DCT
1:22-cv-00861
XR Communications LLC v. Dell Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: XR Communications, LLC, dba Vivato Technologies (Delaware)
- Defendant: Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-646, W.D. Tex., 06/22/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendants maintain a permanent and continuous presence, including regular and established places of business, within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s laptops, desktops, and other electronic devices that support MIMO and MU-MIMO wireless technologies infringe a patent related to directed wireless communication and beamforming.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for improving wireless network performance by using multi-element antenna arrays to create and manage directed communication beams, a foundational concept in modern Wi-Fi standards.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-11-04 | U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235 Priority Date |
| 2020-07-14 | U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235 Issues |
| 2021-06-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235 - "Directed Wireless Communication"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235, "Directed Wireless Communication", issued July 14, 2020. (Compl. ¶1).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of conventional omni-directional wireless networks, such as limited communication range, susceptibility to multipath interference, and inefficient use of the radio spectrum. ('235 Patent, col. 1:41-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "multi-beam directed signal system" that uses a phased antenna array to form directed communication beams. ('235 Patent, col. 3:45-51). The system improves communication by receiving signals simultaneously on multiple antenna elements, analyzing the characteristics of those received signals, and then using that information to determine a "set of weighting values." These values are then used to construct and transmit optimized, beam-formed signals back to a remote station, thereby increasing range and reducing interference. ('235 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This directed approach provides improved performance over conventional systems by enabling simultaneous communication with multiple users, extending range, and mitigating interference. ('235 Patent, col. 3:38-45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 8 and dependent claim 12. (Compl. ¶¶24, 33).
- The essential elements of independent claim 8 are:
- Receiving a first and second signal transmission from a remote station via first and second antenna elements simultaneously, where the signals comprise one or more transmission peaks and nulls.
- Determining first signal information for the first signal transmission.
- Determining second signal information for the second signal transmission, which is different from the first.
- Determining a set of weighting values based on the first and second signal information, where the weights are configured for use by the remote station to construct beam-formed signals.
- Transmitting to the remote station a third signal comprising content based on the set of weighting values.
- The complaint notes that numerous other claims are infringed and reserves the right to assert them. (Compl. ¶25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names a broad range of Dell products capable of supporting MIMO (Multiple-Input, Multiple-Output) and/or MU-MIMO (Multi-User MIMO) technologies, including the XPS, Latitude, Inspiron, and Alienware product lines. (Compl. ¶24). The Dell XPS 13 Laptop is identified as an exemplary accused product. (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused functionality resides in the products' implementation of the IEEE 802.11ac and 802.11ax Wi-Fi standards. (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges that these products, such as the Dell XPS 13 with "Killer™ Wi-Fi 6 AX1650" technology, perform a "sounding" protocol. (Compl. ¶26). This protocol involves the accused device (as a "beamformee") receiving training signals from an access point, measuring the wireless channel, calculating a "beamforming feedback matrix" based on those measurements, and transmitting this information back to the access point to enable the creation of steered, beam-formed signals. (Compl. ¶¶26-28).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
10,715,235 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a first signal transmission from a remote station via a first antenna element... and a second signal transmission... via a second antenna element... simultaneously, wherein the first signal transmission and the second signal transmission comprise electromagnetic signals comprising one or more transmission peaks and one or more transmission nulls; | The Dell XPS 13 Laptop, with its (2x2) antenna configuration, receives simultaneous signal transmissions from a remote station (e.g., a Wi-Fi Access Point) during MU-MIMO sounding procedures. These are described as electromagnetic signals with peaks and nulls. | ¶26 | col. 4:20-29; col. 6:1-12 |
| determining first signal information for the first signal transmission; and determining second signal information for the second signal transmission, wherein the second signal information is different than the first signal information; | The Dell XPS 13 Laptop determines different information for each signal by using the training fields of a null data packet to perform channel estimation, a procedure detailed in the IEEE 802.11ax standard. | ¶27 | col. 4:20-29 |
| determining a set of weighting values based on the first signal information and the second signal information, wherein the set of weighting values is configured to be used by the remote station to construct one or more beam-formed transmission signals; | Based on the channel estimation, the Dell XPS 13 Laptop determines the parameters of a "beamforming feedback matrix," which the complaint equates to the claimed "set of weighting values." | ¶28 | col. 4:31-37 |
| and transmitting to the remote station a third signal comprising content based on the set of weighting values. | The Dell XPS 13 Laptop transmits a signal, such as an "HE compressed beamforming/CQI report," back to the remote station (the Wi-Fi Access Point). This report is alleged to contain the determined beamforming feedback matrix. | ¶28 | col. 4:31-37 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The patent has a 2002 priority date, predating the accused 802.11ac/ax standards. A central dispute may be whether the term "set of weighting values," as described in the patent, can be construed to read on the specific "beamforming feedback matrix" and "channel state information" protocols defined in these later standards.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory is centered on the actions of the client device (e.g., Dell laptop) as the "beamformee." A question may arise as to whether the patent's core inventive concept is directed to the client device's feedback mechanism or to the access point's (the "beamformer's") subsequent use of that feedback to generate beams, an action not performed by the accused products themselves.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "set of weighting values"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the "beamforming feedback matrix" transmitted by the accused Dell products under the 802.11ax standard is found to be a "set of weighting values" as understood in the context of the '235 Patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract provides a broad, functional definition: values "configured to construct one or more beam-formed transmission signals." ( '235 Patent, Abstract). This functional language may support an argument that any data used for this purpose, including the standard-compliant feedback matrix, falls within the claim's scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as a "Weighting Matrix 1210" (Fig. 12) and mathematical representations like a polynomial expansion ("w(z)"), that could be argued to limit the term to a more specific set of coefficients or a particular method of calculation not necessarily present in the accused 802.11 feedback protocols. ('235 Patent, col. 24:55-63).
The Term: "remote station"
Context and Importance: The claim requires the accused device to both "receive" from and "transmit" to the "remote station." In the complaint's theory, the remote station is the Wi-Fi access point. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification consistently frames the "access station" as distinct from the "remote client devices." ('235 Patent, col. 4:9-11).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, and in a generic wireless network, any node could be considered "remote" relative to another. The plaintiff's use of the term is internally consistent within the structure of claim 8.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the consistent distinction in the specification between the "access station" and "remote client devices" implies that "remote station" was intended to mean only the end-user client device. This could render the claim nonsensical under the plaintiff's infringement theory, as the client device would be required to transmit feedback to itself.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendant’s user manuals and online instructions encourage customers to use the accused MU-MIMO functionalities, and that Defendant does so with knowledge and intent. (Compl. ¶30). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the accused products are especially adapted for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce. (Compl. ¶31).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the '235 Patent acquired "Through at least the filing and service of this Complaint," positioning the claim for potential post-suit enhanced damages. (Compl. ¶¶29-30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and temporal scope: Can the term "set of weighting values", originating from a 2002-priority patent, be interpreted to cover the specific "beamforming feedback matrix" protocols that were standardized years later in the IEEE 802.11ac/ax specifications?
- A key infringement question will concern the locus of the invention: Does the asserted method claim, which focuses on the client device's role in generating feedback, capture the inventive heart of the patent, or does the specification teach that the primary innovation lies with the access point's use of that feedback to generate beams—an action not performed by the accused Dell products?