DCT

1:22-cv-01163

TurboCode LLC v. TCL Technology Group Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01163, W.D. Tex., 11/09/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendants are foreign corporations, making venue proper in any U.S. judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ smartphones and other mobile devices equipped with 3G and/or 4G/LTE capabilities infringe a patent related to high-speed, efficient architectures for turbo code decoders.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns forward error correction, specifically turbo codes, which are a critical component for ensuring reliable, high-speed data transmission in modern cellular communication standards.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff provided formal notice of infringement to Defendant TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. on October 18, 2021. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,813,742, was the subject of an ex parte reexamination, which resulted in the cancellation of two claims and the amendment of several others, including the asserted independent claim. The complaint also mentions that Plaintiff has successfully enforced its intellectual property rights against other parties.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-05-26 '742 Patent Priority Date
2004-11-02 '742 Patent Issue Date
2009-02-10 '742 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issue Date
2016-01-01 Earliest date of alleged infringement period for accused products
2021-10-18 Plaintiff provided notice of infringement to Defendant
2022-11-09 Complaint Filing Date

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’s background section describes prior art turbo code decoders as being too complex, slow, costly, and power-intensive for practical use in consumer mobile devices. (’742 Patent, col. 1:44-60). Specifically, it identifies the high computational complexity of the Maximum a Posteriori (MAP) algorithm, which required many multiplications and additions, as a significant barrier to implementation in semiconductor (ASIC) devices. (’742 Patent, col. 1:51-58).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a decoder architecture to overcome these limitations. The core of the solution is a system using two serially connected, pipelined "Soft-In/Soft-Out" (SISO) Log-MAP decoders that operate in an iterative loop, as illustrated in Figure 4. (’742 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:38-44). By performing calculations in the logarithmic domain, the architecture replaces complex multiplier circuits with simpler binary adders. (’742 Patent, col. 2:55-58). This pipelined, iterative design is intended to achieve high-speed data throughput, with the goal of producing one decoded output per clock cycle, making it more suitable for high-performance 3G applications. (’742 Patent, col. 2:52-54).
  • Technical Importance: This architectural approach sought to make powerful turbo code error correction technically and economically feasible for the emerging mass market of power-constrained, high-data-rate 3G mobile devices. (’742 Patent, col. 2:23-28, 35-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 6, as amended by the ex parte reexamination certificate issued February 10, 2009. (Compl. ¶32; ’742 Patent C1, col. 2:16-52).
  • The essential elements of amended Claim 6 include:
    • Providing an input buffer with at least three shift registers to receive an input signal and generate first, second, and third shifted input signals.
    • Providing first and second soft decision decoders serially coupled in a circular circuit, where the first decoder receives the first and second shifted input signals and the second decoder receives the third shifted input signal.
    • Providing at least one memory module coupled to each decoder, where the output from 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 maximum a posteriori (MAP) probability algorithm or a logarithm approximation thereof.
    • Generating a soft decision based on the MAP algorithm.
    • Weighing and storing the soft decision information into the corresponding memory module.
    • Performing iterative decoding for a predetermined number of times, propagating data through the circular circuit.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names a range of "Exemplary Accused Products," including the TCL Plex, TCL 10 series smartphones, TCL 20 series smartphones, and the TCL Tab. (Compl. ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are telecommunications handsets and tablets that possess 3G and/or 4G/LTE capabilities. (Compl. ¶25). The complaint alleges that these capabilities comply with the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”) standards for cellular communication. (Compl. ¶20, 29). The complaint provides a screenshot of the TCL 10 Pro's technical specifications, highlighting its support for numerous LTE and UMTS frequency bands as evidence of this functionality. (Compl. ¶26). It is further alleged that these devices "process data utilizing a sliding window having a predetermined block size in order to improve memory and energy" efficiency. (Compl. ¶29).
  • The complaint positions the defendants as "one of the leading makers and sellers of smartphones and mobile devices." (Compl. ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart exhibit that was not provided; the following summary is based on the narrative infringement allegations. The core theory is that by designing products to be compliant with 3G and 4G/LTE standards, the Defendants’ products necessarily practice the patented method. (Compl. ¶¶32, 37).

’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 accused products process data using a "sliding window" with a predetermined block size, which allegedly functions as the claimed input buffer. ¶29 col. 4:55-65
providing first and second soft decision decoders serially coupled in a circular circuit... The accused products, by complying with 3G/4G/LTE standards, are alleged to contain and use the claimed decoder architecture. ¶¶32, 37 col. 4:8-11
providing at least one memory module coupled to...each...decoder, wherein the output of the memory...with the second...decoder is fed back as an input of the first...decoder; The accused products are alleged to implement the claimed iterative decoding structure with associated memory as required by 3G/4G/LTE standards. ¶¶32, 37 col. 4:11-13
processing systematic information data and extrinsic information data using the maximum a posteriori (AP) probability algorithm, and/or logarithm approximation algorithm; The accused products' compliance with 3G/4G/LTE standards allegedly requires processing data with a MAP-based algorithm for error correction. ¶¶32, 37 col. 9:30-37
generating soft decision based on the maximum a posteriori (MAP) probability algorithm...; The accused products are alleged to generate probabilistic "soft decisions" as part of their standard-compliant decoding process. ¶¶32, 37 col. 6:27-31
performing, for a predetermined number of times, iterative decoding...in a circular circuit. The accused products are alleged to perform iterative decoding as required by the 3G/4G/LTE standards. ¶¶32, 37 col. 9:35-47

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question is whether compliance with a 3G/4G/LTE standard necessarily requires implementation of the specific architecture of amended Claim 6. For example, does the standard mandate a structure with exactly two decoders coupled "in a circular circuit" where memory output from the second is fed back to the first, as opposed to other possible iterative decoding schemes?
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products' alleged "sliding window" (Compl. ¶29) meets the claim limitation of "an input buffer comprising at least three shift registers...generating first, second, and third shifted input signals"? The infringement analysis may depend on the specific hardware and software implementation within the accused devices' baseband processors, details which are not contained in the complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "soft decision decoders"

  • Context and Importance: Amended Claim 6 requires "first and second soft decision decoders." The definition of this term is critical because it determines what type of processing units fall within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the decoders in the accused products match the type contemplated by the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, not specifying a particular type of soft decision decoder. The specification refers more broadly to the "MAP algorithm" (’742 Patent, col. 1:48-51), which could suggest the term is not limited to a single implementation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title, abstract, and detailed description consistently and repeatedly refer to "SISO Log-MAP decoders" as the inventive concept. (’742 Patent, Title; Abstract; col. 2:40-41). A party could argue that "soft decision decoders" should be construed as being limited to the Log-MAP decoders that are described as the solution to the prior art's problems.

  • The Term: "serially coupled in a circular circuit"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental architecture of the claimed method. The infringement case hinges on whether the components in the accused devices are arranged in this specific configuration.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself could be argued to encompass any arrangement where the output of a downstream processing stage is fed back to an upstream stage for iterative processing.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 of the patent depicts a very specific two-decoder, two-memory arrangement. (’742 Patent, Fig. 4). A party could argue that the term "circular circuit" should be limited to this disclosed embodiment, where Decoder A feeds Decoder B via an interleaver memory, and the output related to Decoder B is fed back to Decoder A. (’742 Patent, col. 4:8-26). The specific limitations added during reexamination further detail this structure. (’742 Patent C1, col. 2:19-42).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). This is based on allegations that Defendants provide products with instructions and specifications that encourage customers to use the infringing 3G/4G/LTE functionality. (Compl. ¶33). A screenshot from a user guide for the TCL Tab, instructing users how to enable mobile data, is presented as an example of such encouragement. (Compl. ¶28).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the ’742 Patent at least as of the October 18, 2021 notice of infringement letter. (Compl. ¶¶30, 33). Willful infringement is alleged based on continued infringing acts after receiving this notice, and the prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. (Compl. ¶c, p. 11).

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

  • A core issue will be one of standard-essentiality versus claim scope: The case will likely turn on whether compliance with the 3GPP 3G/4G/LTE standards, as alleged, is sufficient to prove infringement, or if the specific architectural limitations of amended Claim 6—such as the "circular circuit" of two decoders with a specific feedback path—recite a structure that is merely one of multiple standard-compliant options.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Can the plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the baseband processors in TCL's accused products contain a decoder architecture that maps onto the specific elements of the claim, moving beyond high-level assertions of standard-compliance to concrete proof of the internal hardware and software operation?