DCT

6:20-cv-00980

WSOU Investments LLC v. Canon Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00980, W.D. Tex., 10/12/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the district and Canon U.S.A., Inc. has maintained a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas since 1977, employs numerous people in the district, and sells accused products through authorized dealers there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendants' products containing wireless communication capabilities infringe a patent related to an enhanced method of frequency hopping in wireless systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns frequency-hopping spread spectrum (FHSS) techniques used in wireless communication systems, such as GSM, Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth, to mitigate interference and signal fading.
  • Key Procedural History: This filing is a Second Amended Complaint. The complaint states that Defendants have had actual knowledge of the patent and their alleged infringement since at least the filing of the original complaint on October 19, 2020. It also notes that counsel for both parties have engaged in discussions regarding the patent and the alleged infringement since that date. The case also involves a third-party complaint filed by Canon, Inc. against NXP USA, Inc., suggesting the accused functionality may reside in components supplied by NXP.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-05-07 ’346 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing Date)
2006-05-30 ’346 Patent Issue Date
2020-10-19 Original Complaint Filed; Alleged Date of Actual Notice
2021-01-25 Date of Inducing YouTube Video Referenced in Complaint
2021-01-26 Date of Inducing Support Articles Referenced in Complaint
2021-10-12 Second Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,054,346 - "Enhanced frequency hopping in a wireless system"

  • Issued: May 30, 2006.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a deficiency in standard pseudo-random frequency hopping algorithms, such as those used in GSM systems. In scenarios with a limited number of available frequencies, these standard algorithms can result in the same frequency being selected multiple times within a short period (e.g., a single data frame), which reduces "fading diversity" and can degrade performance, especially for low-mobility users (ʼ346 Patent, col. 2:5-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "constrained" frequency hopping method. It maintains a list of available hopping frequencies and dynamically divides it into two sets: an "allowable" set of frequencies that can be selected for the next hop, and a "prohibited" set (ʼ346 Patent, col. 4:1-10). When a frequency is used, it is temporarily moved from the allowable set to the prohibited set, preventing its immediate re-selection. This process is designed to maximize the number of unique frequencies used over a given time interval, thereby improving fading diversity without sacrificing the benefits of interference averaging (ʼ346 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:37-52). The flowchart in Figure 5 details an embodiment of this state-updating algorithm (ʼ346 Patent, FIG. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide the benefits of full fading diversity, typically associated with cyclic hopping, while retaining the interference averaging and diversity advantages of pseudo-random hopping, particularly in spectrum-constrained environments (ʼ346 Patent, col. 2:46-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and "exemplary claims" without specifying particular claim numbers, instead incorporating by reference an external claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶18, ¶28). The patent's independent claims are 1, 13, and 19.
  • Independent Claim 1 (method claim) recites the following essential elements:
    • transmitting signals using frequency hopping over a time period T, by
    • pseudorandomly selecting a frequency from a set of N frequencies
    • such that over at least a portion of the time period T, the frequency selection is constrained to less than the N frequencies
    • and such that at least one of the selected frequencies is prohibited from subsequent selection in at least a portion of the time period T.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint refers broadly to "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in an attached exhibit (Compl. ¶18). While the exhibit is not provided, the complaint does identify the Canon EOS R5 camera as an illustrative example by providing links to its product page and user manual (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused functionality is the wireless communication feature within products like the EOS R5 camera, which enables functions such as transferring images to other devices (Compl. ¶23-24). Such features typically operate using standard protocols like Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, which employ frequency hopping techniques to manage spectrum use and avoid interference.
  • The complaint alleges Defendants advertise, promote, and provide instructions for using these wireless features, thereby inducing infringement (Compl. ¶23). The complaint does not provide detail on the products' commercial importance beyond their general sale and marketing in the United States (Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts in "Exhibit 3," which was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶28, ¶29). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the plaintiff's charts is not possible.

The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (e.g., Canon EOS R5) practice the technology claimed by the ’346 Patent (Compl. ¶28). The allegation centers on the products' use of frequency hopping for wireless communications. The complaint asserts that by making, using, and selling these products, and by instructing customers on how to use their wireless features via manuals and other materials, Defendants directly and indirectly infringe the patent (Compl. ¶18, ¶23). As an example of inducement, the complaint points to a Canon support article for the EOS R5, which provides instructions for connecting the camera to a smartphone via Wi-Fi (Compl. ¶24).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: A primary point of contention will be whether the frequency hopping algorithms implemented in the accused products (which may be standard-compliant Wi-Fi or Bluetooth protocols) perform the specific "constrained" hopping method claimed in the patent. The key question is whether they temporarily "prohibit" a recently used frequency from selection in a manner that maps onto the patent’s claims, or if they operate on a different technical principle.
    • Scope Questions: Does the term "prohibited from subsequent selection" as used in claim 1 require an explicit algorithmic step of moving a frequency to a "prohibited set," as described in the specification (ʼ346 Patent, col. 4:1-10), or can it read on any protocol that is designed to avoid or reduce the probability of immediate frequency reuse?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"constrained to less than the N frequencies" (from claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the invention's core concept. The dispute will likely focus on whether this limitation requires the specific "allowable set" and "prohibited set" mechanism detailed in the patent, or if it can cover a broader range of non-uniform frequency selection schemes. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether standard wireless protocols fall within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim itself does not specify the mechanism of constraint, suggesting any selection from a subset of the total N frequencies could qualify (ʼ346 Patent, col. 7:51-53).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the constraint in terms of dividing the hopping set H into an "allowable" set A and a "prohibited" set B (ʼ346 Patent, col. 4:1-10). The detailed description of the invention's operation centers entirely on this two-set mechanism, which may suggest the term "constrained" should be limited to this implementation (ʼ346 Patent, col. 5:1-68; FIG. 5).

"prohibited from subsequent selection" (from claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the consequence of the "constraint." Its meaning will determine what action the accused algorithm must take with respect to a recently used frequency. The case may turn on whether "prohibited" means a zero-probability of re-selection for a time, or if a reduced probability suffices.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that in the context of pseudo-random algorithms, any mechanism that actively prevents a frequency from being chosen in the next hop constitutes a "prohibition," even if that frequency becomes available again shortly thereafter.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process where the "currently hopped frequency becomes the last element in the set A," and the size of A is then reduced, effectively moving that frequency into the prohibited set B for subsequent hops (ʼ346 Patent, col. 5:4-14). This could support a construction requiring a frequency to be algorithmically unavailable for selection for a defined period.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants instruct customers and end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner through "product descriptions, operating manuals, how-to videos and guides" (Compl. ¶23). Specific URLs for a user manual, support articles, and a YouTube video for the Canon EOS R5 are provided as illustrative examples (Compl. ¶24). The complaint alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused products have no substantial non-infringing uses and contain components especially made or adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶26-27).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ’346 Patent and their infringement since at least October 19, 2020, the filing date of the original complaint (Compl. ¶20). It further alleges that pre-suit knowledge will be established and that continued infringement after receiving notice is willful, wanton, and egregious (Compl. ¶22).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical proof: Can the plaintiff produce evidence, likely through reverse engineering or source code discovery, demonstrating that the frequency-hopping protocols within Defendants' products (e.g., the Canon EOS R5) implement the specific "allowable/prohibited set" constraint mechanism claimed in the ’346 Patent? The case will hinge on whether the accused functionality is merely a standard-compliant wireless protocol or if it contains the specific, novel logic described in the patent.
  • A dispositive legal question will be one of claim scope: Will the court construe the term "prohibited from subsequent selection" to require the explicit, state-updating algorithm detailed in the patent's specification (as in FIG. 5), or will it adopt a broader definition that could encompass any algorithm that avoids immediate frequency reuse? The outcome of this construction will likely determine whether the patent reads on a wide range of modern wireless devices or is limited to a very specific implementation.