DCT

1:22-cv-00833

Bandspeed LLC v. TCL Industries Holdings Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00833, W.D. Tex., 01/27/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) on the basis that the defendants are not residents of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Bluetooth-enabled consumer electronic products, including headphones and sound bars, infringe eight U.S. patents related to adaptive frequency hopping in wireless communications systems.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to adaptive frequency hopping (AFH), a technology used in wireless protocols like Bluetooth to dynamically select and use communication channels to avoid interference in crowded radio frequency bands.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that some or all Defendants were provided notice of the patents-in-suit via a letter dated May 12, 2020. Several of the asserted patents have been subject to post-grant proceedings. U.S. Patent No. 7,027,418, for which infringement of amended claim 5 is asserted, survived an Inter Partes Reexamination with numerous original claims cancelled. U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624, for which infringement of claim 15 is asserted, survived an Inter Partes Review with numerous original claims cancelled. The complaint also notes that the district has presided over prior lawsuits involving one or more of the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-25 Earliest Priority Date for all asserted patents (’418, ’624, ’614, ’608, ’643, ’500, ’769, ’520)
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
2020-05-12 Plaintiff allegedly sent Defendants a Notice Letter regarding the patents
2023-01-27 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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "coexistence problem" that arises when frequency hopping (FH) communication systems (e.g., Bluetooth) and non-frequency hopping (NFH) systems (e.g., Wi-Fi) operate in the same frequency band, which can cause interference, data transmission errors, and reduced performance. (’418 Patent, col. 2:51-3:2, col. 3:17-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for adaptively selecting a set of "good" communication channels based on performance testing. A system periodically re-evaluates channel performance to select a new set of channels, allowing it to adapt to changing interference conditions. (’418 Patent, Abstract). The selection can be based on a "referendum" approach where multiple network participants "vote" on whether to use a given channel. (’418 Patent, col. 16:23-29).
  • Technical Importance: This adaptive selection method allows wireless devices to dynamically avoid channels with poor performance, improving the reliability of communications in crowded, unlicensed frequency bands like the 2.4 GHz ISM band. (Compl. ¶61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least claim 5. (Compl. ¶268).
  • Independent claim 5, as amended by reexamination, is a method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
    • selecting, based upon performance and channel selection criteria, a first set of two or more communications channels at a first time, wherein the criteria specifies that a channel receives a specified number of affirmative votes from a plurality of participants and does not receive a negative vote from a particular participant;
    • selecting, based upon performance and the same criteria, a second set of two or more communications channels at a later time;
    • wherein the system is a frequency hopping system and the channels correspond to frequencies used in a hopping sequence;
    • wherein only one channel is used for communications between a pair of participants at each hop;
    • generating and transmitting first channel identification data for the first set; and
    • generating and transmitting second channel identification data for the second set.
  • The complaint notes that other claims of the ’418 Patent are also infringed. (Compl. ¶269).

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 leads to data errors and degraded performance. (’624 Patent, col. 3:11-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a communications device (an apparatus) with a memory, processor, and transceiver. The device is configured to select a first set of channels at a first time, use them for a first period, and then select a second set of channels at a later time to use for a second period, thereby adapting its channel usage based on performance. (’624 Patent, Abstract). The invention also describes loading the selected channel sets into registers on both the communications device and another device in the network. (’624 Patent, col. 20:1-15, Fig. 5A).
  • Technical Importance: This patent claims the adaptive frequency hopping system as a device architecture, defining a tangible apparatus that implements the performance-based channel management method. (Compl. ¶¶57-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least claim 15, which depends on claim 13. (Compl. ¶286).
  • Independent claim 13 is a communications device comprising a memory, processor, and transceiver, which causes:
    • selecting a first set of two or more channels based on performance at a first time;
    • selecting a second set of two or more channels based on performance at a second, later time;
    • using the first set of channels to transmit and receive for a first period of time; and
    • using the second set of channels instead of the first set for a second period of time.
  • The complaint notes that other claims of the ’624 Patent are also infringed. (Compl. ¶287).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method performed by a device (a "particular participant") for selecting communication channels. It involves selecting a channel based on performance, generating identification data for that channel, and then exchanging performance quality data with another participant ("first participant") to update its own channel data set. (’614 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 100. (Compl. ¶303).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" practice the claimed method. (Compl. ¶302).

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 selects a first set of channels, uses them, then selects a second set of channels. A key feature is that the number of distinct channels in the first set varies from the number of distinct channels in the second set. (’608 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶320).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that both "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" infringe. (Compl. ¶319).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method of loading 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. (’643 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 5. (Compl. ¶339).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that both "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" infringe. (Compl. ¶338).

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 using a default hopping sequence, tests channels, selects a subset of good channels, and then communicates using an adapted hopping sequence over the subset. The device monitors the subset and can revert back to the default sequence based on monitoring results or after a specified time. (’500 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 16 and 28. (Compl. ¶358).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that both "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" infringe. (Compl. ¶357).

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" or "bad," transmits this classification information to another device, and then communicates with that other device over the "good" channels while avoiding the "bad" channels. (’769 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶377).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that both "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" infringe. (Compl. ¶376).

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 specifying a subset of channels to be used and timing information indicating when to begin using that subset. The device then identifies a channel and uses it if it is a "used" channel, or uses a channel from the designated subset if the identified channel is "not used." (’520 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶396).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that both "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" infringe. (Compl. ¶395).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names two categories of accused products: "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products." (Compl. ¶¶65, 137). Exemplary products identified are the TCL MTRO100BT headphones and the TCL Alto 6+ sound bar (model TS611). (Compl. ¶66).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are consumer audio electronics that use Bluetooth wireless technology to stream audio. (Compl. ¶¶124, 130). The complaint alleges these products incorporate specific third-party Bluetooth chips (Realtek RTL8763BF in the MTRO100BT and Actions Technology ATS2819 in the TS611) that implement adaptive frequency hopping. (Compl. ¶¶66, 121, 127). The infringement theory is based on the products' compliance with Bluetooth Core Specifications (Version 2.0+EDR and higher for Classic; Version 4.0 and higher for LE) that include provisions for adaptive frequency hopping. (Compl. ¶¶65, 71, 137, 142). The complaint provides a product leaflet for the MTRO100BT headphones showing they support Bluetooth 5.0. (Compl. p. 24). The complaint alleges these products are sold through major U.S. retailers such as Best Buy and Walmart. (Compl. ¶¶126, 132).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'418 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent 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 alleged to perform adaptive frequency hopping, which involves classifying channels and selecting a subset of channels for communication based on performance. ¶98 col. 4:50-59
wherein the channel selection criteria specifies that for a particular communications channel to be selected, the particular communications channel (a) receives a specified number of affirmative votes...and (b) does not receive a negative vote... The complaint alleges the accused products' operation is compliant with Bluetooth Specification 2.0, which is alleged to practice the patented invention, including the "referendum" approach described in the patent's background. ¶63, ¶65, ¶71 col. 16:23-29
selecting...a second set of two or more communications channels from the plurality of communications channels [at a second, later time] The accused products are alleged to be capable of changing the set of channels on which they communicate during the lifetime of a connection. ¶88 col. 4:1-6
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... The accused products are alleged to operate as frequency hopping devices in the 2.4 GHz ISM frequency band. ¶72, ¶74 col. 4:7-10
generating first channel identification data that identifies the first set...[and] transmitting the first channel identification data... The accused products are alleged to send and receive data packets that include an AFH_Channel_Map parameter, which identifies the set of channels to be used. ¶94 col. 8:1-14

'624 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) 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 that is communicatively coupled to the memory... The accused products are consumer electronics containing Bluetooth chips, which include processors and memory to implement the Bluetooth protocols. ¶66, ¶121, ¶127 col. 19:24-30
selecting, based upon performance of a plurality of communications channels at a first time, a first set of two or more communications channels... The accused products are alleged to classify channels in the available frequency band and select a subset of channels for communication. ¶98 col. 4:56-59
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 be capable of changing the set of channels they use for communication during the lifetime of a piconet connection. ¶88 col. 4:1-6
a transceiver that is communicatively coupled to the memory and that is configured to transmit to and receive... The accused products contain Bluetooth chips with transceivers for wireless communication. ¶78, ¶80, ¶82 col. 19:24-30
for a first period of time, the first set...is used to transmit to and receive...and for a second period of time...the second set...is used...instead of the first set... The accused products allegedly use a first set of channels and then change to a second set of channels during a connection's lifetime to adapt to interference. An instructional diagram for the TCL MTRO100BT headphones shows the device being paired and used for communication. (Compl. p. 25). ¶88 col. 4:1-6; col. 20:56-61
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 use one or more registers or functionally equivalent data structures to store representations of frequency channels. ¶102 col. 20:1-15

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether compliance with a technical standard, such as the Bluetooth Core Specification, necessarily constitutes infringement of these specific patent claims. The complaint's theory relies heavily on this premise (Compl. ¶65), but the court will need to determine if the standard's requirements map directly onto every limitation of the asserted claims.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’418 Patent, a key question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products implement the specific two-part "voting" mechanism recited in claim 5 ("receives a specified number of affirmative votes...and does not receive a negative vote"). The complaint describes a "referendum" approach from the patent's specification (Compl. ¶63) but does not detail how the accused products' operation, as dictated by the Bluetooth standard, meets this specific claimed functionality.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’624 Patent, the infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused products perform the claimed step of "causing the first set of...channels to be loaded into a first register of the communications device and a second register of the other communications device." While the complaint makes general allegations about using registers (Compl. ¶102), it raises the evidentiary question of whether the accused products perform this specific, coordinated, two-device loading action.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "receives a specified number of affirmative votes ... and does not receive a negative vote" (’418 Patent, claim 5)

  • Context and Importance: This "voting" language appears to be a very specific form of channel selection criteria. The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether the channel classification and selection mechanisms within the Bluetooth standard, which the accused products allegedly practice, fall within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears more specific than a generic "selection based on performance" and could be a key point of non-infringement for the defense.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes channel selection being based on "one or more performance criteria, and one or more selection criteria." (’418 Patent, col. 6:11-14). This could suggest that the "voting" language is just one example of a broader concept of applying criteria.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed embodiment of a "referendum' approach," including a table showing how votes from a master and multiple slaves are tallied against a "Passing Mark" to determine if a channel is "Good." (’418 Patent, col. 16:23-53, Table 2). This specific embodiment could be used to argue that the claim term requires a formal, multi-participant voting and tallying process.

  • The Term: "loading...into a first register of the communications device and a second register of the other communications device" (’624 Patent, claim 13)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation requires a specific action—loading channel data—into registers on two separate devices involved in the communication. The infringement case for this claim depends on showing not just that channel sets are selected, but that they are stored in this particular, coordinated manner.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "loading" is not explicitly defined and could be argued to encompass any act of storing or updating data in a memory location designated as a register.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 5A of the patent depicts a specific architecture where a "selection kernel" addresses distinct registers for "default channels" and "good channels," and a "Table of Good Channels" is used as the source for the "loading" action. (’624 Patent, Fig. 5A). This detailed figure could support an argument that "loading" requires this specific architectural interaction and is not merely any form of data storage.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement on the basis that TCL provides user manuals, product leaflets, and other instructional materials that direct and encourage customers to activate and use the infringing Bluetooth functionality. (Compl. ¶¶114, 120, 125, 271-272). An image from the TCL MTRO100BT Quick Start Guide is provided as evidence of these instructions. (Compl. p. 25). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, stating that the infringing functionality is a material part of the invention and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶282, 299).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that TCL had knowledge of the patents at least as of a notice letter sent on May 12, 2020, and further had knowledge upon service of the original complaint in this action. (Compl. ¶¶414-415, 275).

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

  • A core issue will be one of Standard vs. Claim Scope: Can practicing a feature defined in an industry standard (Bluetooth's Adaptive Frequency Hopping) be sufficient to infringe these specific patent claims, or do the claims contain limitations, such as the detailed "voting" mechanism in the ’418 patent, that require functionality beyond what the standard mandates?
  • A second central question will be one of Functional Specificity: What level of evidentiary detail will be required to prove that the accused products' internal operations—as implemented in their specific chipsets—perform the precise steps recited in the claims, such as the coordinated, dual-device register "loading" of the ’624 patent, as opposed to merely achieving a similar outcome through a different technical implementation?