DCT

1:22-cv-01162

TurboCode LLC v. Zyxel Communications Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01162, W.D. Tex., 04/26/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation, for which venue is appropriate in any U.S. judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunications routers, which are capable of operating on 3G and 4G/LTE networks, infringe a patent related to high-speed, low-power architectures for Turbo Code decoders.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves error correction coding, specifically Turbo Codes, which is a fundamental component for ensuring reliable high-speed data transmission in modern cellular communications systems.
  • Key Procedural History: This filing is a First Amended Complaint. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,813,742, was the subject of an ex parte reexamination that confirmed the patentability of the asserted claims in an amended form, narrowing their scope. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with formal notice of infringement on October 18, 2021, prior to the filing of the original complaint. Plaintiff also notes that its enforcement of the patent-in-suit against other parties is ongoing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-05-26 '742 Patent Priority Date
2004-11-02 '742 Patent Issue Date
2016-01-01 Alleged infringement period begins (approximate)
2020-04-24 FCC Test Report submitted for Accused Product
2020-05-11 FCC Test Report submitted for Accused Product
2021-10-18 Plaintiff provides formal notice of infringement to Defendant
2023-04-26 First Amended Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,813,742 - "High speed turbo codes decoder for 3G using pipelined SISO log-map decoders architecture"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,813,742, "High speed turbo codes decoder for 3G using pipelined SISO log-map decoders architecture," issued November 2, 2004.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge that prior art Turbo Code decoders, while powerful for error correction, were too complex, slow, and power-intensive for practical implementation in mass-market consumer wireless devices like 3G mobile phones (’742 Patent, col. 2:12-24). The mathematical complexity of existing algorithms, such as the MAP algorithm, required significant processing power and costly semiconductor circuits, making them "not feasible, economical, and practical for consumers" (col. 2:15-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a hardware architecture for a Turbo Code decoder designed for improved efficiency. The solution utilizes two serially connected Soft-In/Soft-Out (SISO) decoders that operate in a "pipelined scheme" (’742 Patent, col. 2:40-44). By implementing the decoding process in the logarithmic domain ("Log-MAP"), the architecture replaces computationally intensive multiplications with simpler additions, reducing hardware complexity (’742 Patent, col. 3:4-7). The pipelined design, shown in Figure 4, allows for iterative decoding where data is passed back and forth between the two decoders to refine the result, while also enabling a high data throughput of one decoded output per clock cycle (col. 2:58-60; col. 4:5-26).
  • Technical Importance: This architectural approach was aimed at making the superior error-correction performance of Turbo Codes practical for the high-volume, power-sensitive, and cost-constrained 3G cellular device market (’742 Patent, col. 2:32-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 6, as amended by the Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate US 6,813,742 C1.
  • The essential elements of amended claim 6 are:
    • A method for iteratively decoding received baseband signals.
    • Providing an input buffer with at least three shift registers to generate first, second, and third shifted input signals.
    • Providing first and second soft decision decoders coupled in a circular circuit, with specific routing of the shifted input signals to each decoder.
    • Providing at least one memory module for each decoder.
    • A specific feedback loop where the output of the memory associated with the second decoder is fed back as an input to the first decoder.
    • Processing systematic and extrinsic information data using a MAP or log-approximation algorithm.
    • Generating, weighting, and storing soft decision information.
    • Performing iterative decoding for a predetermined number of times between the first and second decoders.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶36).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies a line of "Exemplary Accused Products," which includes various Zyxel 4G LTE routers such as the LTE5388-S905, LTE7485-S905, LTE7461-M602, and LTE5388-M804 (’Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are alleged to be telecommunications devices that provide internet connectivity over 3G and/or 4G/LTE cellular networks (’Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges these products are designed to comply with the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”) standards that govern such communications (’Compl. ¶¶11, 16). The complaint includes a screenshot from a product datasheet for the LTE5388-S905, which states the device is "Standard-compliant: 3GPP UE Category 16" (Compl. ¶17). Another included screenshot for the LTE5388-M804 states it is "Standard-compliant: 3GPP Release 12 Cat. 12" (Compl. ¶19). The complaint asserts these products leverage 4G/LTE technology to offer high bandwidth and low latency for applications like streaming media and real-time data transfer (’Compl. ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim-chart exhibit (Exhibit 3) that is not provided with the complaint filing; the analysis below is based on the narrative allegations.

'742 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6 as amended) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing an input buffer comprising at least three shift registers, for receiving an input signal and generating first, second, and third shifted input signals; The complaint alleges the Accused Products practice the elements of Claim 6 by complying with 3G/4G/LTE standards, but does not specify how this particular structure is met. ¶¶36, 41 col. 4:54-65
providing first and second soft decision decoders serially coupled in a circular circuit... The complaint alleges the Accused Products' compliance with 3G/4G/LTE standards entails the use of the claimed decoding method. ¶¶33, 36 col. 4:8-13
providing at least one memory module coupled to an output of each of the first and second soft decision decoders... The complaint alleges infringement by complying with 3G/4G/LTE standards, which process data in a way that improves memory and energy efficiency. ¶¶33, 36 col. 4:10-15
wherein the output of the memory module associated with the second soft decision decoder is fed back as an input of the first soft decision decoder; The Accused Products are alleged to practice the claimed iterative decoding process by virtue of their standards-compliance. ¶¶33, 36, 41 col. 4:47-50
processing systematic information data and extrinsic information data using the maximum a posteriori (AP) probability algorithm, and/or logarithm approximation algorithm; The Accused Products are alleged to process data in a manner consistent with the claimed method by complying with 3G/4G/LTE standards. ¶¶33, 36 col. 9:30-34
performing, for a predetermined number of times, iterative decoding from the first of the first and second decoders... The Accused Products are alleged to perform iterative decoding as required by the 3G/4G/LTE standards. ¶¶33, 36, 41 col. 9:35-42
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory appears to equate compliance with a 3G/4G/LTE standard with practicing the claimed invention (Compl. ¶36). A central issue will be whether the requirements of the relevant 3GPP standards mandate the specific hardware architecture recited in the amended claim 6. The reexamination added several structural limitations (e.g., "input buffer comprising at least three shift registers," "first and second soft decision decoders") that may not be required by all standard-compliant implementations, raising the question of a potential scope mismatch.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific evidence detailing the internal architecture of the accused routers. This raises the evidentiary question of how Plaintiff will prove that the accused products contain the precise two-decoder, circular-feedback hardware configuration mandated by the amended claim, as opposed to a different, non-infringing decoder architecture that is also standard-compliant.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "first and second soft decision decoders serially coupled in a circular circuit"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase, added during reexamination, is a cornerstone of the amended claim's structure. The definition will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely turn on whether the accused devices, which use complex system-on-a-chip (SoC) solutions, implement what can be legally construed as two distinct decoders coupled in the claimed manner, or if they use a single, reconfigurable hardware block that performs the decoding functions sequentially.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts two distinct decoder blocks, "Decoder A (42)" and "Decoder B (44)," connected via separate memory modules (’742 Patent, FIG. 4). This explicit depiction of a two-component system may support a construction requiring two physically or logically separate decoder units.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "decoders" should be construed functionally, not necessarily structurally. The term could potentially read on a single hardware resource that is time-multiplexed to perform the function of the first decoder and then the function of the second decoder in series, thereby being "serially coupled" in operation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe, asserting that Defendant provides customers with instructions and specifications that encourage use of the Accused Products in a manner that practices the patented method (Compl. ¶37).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the ’742 Patent "at least since the provision of notice of infringement" on October 18, 2021 (Compl. ¶¶34, 37).

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

The resolution of this case may depend on the answers to two central questions:

  1. A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does compliance with the 3G/4G/LTE standards, as alleged in the complaint, necessarily require the specific two-decoder, circular-feedback hardware architecture recited in the heavily amended Claim 6? Or, do the standards permit alternative, non-infringing decoder designs, creating a potential mismatch between the patent's specific solution and the accused implementation?

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of proof of architecture: Beyond high-level allegations of standards-compliance, what specific technical evidence can be presented to demonstrate that the accused Zyxel routers physically contain the discrete components—an "input buffer comprising at least three shift registers" and "first and second soft decision decoders"—configured in the precise iterative feedback loop mandated by the patent claim?