels available for use, excluding those that fall outside a target performance threshold, sending packet data defining this subset, and then using a channel from that subset (’565 Patent, Abstract).

  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶394).

  • Accused Features: The power control and adaptive frequency hopping capabilities of both Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth LE products are accused (Compl. ¶¶45-48, 393).

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. ¶¶30, 105). The Intel Wireless-AC 9560 companion RF module is identified as an exemplary product for both categories (Compl. ¶¶31, 106).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are alleged to be integrated circuits or RF modules that implement Bluetooth wireless communication protocols, specifically Bluetooth Core Specification Version 2.0+EDR or higher for Bluetooth Classic and Version 4.0 or higher for Bluetooth LE (Compl. ¶¶30, 105, 108). The core technical functionality accused of infringement is Adaptive Frequency Hopping (AFH) (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges that these products are capable of operating in the 2.4 GHz ISM band, participating in Bluetooth piconets, and dynamically changing the set of communication channels used during a connection lifetime (Compl. ¶¶52, 54, 66). Marketing materials from Intel's website, included in the complaint, describe the exemplary Intel Wireless-AC 9560 as providing "Bluetooth® 5.1" and improving the "connected experience at home, work, or on the go" (Compl. p. 17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

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... at a first time... a first set of two or more communications channels... The accused products are alleged to be capable of performing adaptive frequency hopping and changing the set of channels on which they communicate during the lifetime of a connection. ¶¶50, 66 col. 5:1-13
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 alleged to change the set of channels during a connection's lifetime, implying a selection at a later time based on performance criteria inherent in the AFH protocol. ¶66 col. 5:1-13
wherein the communications system is a frequency hopping communications system... The accused products are alleged to be compliant with the Bluetooth Core Specification, which is a frequency hopping protocol. ¶¶30, 36 col. 3:3-7
[Claim 5] generating first channel identification data that identifies the first set of two or more communications channels; The accused products are alleged to be capable of sending and receiving data packets that include the AFH_Channel_Map parameter, which identifies the set of channels to be used. ¶¶72-73 col. 4:55-61
[Claim 5] transmitting the first channel identification data to one or more participants... The accused products are alleged to be capable of sending and receiving the LMP_set_AFH PDU, a packet data unit defined in the Bluetooth specification for transmitting the channel map. ¶¶68-69 col. 4:55-61

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 for use in a network of devices, comprising: a memory for storing instructions; a processor...; a transceiver... The accused products are integrated circuits and RF modules which inherently contain processors, memory, and transceivers to perform their wireless communication functions. ¶¶105, 106 col. 9:18-28
[processor causes] selecting, based upon performance... a first set of two or more communications channels... and selecting... a second set... The accused products are alleged to be capable of performing adaptive frequency hopping, which necessarily involves selecting different sets of channels over time based on performance. ¶¶50, 66 col. 10:24-34
[memory instructions cause] 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 alleged to be capable of using one or more registers or functionally equivalent data structures to store representations of frequency channels. ¶¶80-81 col. 9:43-52
[Claim 15] the channel selection criteria specifies that for a particular communications channel to be selected, the particular communications channel receives a specified number of votes to use the particular communications channel from among a plurality of votes. The complaint alleges that the accused products meet this limitation without providing specific facts regarding a voting mechanism. The patent specification describes this as a "referendum" approach. ¶240 col. 16:65-17:7
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint heavily relies on the accused products' compliance with the Bluetooth Core Specification to support its infringement allegations (e.g., Compl. ¶¶36, 39, 41). A central issue may be whether mere compliance with a standard, or the latent capability to perform a function, is sufficient to prove that the accused devices actually perform the specific, multi-step methods recited in the claims during normal operation.
    • Scope Questions: The term "receives a specified number of votes" in claim 15 of the ’624 Patent presents a significant potential dispute. The infringement analysis will question whether the channel mapping and update protocols used in the Bluetooth standard can be construed as a "voting" mechanism, or if the claim requires a more literal "referendum" process as described in the patent's detailed description (’624 Patent, col. 16:47-17:7). The complaint provides no specific factual allegations on how the accused product meets this "votes" limitation (Compl. ¶240).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "selecting, based upon performance" (’418 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the adaptive aspect of the invention. Its construction will determine the type and extent of channel analysis required to infringe. A broad construction may cover any channel selection scheme that considers channel quality, while a narrow construction could require the specific testing and classification steps detailed in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegations are tied to the general AFH functions of the Bluetooth standard, and the scope of this term will determine if those standard functions meet the patented method.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, referring simply to "performance" without specifying a metric. The summary of the invention also refers generally to selecting channels "based on channel performance" (’418 Patent, col. 4:41-42).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples of performance testing, such as measuring bit error rate (BER), using special test packets, and classifying channels as "good" or "bad" against a threshold (’418 Patent, col. 5:21-39). An argument could be made that "performance" should be limited to these disclosed objective measurement and classification schemes.

  • The Term: "receives a specified number of votes" (’624 Patent, claim 15)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation appears in only one of the lead asserted patents but is highly specific. Its definition is critical because the complaint provides no factual support for a "voting" process in the accused devices. The dispute will likely center on whether standard Bluetooth channel-update protocols can be metaphorically considered "votes" or if the term requires a specific, explicit polling mechanism.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not offer any basis for a broad interpretation. An argument for a broader reading would need to be developed outside the provided documents, perhaps arguing that any consensus mechanism between devices constitutes a form of voting.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes this concept as a "referendum" approach where each "participant has one 'vote' on whether to use the channel or not" and a "passing mark" (a certain number of votes) is required for a channel to be judged "good" (’624 Patent, col. 16:65-17:7). This language strongly supports a narrow construction requiring an explicit polling or consensus-gathering step among multiple devices.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is alleged based on Defendant providing products with infringing functionality and instructing customers on how to use them through user manuals, product briefs, and advertising, with the knowledge and intent that such use will cause infringement (Compl. ¶¶97-101, 226-231). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the AFH component of the accused products is a material part of the invention, is not a staple article of commerce, and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶102, 233-235).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not explicitly pleaded as a separate count, but the factual predicate is laid. The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of certain patents-in-suit since "as early as 2014" and, alternatively, has had knowledge of all asserted patents since at least the date of service of the complaint (Compl. ¶19).

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: does Intel's implementation of the Bluetooth standard's generic Adaptive Frequency Hopping features, as alleged in the complaint, inherently practice the specific, multi-step methods of testing, selecting, transmitting, and updating channel sets as claimed by the patents, or will the evidence reveal a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
  • The dispute may also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the term "receives a specified number of votes" from the ’624 Patent, which is described in the specification as a "referendum," be construed broadly to cover the standardized channel map update protocols in Bluetooth, or is it limited to a more literal polling mechanism for which the complaint offers no factual support?