DCT
1:22-cv-00971
Stormborn Tech LLC v. Raven Industries Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Raven Industries, Inc. (South Dakota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
- Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00971, W.D. Tex., 09/26/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Slingshot® Field Hub, a wireless communication device for agriculture, infringes a patent related to dynamically adjusting data rates in spread-spectrum communication systems based on receiver-side error-rate feedback.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns adaptive data rate control in wireless networks, a function for maintaining reliable communication in variable signal conditions, such as those found in mobile or agricultural environments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in prior litigation involving the same patent (Stormborn Technologies, LLC v. TopCon Positioning Systems, Inc.), a court held that representative Claim 11 was not directed to an abstract idea and described a specific technological solution, a finding that may be relevant to future patent eligibility challenges.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-06-14 | ’199 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-05-07 | ’199 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-03-17 | Prior Litigation Ruling on Patent Eligibility for Claim 11 |
| 2022-09-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,199 - "Variable throughput reduction communications system and method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,199, "Variable throughput reduction communications system and method," issued May 7, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In spread-spectrum wireless systems, a mobile receiver near the edge of a cell can experience significant interference from adjacent cells, which degrades the signal and increases the error rate (’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Conventional methods to overcome this, such as increasing the system’s processing gain, would undesirably reduce the data rate and could require changing the physical architecture of the receiver (’199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a closed-loop feedback system that allows a communications network to adapt to changing signal conditions without altering its hardware architecture. A receiver measures the error rate of the data it receives (specifically, from a forward-error-correction decoder "syndrome" signal) and, based on that measurement, generates and transmits a "data-rate control signal" back to the original transmitter (’199 Patent, col. 8:5-14). The transmitter then adjusts the data rate—for instance, by sending redundant data across multiple subchannels to increase signal power—to maintain a target quality of service (’199 Patent, col. 5:4-19; Fig. 5).
- Technical Importance: This approach enables a system to dynamically trade data throughput for reliability, improving overall performance and robustness in environments with fluctuating interference levels (’199 Patent, col. 8:5-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 11 and 13, and dependent claim 14 (Compl. ¶56).
- Independent Claim 11 (a receiver): The key elements include:
- demodulator circuitry for detecting signals.
- decoder circuitry for FEC decoding, which provides decoded channels each having an error rate.
- command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels for generating a data-rate control signal to be sent back to the transmitter.
- transmitting circuitry for conveying the control signal.
- multiplexer circuitry for combining the decoded channels.
- Independent Claim 13 (a method): The key steps include:
- detecting transmitted signals.
- FEC decoding and de-interleaving the signals to provide decoded channels with an error rate.
- using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate to generate a data-rate control signal.
- transmitting the control signal back to the transmitter.
- multiplexing the decoded channels into a single stream.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶75).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Raven Slingshot® Field Hub" (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶57).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a system that "practice[s] a method for recovering wireless data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality of different sub-channel signals transmitted over a wireless channel" (Compl. ¶57).
- The allegations describe a system that receives wireless signals, decodes them, determines an error rate, and uses that information to generate and transmit a control signal back to a transmitter to manage the data rate (Compl. ¶¶59-62). The complaint does not provide further detail on the product's market position but implies its use in agricultural settings where robust wireless communication is necessary.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint alleges infringement of method claim 13 and its dependent claim 14, providing a narrative infringement theory that is summarized below. (Compl. ¶¶57-64).
’199 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for recovering wireless data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality of different subchannel signals transmitted over a wireless channel, comprising the steps of: | The Accused Product is alleged to practice a method for recovering wireless data conveyed by sub-channel signals. | ¶58 | col. 4:51-54 |
| detecting the transmitted signals in a plurality of demodulated channels; | The system utilized by the Accused Product allegedly practices detecting transmitted signals in multiple demodulated channels. | ¶59 | col. 4:51-54 |
| FEC decoding and de-interleaving the plurality of demodulated channels, providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate; | The Accused Product allegedly performs FEC decoding and de-interleaving, resulting in multiple decoded channels that have an associated error rate. | ¶60 | col. 4:58-61 |
| using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels to generate a data-rate control signal to produce a desired data rate to be sent by the data symbol transmitter of the signals, | The Accused Product allegedly uses command processor circuitry that responds to the channel error rate to generate a control signal for adjusting the transmitter's data rate. | ¶61 | col. 4:61-65 |
| transmitting the error rate dependent data-rate control signal back to the data symbol transmitter; and | The Accused Product allegedly transmits this error-rate dependent control signal back to the data symbol transmitter. | ¶62 | col. 8:28-31 |
| multiplexing the multiplicity of decoded channels into a single stream of received data. | The Accused Product allegedly multiplexes the resulting decoded channels into a single data stream. | ¶63 | col. 3:3-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether the Accused Product’s feedback mechanism operates as alleged. Specifically, what evidence demonstrates that its "command processor circuitry" generates a "data-rate control signal" that is "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels"? The court may need to determine if the system relies on a different metric, such as general signal-to-noise ratio or pilot signal quality, which the patent owner might argue is distinct from the claimed method.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may raise the question of whether the "plurality of different sub-channel signals" allegedly used by the Accused Product (Compl. ¶57) corresponds to the parallel, quasi-orthogonal channel structure described in the patent (’199 Patent, col. 1:37-41).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels"
Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation of the asserted independent claims. The entire infringement case hinges on whether the Accused Product's control system operates "in response to" the "error rate" as claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a variety of feedback mechanisms fall within the scope of the claims.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "responsive to" is broad and could be argued to cover any system where a measured error rate is an input that ultimately causes a change in the generated control signal. The specification describes the function generally as determining "a desired-data rate" based on the error rate (’199 Patent, col. 4:61-63).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the "error rate" to a "syndrome signal" generated by a "forward-error-correction (FEC) decoder" (’199 Patent, col. 4:58-62; col. 8:10-14). A party could argue this contextually limits the term to require that the error rate be specifically derived from the FEC decoding process, rather than from a more general signal quality metric.
The Term: "data-rate control signal"
Context and Importance: The nature of the signal generated by the Accused Product must meet the definition of this term. Whether the signal's function and form align with the patent's teachings will be critical for infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the signal functionally: it must "produce a desired data rate to be sent by the data symbol transmitter" (’199 Patent, col. 14:35-37). This could encompass any signal that results in a change to the transmitter's effective data throughput.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of how the data rate is controlled, such as instructing a demultiplexer to create redundant data streams to increase power (’199 Patent, col. 5:4-19) or changing the FEC encoding rate (a feature of dependent claim 17). A defendant could argue that the term should be limited to these disclosed mechanisms.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement "by encouraging infringement" and contributory infringement by selling a product that is "not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶¶70-71). These allegations are made "upon information and belief" without specific factual support, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶68). This allegation primarily supports a claim for post-suit willfulness, as the complaint does not allege any facts to suggest Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’199 Patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the Raven Slingshot® Field Hub’s feedback mechanism is technically "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels"? The case will likely depend on evidence showing not just that the accused system adapts to poor signal quality, but that it does so by specifically calculating and reacting to a post-decoding error rate, as opposed to a pre-decoding metric like signal strength.
- The case will also turn on a question of claim scope: How broadly will the court construe the phrase "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate"? The outcome may depend on whether this term is interpreted to require a direct link to an FEC decoder’s syndrome signal, as detailed in the patent’s embodiments, or if it can be read more broadly to cover any control system that uses a measure of error to adjust data rates.