DCT

1:22-cv-01223

Bandspeed LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01223, W.D. Tex., 11/18/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s consumer electronics products incorporating Bluetooth technology, such as laptops, infringe a portfolio of eight U.S. patents related to adaptive frequency hopping (AFH) for managing wireless communications channels.
  • Technical Context: The patents address methods for avoiding interference in crowded radio frequency bands, such as the 2.4 GHz ISM band, where technologies like Bluetooth and Wi-Fi must coexist.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff sent Defendant notice letters identifying the patents-in-suit and the infringing activities on three occasions in June and July of 2018, more than four years prior to filing suit, and that Defendant’s counsel acknowledged receipt. This history is significant as it forms the primary basis for Plaintiff’s willful infringement allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-01-25 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2006-04-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,027,418 Issues
2009-01-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624 Issues
2009-08-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,570,614 Issues
2011-03-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,903,608 Issues
2013-09-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,542,643 Issues
2014-10-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,873,500 Issues
2016-06-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,379,769 Issues
2018-01-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,883,520 Issues
2018-06-22 Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant
2018-06-27 Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Defendant
2018-07-02 Plaintiff sends third notice letter to Defendant
2018-07-12 Defendant’s counsel responds to notice letters
2022-11-18 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

  • Issued: April 11, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the "coexistence problem" that arises when frequency hopping (FH) communication systems, like Bluetooth, operate in the same frequency band as non-frequency hopping (NFH) systems, like Wi-Fi (Compl. ¶40; ’418 Patent, col. 2:50-54). This shared use can cause interference, leading to data transmission errors, reduced performance, and the need to retransmit data (’418 Patent, col. 3:15-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for adaptively selecting a set of communication channels to avoid interference. The system determines the performance of available channels, selects an initial set of channels based on that performance, and then periodically re-evaluates channel performance to select new sets of channels to adapt to changing interference conditions (’418 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1A). This process of testing, classifying, and selecting "good" channels allows the communication system to dynamically avoid channels with poor performance (Compl. ¶¶ 41-42).
  • Technical Importance: This adaptive approach was significant for improving the reliability of short-range wireless technologies operating in the unlicensed and often-congested 2.4 GHz ISM band (Compl. ¶¶ 39-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 5 (’418 Patent, col. 26:22-27:7).
  • The essential elements of claim 5 include:
    • Selecting a first set of two or more communication channels at a first time, based on channel performance and a specific voting-based selection criteria (requiring a specified number of "affirmative votes" and no "negative vote" from participants).
    • Selecting a second set of channels at a later second time using the same criteria.
    • Operating as a frequency hopping system where only one channel is used at each hop.
    • Generating and transmitting data identifying the first and second sets of channels to participants.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’418 Patent (Compl. ¶73).

U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624 - Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance

  • Issued: January 13, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ’624 Patent addresses the same technical problem as its parent ’418 Patent: interference in shared wireless frequency bands between FH and NFH systems (’624 Patent, col. 2:13-21).
  • The Patented Solution: Rather than claiming a method, the ’624 Patent claims a communications device (an apparatus) for use in a network. The device comprises a memory, a processor, and a transceiver. The processor is configured to execute instructions to perform the adaptive frequency hopping process: selecting a first set of channels at a first time based on performance, and later selecting a second set of channels at a second time, and using these channel sets for communication (’624 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This patent claims the physical device structure that implements the adaptive methods for improving coexistence and reliability in crowded wireless environments (Compl. ¶¶ 39-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent claim 15, which incorporates independent apparatus claim 13 (’624 Patent, col. 29:1-col. 30:23).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 13 include:
    • A communications device comprising a memory, a processor coupled to the memory, and a transceiver coupled to the memory.
    • The processor is caused by instructions to select a first set of channels at a first time based on performance, and a second set of channels at a second, later time based on performance.
    • The transceiver uses the first set of channels for communication for a first period of time, and then uses the second set for a second period of time.
    • The memory includes further instructions to load the selected channel sets into registers of the communications device and another device.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims of the ’624 Patent (Compl. ¶90).

Multi-Patent Capsules

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

    • Issued: August 4, 2009.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method performed by a master device for selecting communication channels. The method involves selecting a channel, informing a slave participant not to use that channel, communicating with the slave over other channels, and then receiving performance quality data back from the slave to update a channel data set (Compl. ¶106).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 100 is asserted (Compl. ¶106).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the adaptive frequency hopping functionalities in Defendant's "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" that comply with the Bluetooth Core Specification (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 66, 105).

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,903,608 - Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance

    • Issued: March 8, 2011.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a communications device that selects a first set of channels and then a second set of channels, where the number of distinct channels in the first set varies from the number in the second set. This allows the device to adapt the size of its channel map over time based on performance (Compl. ¶123).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent apparatus claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶123).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the adaptive frequency hopping and low energy functionalities in Defendant's "Infringing Products" (both Classic and LE) that comply with relevant Bluetooth Core Specifications (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 45, 66-67, 122).

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

    • Issued: September 24, 2013.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of managing channel registers. It involves loading a set of default channels and a set of good channels into separate registers, and when a "selection kernel" addresses a bad channel in the default register, it is replaced with a good channel from the good channel register (Compl. ¶142).
    • Asserted Claims: Dependent method claim 5 (incorporating independent claim 1) is asserted (Compl. ¶142).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the adaptive frequency hopping and low energy functionalities in Defendant's "Infringing Products" (both Classic and LE) that comply with relevant Bluetooth Core Specifications (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 45, 66-67, 141).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,873,500 - Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance

    • Issued: October 28, 2014.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a frequency hopping device that communicates over a default hopping sequence, tests channels, selects a subset of channels, communicates over the subset via an adapted sequence, and then monitors the subset to decide when to revert back to the default sequence (Compl. ¶161).
    • Asserted Claims: Dependent apparatus claim 28 (incorporating independent claim 16) is asserted (Compl. ¶161).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the adaptive frequency hopping and low energy functionalities in Defendant's "Infringing Products" (both Classic and LE) that comply with relevant Bluetooth Core Specifications (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 45, 66-67, 160).

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,379,769 - Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance

    • Issued: June 28, 2016.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a wireless device that monitors channels, classifies them as good or bad, transmits this classification information to another device, and then communicates using the good channels while avoiding the bad channels (Compl. ¶180).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent apparatus claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶180).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the adaptive frequency hopping and low energy functionalities in Defendant's "Infringing Products" (both Classic and LE) that comply with relevant Bluetooth Core Specifications (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 45, 66-67, 179).

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,883,520 - Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance

    • Issued: January 30, 2018.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a device configured to send packet data specifying a subset of channels and timing information for when to begin using that subset. The device then uses channels inside or outside this subset depending on whether the identified channel is designated for frequency hopping (Compl. ¶199).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent apparatus claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶199).
    • Accused Features: The accused features are the adaptive frequency hopping and low energy functionalities in Defendant's "Infringing Products" (both Classic and LE) that comply with relevant Bluetooth Core Specifications (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 45, 66-67, 198).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint accuses two categories of products: "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products," which comply with Bluetooth Core Specification Version 2.0+EDR or higher, and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products," which comply with Bluetooth Core Specification Version 4.0 or higher (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 45, 47). An exemplary accused product identified is the ASUS TUF Gaming FX705DT laptop, which the complaint notes incorporates one or more Bluetooth modules (Compl. ¶¶ 53-54). A product photograph shows the ASUS TUF Gaming FX705DD/DT/DU laptop (Compl. p. 11).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The relevant functionalities are "adaptive frequency hopping" in the Bluetooth Classic products and "Bluetooth Low Energy capabilities" in the LE products (Compl. ¶¶ 66-67). The complaint alleges that these functionalities are implemented in compliance with the relevant Bluetooth Core Specifications and are engaged by customers during normal, intended operation (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 66-67). The complaint alleges Defendant encourages this use by providing instruction manuals, such as one for the FX705DT that instructs users to "[u]se Bluetooth to facilitate wireless data transfers with other Bluetooth-enabled devices" (Compl. ¶56; p. 12). Defendant is described as a manufacturer of consumer electronics sold through major U.S. distributors such as Best Buy and Walmart (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 28, 60).

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 allegedly perform adaptive frequency hopping in compliance with Bluetooth Core Specification v1.2 or later, which involves testing and selecting a subset of "good" channels. ¶¶ 66, 73 col. 4:1-6
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 that the channel selection process of the accused products meets this limitation, implicitly through compliance with the Bluetooth standard which contains channel classification mechanisms. ¶¶ 66, 73 col. 16:15-38
selecting, based upon performance of the plurality of communications channels at a second time that is later than the first time and the channel selection criteria, a second set of two or more communications channels... The accused products allegedly periodically re-evaluate channel performance and select a new set of channels to adapt to changing interference conditions. ¶¶ 41, 66, 73 col. 4:6-9
wherein the communications system is a frequency hopping communications system and ... wherein at each hop ... only one communications channel is used... The accused products operate according to a frequency hopping protocol as defined by the Bluetooth standard. ¶¶ 41, 66, 73 col. 2:38-46
generating first channel identification data that identifies the first set... and transmitting the first channel identification data to one or more participants... The accused products allegedly generate and transmit data identifying the adapted channel map to other devices in the network to coordinate communications. ¶¶ 66, 73 col. 4:10-18
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on compliance with the Bluetooth standard. A primary question will be whether the specific channel classification and selection methods outlined in that standard meet the detailed claim limitation requiring a "specified number of affirmative votes" and no "negative vote." The construction of this "voting" language will be central to the dispute.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific evidence of how the accused products' software or firmware implements the alleged voting mechanism. A key question for the court will be what factual evidence demonstrates that the accused products' internal channel quality assessment routines function as the specific voting process required by the claim, rather than a more general performance metric evaluation.

’624 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A communications device ... comprising: a memory for storing instructions; a processor that is communicatively coupled to the memory... The accused ASUS TUF Gaming FX705DT laptop is a communications device that incorporates one or more Bluetooth modules, which necessarily include a processor, memory, and transceiver. ¶¶ 53, 54, 90 col. 3:35-43
selecting, based upon performance ... at a first time, a first set of two or more communications channels... The accused products' processor and software allegedly select an initial set of "good" channels based on performance metrics to implement adaptive frequency hopping. ¶¶ 66, 90 col. 4:24-28
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 allegedly re-evaluate channel performance over time and select a new set of channels to adapt to changing interference conditions. ¶¶ 41, 66, 90 col. 4:33-37
a transceiver ... configured to transmit to and receive ... wherein: for a first period of time, the first set ... is used ... and for a second period of time ... the second set ... is used... The accused products' Bluetooth transceiver allegedly first uses the initial channel map and later switches to using the updated channel map for communications. ¶¶ 66, 90 col. 4:28-33
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 complaint alleges the accused products' hardware and software dictate when and how the infringing functionality occurs, which suggests the loading of channel maps into registers. ¶¶ 75, 90, 92 col. 20:3-12
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The claim requires distinct channel selection events at a "first time" and a "second time." A potential point of contention is whether the Bluetooth AFH protocol's continuous channel monitoring and updating process constitutes discrete selection events as claimed, or a different, non-infringing process.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products perform two separate and complete selections of channel sets? The defendant may argue that the Bluetooth standard's process involves merely replacing individual bad channels rather than selecting an entirely new "second set" of channels as required by a plain reading of the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "...receives a specified number of affirmative votes ... and ... does not receive a negative vote from a particular participant..." (from ’418 Patent, Claim 5)
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific decision-making logic for channel selection. The viability of the infringement claim hinges on whether the channel quality assessment and classification method used in the accused Bluetooth products can be characterized as this specific voting scheme. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears more specific than a generic "performance-based" selection.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where participants vote on whether to use a channel, and a "passing mark" is required for a channel to be deemed "good" (’418 Patent, col. 16:15-38, Table 2). A broad interpretation could equate receiving a performance metric above a threshold with an "affirmative vote" and a metric below a threshold with a "negative vote."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's depiction of a "referendum" approach with a "Total Votes" row in Table 2 suggests an explicit, multi-participant voting and tallying process (’418 Patent, Table 2). A narrow interpretation could require proof of such a discrete polling and consensus mechanism, which may not be present in a single device's autonomous channel assessment.
  • The Term: "selecting...a second set of two or more communications channels from the plurality of communications channels" (from ’418 Patent, Claim 5 and ’624 Patent, Claim 13)
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical for establishing the adaptive nature of the claimed invention. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused products' method of updating their channel map constitutes "selecting" a new "set," or merely modifying an existing one in a way that falls outside the claim scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes a process where "the participant selects another set of channels" when performance degrades (’624 Patent, Abstract). This could be argued to cover any update to the list of usable channels, regardless of the magnitude of the change.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flow chart in Figure 1A of the patents depicts "SELECT A SET..." and "SELECT A NEW SET..." as distinct, complete steps (’418 Patent, Fig. 1A, blocks 114, 122). This may support an interpretation that requires a full, discrete re-selection process for the entire set of channels, rather than an incremental process of removing and replacing individual bad channels one by one.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is primarily based on allegations that Defendant provides products with infringing functionality and user manuals that instruct and encourage customers to use that functionality (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 75, 81, 92, 98). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the Bluetooth components are especially made or adapted to infringe and have no substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 85, 102).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The specific basis is a series of notice letters sent by Plaintiff to Defendant in June and July 2018, and an alleged response from Defendant's counsel on July 12, 2018, more than four years before the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 217-219).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the specific "affirmative/negative vote" mechanism required by Claim 5 of the ’418 Patent read on the channel classification methods implemented in the Bluetooth standard's Adaptive Frequency Hopping protocol, or does the claim require a more explicit, multi-participant polling process?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: beyond alleging compliance with a standard, what technical evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused products' software and hardware actually perform the discrete, two-step process of selecting a "first set" and a "second set" of channels, as opposed to a continuous, rolling update of a single channel map?
  • Given the allegation of pre-suit notice letters from 2018, a central question for damages will be scienter and intent: can Plaintiff establish that Defendant's conduct after receiving notice was objectively reckless, thereby meeting the high standard for willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?