Bandspeed LLC v. Anker Innovations Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bandspeed, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Anker Innovations Limited (Hong Kong)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DINOVO PRICE LLP
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01322, W.D. Tex., 12/16/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the 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 Bluetooth-enabled consumer electronics infringe a portfolio of eight U.S. patents related to adaptive frequency hopping for managing communications channels.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue, adaptive frequency hopping, is a method for wireless devices to avoid interference by dynamically selecting and changing the radio channels they use for communication based on real-time performance.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patents-in-suit via a letter on July 2, 2018, to which Defendant’s Senior Patent Engineer allegedly responded on July 22, 2018.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-01-25	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
2018-07-02	Plaintiff sends "Notice Letter" to Defendant
2018-07-22	Defendant's Senior Patent Engineer responds to Notice Letter
2022-12-16	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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes "coexistence problems" that arise when frequency hopping (FH) communication systems, like Bluetooth, operate in the same frequency band as non-frequency hopping (NFH) systems, such as Wi-Fi. This co-location can cause interference, leading to data transmission errors and reduced performance (Compl. ¶41; ’418 Patent, col. 2:52-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method of "adaptive frequency hopping" where a communication system actively manages its channel usage. The system first determines the performance of available communication channels, selects an initial set of "good" channels based on performance criteria, and then communicates using this set. The system periodically re-evaluates channel performance to select a new set of channels, thereby adapting to changing interference conditions (’418 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:50-58).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows frequency-hopping devices to intelligently avoid crowded or noisy channels, improving reliability and performance in shared radio-frequency environments (Compl. ¶42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶73).
• Essential elements of claim 5 include:
  • Selecting a first set of two or more communications channels based on performance at a first time and specific channel selection criteria.
  • The selection criteria require a channel to receive a specified number of "affirmative votes" and not receive a "negative vote" from a participant.
  • Selecting a second set of channels based on performance at a later time.
  • Operating within a frequency hopping system.
  • Generating and transmitting channel identification data for the first and second sets of channels.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’418 Patent, this patent addresses interference in frequency hopping systems caused by other devices operating in the same frequency band (’624 Patent, col. 2:13-23).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims a communications device (an apparatus) comprising a processor, memory, and transceiver. The processor is configured to select a first set of channels at a first time, use them for a period, and then select a second, different set of channels at a later time for subsequent communication. The invention also includes causing the selected channel sets to be loaded into registers on the communicating devices (’624 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-51).
• Technical Importance: This patent provides a device-level implementation for the adaptive frequency hopping method, claiming the hardware and software architecture that executes the channel management process (Compl. ¶¶40, 42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts dependent claim 15, which incorporates independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶90).
• Essential elements of independent claim 13 include:
  • A communications device with a memory, processor, and transceiver.
  • The processor selects a first set of two or more channels at a first time based on performance.
  • The processor selects a second set of channels at a later time based on performance.
  • The transceiver uses the first set for a first period of time and then uses the second set instead of the first set for a second period of time.
  • The processor causes the first and second sets of channels to be loaded into registers on both its own device and the other communications device.

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method performed by a participant device (e.g., a "master") for managing channel selection in a system with another device (a "slave"). The method involves selecting a channel not to be used, communicating this to the slave, and then exchanging performance quality data to update the channel information.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 100 (Compl. ¶107).
• Accused Features: The "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶106).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a communications device that adaptively selects channel sets at different times. A key feature is that the number of distinct channels in the first selected set varies from the number of distinct channels in the second selected set.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶124).
• Accused Features: Both "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶123).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method involving loading a set of "default channels" and "good channels" into respective registers. When a "selection kernel" addresses a "bad channel" in the default register, that bad channel is replaced with a good channel from the good channel register. It also includes rescanning channels based on the number of good channels.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts dependent claim 5, which incorporates independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶143).
• Accused Features: Both "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶142).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a frequency hopping device that communicates using a default hopping sequence, tests channels, selects a subset of good channels for an "adapted hopping sequence," communicates using the adapted sequence, and then reverts to the default sequence based on monitoring results or a timer.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts dependent claim 28, which incorporates independent claim 16 (Compl. ¶162).
• Accused Features: Both "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶161).

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

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a wireless device that monitors a plurality of channels, classifies them as "good" or "bad," transmits this classification information to another device, and then communicates with the other device over the "good" channels while avoiding the "bad" channels.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶181).
• Accused Features: Both "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶180).

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

• 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 them. The device then uses either an identified channel (if it is part of the hopping sequence) or a channel from the specified subset for communication in a given time slot.
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶200).
• Accused Features: Both "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶199).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are broadly defined as "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" that comply with Bluetooth Core Specification Version 2.0+EDR or higher, and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" that comply with Version 4.0 or higher (Compl. ¶¶44, 46). The complaint identifies a specific exemplary product, the Soundcore Mini 3 Pro Wireless Speaker ("Soundcore A3127"), which is advertised on Defendant's website (Compl. ¶55). The complaint also names product brands including Anker, Soundcore, Eufy, and Nebula (Compl. ¶54). A product image shows the exterior of the Soundcore A3127 speaker (Compl. p. 11).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused functionality is the products' use of Bluetooth technology, which allegedly incorporates adaptive frequency hopping (Compl. ¶67). The complaint alleges that the normal, intended operation of these products requires compliance with Bluetooth specifications that include infringing features (Compl. ¶¶67-68). Defendant allegedly certifies to the Bluetooth SIG that its products are compliant with these specifications (Compl. ¶¶51-52, 59). A diagram from an instruction manual illustrates the Bluetooth pairing process for the Soundcore A3127 (Compl. p. 12). The complaint alleges these products are sold through major U.S. retailers such as Walmart, Target, and Best Buy (Compl. ¶61).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,027,418 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A method for selecting communications channels for a communications system, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:	The accused products allegedly perform a method of selecting communication channels in compliance with Bluetooth specifications that include adaptive frequency hopping.	¶¶72, 74	col. 4:50-58
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...	Bluetooth devices are alleged to test channels and select a working set of channels based on performance to avoid interference.	¶¶42-43	col. 6:10-20
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 from a particular participant...	The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the products meet this limitation but does not specify how the Bluetooth standard's channel selection mechanism constitutes a "vote" or "veto" system.	¶73	col. 16:42-53
selecting, based upon performance of the plurality of communications channels at a second time that is later than the first time..., a second set of two or more communications channels...	Adaptive frequency hopping in Bluetooth is alleged to periodically re-evaluate channel performance and adapt the set of used channels over time.	¶¶42, 74	col. 6:53-61
wherein the communications system is a frequency hopping communications system...	The accused products are Bluetooth devices, which are frequency hopping systems.	¶44	col. 2:43-46
generating first channel identification data that identifies the first set...; and transmitting the first channel identification data...	In a Bluetooth piconet, the master device allegedly determines the channel map and communicates it to slave devices.	¶¶74, 76	col. 7:63-67
generating second channel identification data that identifies the second set...; and transmitting the second channel identification data...	When the channel map is updated in a Bluetooth system, that new map is allegedly communicated to other participants.	¶¶74, 76	col. 8:1-8

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary point of contention may be the "voting" and "veto" limitation in claim 5. The analysis will likely question whether the mechanism by which Bluetooth devices classify and select channels (e.g., using performance metrics like BER or RSSI) can be construed as a system of "affirmative votes" and "negative votes" as described in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on compliance with the Bluetooth standard. A key technical question is what evidence demonstrates that the accused products' actual operation maps to each specific step of claim 5, particularly the voting/veto criteria, beyond general allegations of compliance.

U.S. Patent No. 7,477,624 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A communications device for use in a network of devices, comprising: a memory for storing instructions; a processor...; a transceiver...	The accused products are communications devices (e.g., speakers) containing processors, memory, and transceivers to implement Bluetooth functionality.	¶¶55, 56, 90	col. 4:26-34
selecting, based upon performance of a plurality of communications channels at a first time, a first set of two or more communications channels...	The processor in an accused Bluetooth device allegedly executes instructions to select an initial set of usable channels based on performance.	¶90	col. 4:35-39
selecting, based upon performance of the plurality of communications channels at a second time that is later than the first time, a second set of two or more communications channels...	The processor allegedly later re-evaluates channel performance and selects a new set of channels to adapt to changing interference conditions.	¶90	col. 4:35-39
for a first period of time, the first set...is used to transmit to and receive...; and for a second period of time...the second set...is used...instead of the first set...	The accused device's transceiver allegedly uses the first channel set for a period and then switches to using the second channel set.	¶90	col. 4:39-44
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 that the accused devices perform this step but does not specify how the channel map is loaded into registers on both devices.	¶90	col. 5:17-24

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on whether the accused devices "load" the channel set into a "register" as claimed. The question will be whether the general storage of a channel map in memory on both the master and slave devices meets the specific claim limitation of being "loaded into a first register...and a second register."
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products perform the specific function of loading the channel set into registers on both communicating devices? The allegations are based on the products' general compliance with the Bluetooth standard, which may not specify this exact implementation detail.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "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" (’418 Patent, Claim 5)
• Context and Importance: This term appears to be the central novel element of claim 5. The outcome of the infringement analysis for this claim will likely depend on whether the Bluetooth standard's method of channel classification and selection can be interpreted as a "voting" system with a "veto" mechanism. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is highly specific and may not map directly onto standardized channel quality assessment metrics.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, stating that for combining test results, "other approaches may be used" and "different test results may be combined using weighting factors" (’418 Patent, col. 16:9-13). This could support an argument that any system where participants provide input on channel quality constitutes a form of "voting."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific embodiment titled "referendum' approach" in Table 2, where a "vote of '0'" is a vote not to use the channel and a "vote of '1'" is a vote to use it (’418 Patent, col. 16:42-53). This explicit example of a binary voting system could support a narrower construction limited to a more literal voting and veto process.
• The Term: "loaded into a first register of the communications device and a second register of the other communications device" (’624 Patent, Claim 13)
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines a specific mechanism for synchronizing the adaptive channel map between two devices. The infringement question will turn on whether the accused Bluetooth products use a method that can be construed as loading a channel list into distinct "registers" on both ends of the communication link.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The ’418 patent, from the same family, depicts a generic computer system (FIG. 7) where a "processor" and "main memory" are shown, which could support construing "register" broadly to mean any form of memory storage.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ’418 patent specification explicitly describes a "register with default channels" and a "register with good channels" (e.g., ’418 Patent, col. 19:25-30). This suggests that "register" may refer to a specific, defined data structure for storing channel information, not just any temporary memory location.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. The inducement theory is based on Defendant allegedly providing products with instruction manuals, tutorials, and user guides that encourage and enable customers to use the infringing Bluetooth functionality (e.g., Compl. ¶¶77, 82, 94, 99). The contributory infringement theory alleges that the infringing Bluetooth components are a material part of the invention, are not staple articles of commerce, and are specially adapted for infringement with no substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶¶84, 86, 101, 103).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents since at least July 2, 2018, when Plaintiff sent a notice letter. The complaint states that despite this notice and a subsequent email exchange with Defendant's "Senior Patent Engineer," Defendant continued its allegedly infringing conduct (Compl. ¶¶218-220).

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

• A central issue will be one of technical mapping: does the functionality required by the Bluetooth Adaptive Frequency Hopping (AFH) standard necessarily practice the specific "voting" and "negative vote" mechanism required by Claim 5 of the ’418 patent, or is there a technical divergence between the standard's implementation and the claim's specific requirements?
• A key evidentiary question will be the level of proof required to demonstrate infringement: will Plaintiff be able to show, through technical analysis of the accused products' firmware or operation, that they perform each claimed step, or will the court find that allegations of compliance with the relevant Bluetooth standard are sufficient to establish that the claimed methods and device structures are practiced?
• A third question will concern claim construction: can the term "register," as used in claims like Claim 13 of the ’624 patent, be broadly construed to cover any memory location where a channel map is stored, or will it be limited to the specific hardware register structures described in the patent's embodiments?