DCT
1:23-cv-00487
Bandspeed LLC v. Logitech Intl SA
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bandspeed, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Logitech International S.A. (Switzerland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DINOVO PRICE LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00487, W.D. Tex., 04/28/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), which allows a defendant not resident in the United States to be sued in any judicial district. The complaint also asserts personal jurisdiction based on Defendant’s business activities and alleged acts of patent infringement within Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Bluetooth-enabled consumer electronics infringe a portfolio of twelve patents related to adaptive frequency hopping for wireless communications.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses interference in crowded radio frequency bands by enabling wireless devices, such as those using Bluetooth, to dynamically select and use clearer communication channels while avoiding noisy ones.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patents-in-suit via letters sent on February 6, 2019, May 11, 2020, and April 27, 2021. These allegations of pre-suit knowledge form the basis for the willfulness claims. The complaint also notes that the Western District of Texas has previously presided over lawsuits involving some of the asserted patents.
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 |
| 2019-02-06 | Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant |
| 2019-02-21 | First notice letter is delivered to Defendant |
| 2020-03-24 | U.S. Patent No. 10,602,528 Issues |
| 2020-05-11 | Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Defendant |
| 2020-09-29 | U.S. Patent No. 10,791,565 Issues |
| 2021-01-05 | U.S. Patent No. 10,887,893 Issues |
| 2021-04-27 | Plaintiff sends third notice letter to Defendant |
| 2023-04-25 | Alleged offer for sale of Logitech Z407 speakers on BestBuy.com |
| 2023-04-28 | 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 unlicensed frequency band as non-frequency hopping (NFH) systems, like Wi-Fi. This co-location can cause interference, leading to data transmission errors, increased bit error rate (BER), and reduced performance (’418) Patent, col. 3:44-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an adaptive method where a communication system tests a plurality of available channels, classifies them based on performance (e.g., as "good" or "bad"), and selects a subset of "good" channels for communication. This set of channels is then used for a period of time, after which the channels can be re-tested and a new set selected to adapt to changing interference conditions (’418 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:43-67).
- Technical Importance: This adaptive frequency hopping (AFH) technique was designed to improve the reliability and performance of short-range wireless technologies in increasingly crowded radio environments, such as homes and offices with multiple wireless devices (Compl. ¶45-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶76).
- 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 selection criteria;
- wherein the selection criteria requires a channel to receive a "specified number of affirmative votes" and not receive a "negative vote" from participants;
- selecting a second set of channels at a later, second time based on performance;
- wherein the system is a frequency hopping system and only one channel is used per hop;
- generating and transmitting identification data for the first and second sets of channels to participants.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
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: Like its parent, the ’624 Patent addresses the problem of interference between co-located wireless communication systems operating in the same frequency band, which degrades performance and requires data retransmission (’624 Patent, col. 3:58-4:3).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims a communication device (rather than a method) comprising a processor, memory, and transceiver. The device is configured to select a first set of channels based on performance, use that set for a period of time, and then select and switch to a second set of channels at a later time, thereby adapting to interference (’624 Patent, Abstract). The claims further specify loading the selected channel sets into registers on both the transmitting and receiving devices (’624 Patent, col. 22:1-12).
- Technical Importance: This patent provides apparatus-level protection for the adaptive frequency hopping technology, complementing the method claims of the parent ’418 Patent.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claim 15, which depends from independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶93).
- Essential elements of independent claim 13 include:
- A communications device with a memory, processor, and transceiver;
- The processor is configured to select a first set of channels at a first time and a second set of channels at a second time, based on performance;
- The transceiver is configured to use the first set for a first time period and then use the second set for a second time period;
- The device is further configured to cause the selected channel sets to be loaded into a "first register" of the device and a "second register of the other communications device."
- Claim 15 adds a limitation that the channel selection criteria specifies a channel must receive a "specified number of votes."
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 communication device (a "master") for managing channel selection with another device (a "slave"). The master selects a channel to be excluded from use, informs the slave, and then receives performance quality data from the slave to update its channel data.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 100 (Compl. ¶110).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" practice the claimed method (Compl. ¶109, ¶111).
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 communication device that performs adaptive channel selection, similar to the '624 patent. A key feature is the requirement that the number of channels in the first selected set varies from the number of channels in the second selected set.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶127).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products and Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" infringe (Compl. ¶126).
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 for managing channels using "default channel" and "good channel" registers. A "selection kernel" addresses the default register, and if it points to a "bad channel," that channel is replaced with a "good channel" from the other register.
- Asserted Claims: Dependent claim 5 (Compl. ¶146).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products and Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" (Compl. ¶145).
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 tests channels, selects a subset, communicates using that subset, monitors the subset, and reverts to a default hopping sequence based on monitoring results or the expiration of a time period.
- Asserted Claims: Dependent claim 28 (Compl. ¶165).
- Accused Features: Infringement is alleged against "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products and Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" (Compl. ¶164).
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 only the "good" channels while avoiding the "bad" ones.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶184).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products and Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" (Compl. ¶183).
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 them. The device then uses channels from either the original set or the new subset depending on whether the channel is used for frequency hopping.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶203).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products and Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" (Compl. ¶202).
U.S. Patent No. 10,602,528 - “Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance,” issued March 24, 2020
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a device adapted to manage power levels by determining subsets of available channels. It assesses channel performance and excludes channels that fall outside a target threshold, then sends packet data defining the current usable subset to another device.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶222).
- Accused Features: Infringement is alleged against "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products and Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" (Compl. ¶221).
U.S. Patent No. 10,791,565 - “Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance,” issued September 29, 2020
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is similar to the '’528 Patent, claiming a device adapted to manage power levels by determining a subset of available channels based on performance thresholds and sending packet data defining this subset.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶241).
- Accused Features: Infringement is alleged against "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products and Infringing Bluetooth LE Products" (Compl. ¶240).
U.S. Patent No. 10,887,893 - “Approach for Managing the Use of Communications Channels Based on Performance,” issued January 5, 2021
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a device adapted to manage power consumption by assessing whether using a different communication channel would enable improved performance compared to the currently-selected channel, and causing a switch if improvement is indicated.
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶260).
- Accused Features: Infringement is alleged against "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products" (Compl. ¶259).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies two broad categories of accused products: "Infringing Bluetooth Classic Products," defined as those that comply with Bluetooth Core Specification Version 2.0+EDR or higher, and "Infringing Bluetooth LE Products," which comply with the Bluetooth low energy protocol as described in Version 4.0 or higher (Compl. ¶48, ¶50). A specific exemplary product is the Logitech Z407 Bluetooth Computer Speakers with Subwoofer and Wireless Control (Compl. ¶33, ¶58).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused products are consumer electronics that incorporate unlicensed Bluetooth modules and are capable of adaptive frequency hopping and/or Bluetooth Low Energy communication (Compl. ¶59, ¶66, ¶70, ¶71). Plaintiff supports its allegations with a screenshot from BestBuy.com showing the Logitech Z407 speakers available for sale in the district (Compl. p. 6). The complaint further alleges that Defendant provides downloadable instruction manuals that encourage and instruct customers on how to activate and use these Bluetooth features (Compl. ¶60-62).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide claim charts or detailed mapping of product features to claim elements. The central theory of infringement is that by manufacturing and selling products that comply with certain versions of the Bluetooth Core Specification, Defendant’s products necessarily practice the methods and embody the devices claimed in the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶48, ¶55, ¶70).
7,027,418 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 complaint alleges that products compliant with the Bluetooth standard (v1.2 or later) perform adaptive frequency hopping, which includes assessing channel performance and selecting a subset of channels for communication. | ¶77, ¶85 | col. 4:43-50 |
| 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 does not provide specific facts mapping the accused product functionality to this limitation, alleging generally that the products meet every limitation. | ¶77 | col. 17:28-40 |
| 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 complaint alleges that the adaptive frequency hopping in the accused products is a dynamic process that adapts to changing interference over time. | ¶46, ¶77 | col. 4:51-54 |
| generating first channel identification data that identifies the first set...and transmitting the first channel identification data to one or more participants... | The complaint alleges the accused products operate in a master/slave configuration where channel mapping information is communicated between devices to coordinate hopping sequences. | ¶77, ¶85 | col. 5:15-20 |
7,477,624 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...and a transceiver... | The complaint alleges the accused products are communications devices that necessarily contain processors, memory, and transceivers to implement Bluetooth functionality. | ¶92, ¶94 | col. 5:21-30 |
| selecting, based upon performance...a first set of...channels; selecting...a second set of...channels... | The complaint alleges the processor in the accused products executes instructions to perform adaptive frequency hopping by selecting and re-selecting sets of communication channels based on performance. | ¶94 | col. 21:18-28 |
| for a first period of time, the first set...is used...and for a second period of time...the second set...is used... | The complaint alleges the accused devices use an initial set of channels and then switch to an updated set to adaptively avoid interference. | ¶94 | col. 21:29-37 |
| 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 does not provide specific facts mapping the accused product functionality to this dual-register architecture, alleging generally that the products meet every limitation. | ¶94 | col. 22:6-12 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question for claims in both the ’418 and ’624 Patents, as well as others in the portfolio, will be whether the channel classification mechanisms in the Bluetooth standard (e.g., based on packet error rates) constitute the claimed method of receiving "affirmative votes" and not receiving "negative votes" from "participants." The interpretation of "vote" will be critical.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products implement the specific "dual-register" architecture required by claim 13 of the ’624 Patent? The complaint makes only a conclusory allegation, which suggests a potential mismatch between the claim's specific requirements and the actual operation of the accused devices.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "receives a specified number of affirmative votes ... and (b) does not receive a negative vote from a particular participant" (’418 Patent, Claim 5)
- Context and Importance: This term appears in several asserted patents and defines a specific decision-making process for channel selection. Its construction may be dispositive, as Defendant is likely to argue that the technical metrics used in the Bluetooth standard are not "votes." Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to describe a specific consensus-based protocol rather than a unilateral technical measurement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses a "referendum" approach where a master and slaves contribute to the classification, which could suggest that receiving any form of channel quality data from another device and factoring it into a selection could be considered a "vote" (’418 Patent, col. 17:15-20).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a clear example in Table 2, which depicts a literal tally of "0" and "1" votes from a master and multiple slaves to meet a "Passing Mark." This example strongly supports a narrower construction requiring a discrete, explicit voting or polling protocol (’418 Patent, col. 17:21-33).
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 defines a specific hardware or software architecture for implementing the channel selection. Proving infringement requires showing that the accused devices utilize this particular dual-register data-loading mechanism.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's figures depict blocks labeled "Register with Default Channels" and "Register with Good Channels," which could be interpreted as logical blocks of memory rather than specific, physical CPU registers, potentially broadening the term's scope (’624 Patent, Fig. 5A).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "register" has a well-understood, narrow meaning in computer engineering as a small, fast memory location within a processor. The specification also describes these registers being addressed by a "selection kernel," which may imply a close, hardware-level coupling that supports the narrower definition (’624 Patent, Fig. 5A).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges both inducement and contributory infringement across all asserted patents. The inducement theory is based on allegations that Logitech provides its customers with products and encourages their infringing use by providing instruction manuals, setup guides, and tutorials that explain how to activate and use the Bluetooth functionality (Compl. ¶80, ¶85, ¶97). A screenshot from the Logitech website shows instructions for Bluetooth pairing, which supports this allegation (Compl. p. 13). The contributory infringement theory alleges that Logitech sells components that are a material part of the claimed inventions, are especially adapted for infringement, and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶87, ¶89).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that notice letters identifying the patents and the infringing activities were sent to Logitech beginning on February 6, 2019, with delivery confirmed on February 21, 2019 (Compl. ¶41, ¶276). Plaintiff alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant continued to infringe, justifying a claim for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶278-279).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "votes," which appears in multiple asserted claims and is described in the specification with a specific referendum-style example, be construed broadly enough to read on the technical channel-quality metrics and classification schemes used in the Bluetooth standard?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: beyond general compliance with the Bluetooth standard, what evidence will show that Logitech's accused products implement the specific hardware and software architectures recited in the claims, such as the "dual-register" data loading of the ’624 Patent or the "selection kernel" and register-swapping of the ’643 Patent?
- A central legal and factual question will be one of standard-essentiality: does compliance with the relevant Bluetooth Core Specifications (e.g., v2.0+EDR and v4.0 LE) necessarily require infringement of the asserted claims, or can a compliant device be made that avoids one or more claim limitations?