DCT

6:20-cv-01175

Traxcell Tech LLC v. Cellco Partnership

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-01175, W.D. Tex., 10/25/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because both Verizon and Ericsson Inc have committed acts of infringement and maintain a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ wireless network infrastructure and services, particularly their Self-Organizing Network (SON) technologies, infringe patents related to wireless network performance monitoring, automated corrective action, and user location privacy controls.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns automated systems for diagnosing faults and optimizing performance in complex cellular networks, a critical function for maintaining service quality for wireless carriers.
  • Key Procedural History: This is a Third Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that the underlying applications for the patents-in-suit were cited to both Verizon and Ericsson by the USPTO during the prosecution of the Defendants' own, separate patent applications, which may form a basis for Plaintiff's allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-10-04 Earliest Priority Date for ’517, ’135, and ’147 Patents
2020-06-30 U.S. Patent No. 10,701,517 Issues
2020-08-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,743,135 Issues
2020-10-27 U.S. Patent No. 10,820,147 Issues
2021-10-25 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,701,517 - “Wireless network and method for suggesting corrective action based on performance and controlling access to location information”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,701,517, titled “Wireless network and method for suggesting corrective action based on performance and controlling access to location information,” issued on June 30, 2020 (the "’517 Patent"). (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the increasing ubiquity of wireless networks and the corresponding interest in using them to locate people or objects in a cost-effective manner, particularly for emergency or crime situations. (’517 Patent, col. 1:55-67). More broadly, the invention addresses the need to monitor network performance and troubleshoot problems. (’517 Patent, col. 37:25-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for monitoring a wireless network by tracking device locations, storing performance data, and comparing that data to expected parameters to identify faults. (’517 Patent, Abstract). When a fault is detected, the system suggests corrective actions. A key feature is a mechanism for controlling third-party access to a device's location information via a user-controllable "preference flag" or "privacy flag" stored in the network. (Compl. ¶10; ’517 Patent, col. 23:3-9).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represents an early approach to automating network management, aiming to replace manual, field-based testing with a centralized, data-driven system for diagnosing and correcting network faults. (’517 Patent, col. 38:5-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-29. (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is presented as representative and contains the following essential elements:
    • A wireless network including a radio tower for communicating with at least one wireless device.
    • A "system of computers" programmed to reference the performance of the wireless device and store performance data.
    • The system of computers is further programmed to receive the performance data and suggest at least one corrective action based on a comparison of the performance data and known network parameters.
    • "another one or more computers" coupled in communication with the system of computers.
    • The system of computers is programmed to provide an indication of the wireless device's location to the "another one or more computers."
    • The "another one or more computers," responsive to a communication from the wireless device, sets a "no access flag" within a memory.
    • The "another one or more computers" provides access to the location indication if the "no access flag" is reset and denies access if it is set.

U.S. Patent No. 10,743,135 - “Wireless network and method for suggesting corrective action in response to detecting communications errors”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,743,135, titled “Wireless network and method for suggesting corrective action in response to detecting communications errors,” issued on August 11, 2020 (the "’135 Patent"). (Compl. ¶22).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’517 Patent, the invention is directed to methods for tuning wireless networks to correct performance issues, addressing problems that can cause degradation or loss of service for mobile devices. (’135 Patent, col. 1:50-54, col. 37:25-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented system provides for analysis of mobile device communications and suggests corrective actions upon detecting performance issues. (’135 Patent, Abstract). A distinguishing feature is the explicit requirement that a radio tower generates an "error code" based on its operation, which is then received by a central system of computers. This system then suggests corrective actions for the network, such as adjusting RF signals of another radio tower, based on that specific error code. (Compl. ¶¶23-24). It also includes a user-controlled access flag to block access to location information. (’135 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The invention describes a more reactive network optimization system where specific error codes generated by network hardware trigger a defined diagnostic and corrective process, improving the automation of network maintenance. (’135 Patent, col. 40:29-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-30. (Compl. ¶25). Independent claim 1 is presented as representative and includes these essential elements:
    • A wireless network with at least two wireless devices, a system of computers, and a radio tower.
    • The system of computers references and stores performance data for the wireless devices.
    • The system of computers receives performance data and suggests at least one corrective action for the radio tower based on that data and a "list of possible causes."
    • The radio tower generates an "error code" based on its operation with the wireless devices.
    • The system of computers is further programmed to receive the error code from the radio tower.
    • The system includes another one or more computers that manage a "no access flag" to grant or deny access to device location information, similar to the system in the ’517 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,820,147 - “Mobile wireless device providing off-line and on-line geographic navigation information”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,820,147, titled “Mobile wireless device providing off-line and on-line geographic navigation information,” issued on October 27, 2020 (the "’147 Patent"). (Compl. ¶36).

Technology Synopsis

  • The patent describes a wireless communication system that provides navigation services to a mobile device. (Compl. ¶37). The system allows for both "on-line" navigation using network data and "off-line" navigation using a local database on the device. A key aspect is the use of real-time traffic congestion data, provided by the network, to allow the navigation system to calculate and select an optimal route based on expected travel time. (’147 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

  • Claims 1-24. (Compl. ¶39).

Accused Features

  • The complaint accuses wireless mobile devices sold or used on the Verizon network (e.g., iPhones, Samsung Galaxy devices) that run navigation applications like Verizon VZ Navigator or Google Maps. The infringement theory centers on these apps using network-provided traffic data to update and optimize routes for the user. (Compl. ¶¶38, 41, 44).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' wireless networks, network components, and related services, particularly those implementing Self-Organizing Network ("SON") technology. (Compl. ¶¶11, 18). This includes Ericsson's SON solution (e.g., SON Optimization Manager, SON Policy Manager) and Verizon's implementation of SON, which includes its own proprietary "V-SON." (Compl. ¶¶4, 11). For the ’147 Patent, the accused instrumentalities extend to mobile devices and navigation applications operating on the network. (Compl. ¶38).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused SON systems automatically collect and analyze network performance data from various sources, including Minimization of Drive Tests (MDT) reports and User Equipment (UE) Measurement Reports. (Compl. ¶¶5, 19). This data is allegedly used to identify network faults or inefficiencies and then to suggest or perform corrective actions, such as adjusting radio parameters to improve service. The complaint provides a network architecture diagram to illustrate the components of the accused systems. (Compl. p. 4). These SON technologies are foundational to the operation of modern, large-scale commercial wireless networks provided by carriers like Verizon.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 10,701,517 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a radio tower adapted to receive radio frequency signals from, and transmit radio frequency signals to, at least one wireless device; Verizon's wireless network includes base stations that transmit and receive radio frequency signals from wireless devices. ¶11 col. 3:31-40
a system of computers programmed to perform steps of referencing performance of the at least one wireless device with wireless network known parameters and routinely storing performance data... A system of computers, including Verizon's Operations Support System (OSS) and Ericsson's SON solution, is programmed to collect performance measurements (e.g., MDT reports) and compare them against predefined thresholds. ¶11 col. 37:25-30
wherein the system of computers further receives the performance data and suggests at least one corrective action in conformity with a comparison of the performance data and the wireless network known parameters; Ericsson's SON solution allegedly receives the performance data and suggests corrective actions based on its comparison with known network parameters. ¶11 col. 38:5-13
another one or more computers other than the system of computers... coupled in communication with the system of computers, The wireless network includes other computers (e.g., third-party Location-Based Services providers) that are coupled in communication with the SON system. ¶11 col. 21:31-39
wherein the system of computers is programmed to provide an indication of location... to the another one or more computer, The SON system can provide an indication of a device's location to the other computers. ¶11 col. 42:10-15
and wherein the another one or more computers, responsive to a communication from the at least one wireless device, set a no access flag within a memory... The other computers are capable of setting a "no access flag" in response to a communication from the wireless device (e.g., a user disabling location services). ¶11 col. 23:3-9
and wherein the another one or more computers provides access to an indication of location... if the no access flag is reset and denies access... if the no access flag is set. The other computers provide or deny access to the device's location depending on whether the "no access flag" is set or reset. ¶11 col. 23:10-23
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused SON systems, which are modern and often highly automated, fall within the scope of the claimed "system of computers" that "suggests" corrective actions, as contemplated by a patent with a 2001 priority date.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether user-level privacy settings in a modern smartphone operating system function as the claimed network-side "no access flag," which the patent describes as being set via a negotiation between network components.

U.S. Patent No. 10,743,135 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a system of computers programmed to perform steps of referencing performance of at least one of the at least two wireless devices... and routinely storing performance data... The accused SON and OSS systems are programmed to reference and store performance data from wireless devices on the network. ¶24 col. 37:25-30
a radio tower adapted to receive the radio frequency signals from, and transmit the radio frequency signals to, the at least one of the at least two wireless devices, The Verizon network has radio towers (base stations) that communicate with wireless devices. The complaint includes an "LTE SON" slide from Ericsson to exemplify this technology. (Compl. p. 26). ¶24 col. 3:31-40
wherein the system of computers further receives the performance data and suggests at least one corrective action obtained from a list of possible causes for the radio tower based upon the performance data... The SON solution is allegedly programmed to receive performance data and suggest corrective actions for the radio tower based on this data. ¶24 col. 40:41-47
wherein the radio tower generates an error code based upon operation of the at least one of the at least two wireless devices, and wherein the system of computers is further programmed to receive the error code from the radio tower, The radio tower or base station allegedly generates an "error code" in the form of alerts, alarms, or notifications, which the SON system receives. ¶24 col. 40:1-4
wherein the system of computers further comprises another one or more computers other than the system of computers... The network allegedly includes other computers, such as servers from third-party LBS providers, coupled in communication with the primary SON system. ¶24 col. 21:31-39
...set a no access flag... provides access... if the no access flag is reset and denies access... if the no access flag is set. This system of computers allegedly allows or denies access to device location based on the setting of a "no access flag" responsive to user settings. ¶24 col. 23:3-23
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: It may be disputed whether a general "alarm" or "notification" from a base station qualifies as the claimed "error code."
    • Technical Questions: A significant technical question is whether the accused SON system suggests a corrective action "obtained from a list of possible causes," as the claim requires, or if it uses a different logic (e.g., machine learning, algorithmic adjustment) that does not rely on such a pre-defined list.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "suggests at least one corrective action" (’517 Patent, Claim 1; ’135 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused SON systems are described as highly automated. The infringement analysis may turn on whether an automated network adjustment, performed without human intervention, can be considered a "suggestion."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specifications describe an "automatic correction mode" where, after a fault is diagnosed, "the cause of the fault and corrective action taken are added to the case file." (’517 Patent, col. 41:5-8). This could be argued to encompass a fully automated process where the "suggestion" is an internal step before the action is taken.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "suggests" implies a proposal that can be accepted or rejected. The patents also describe a "passive diagnosis mode" and an "active diagnosis mode," which could be used to argue that "suggests" implies a level of interaction or reporting that stops short of automatic implementation. (’517 Patent, col. 40:48-55).

  • The Term: "no access flag" (’517 Patent, Claim 1; ’135 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The complaint maps this term to general user privacy settings, such as turning off location services on a smartphone. (Compl. ¶22). The construction of this term will determine whether such user-level settings meet the claim limitation, or if a more specific, network-level data structure is required.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the flag's function as being set when a user "has chosen to have his/her location be held private." (’517 Patent, col. 23:6-8). This functional description may support an interpretation that covers any mechanism achieving that result, including an OS-level privacy setting.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed embodiment of a "full privacy flag 1170" that is part of a "user entry" in a "ULD 900" (User Location Database). The flag is set following a "negotiation" between the ULDM and a network switch. (’517 Patent, col. 23:3-9). This specific embodiment may support a narrower construction requiring a dedicated data flag maintained within the core network infrastructure itself.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that both Verizon and Ericsson induce infringement by actively encouraging and instructing customers on how to use the accused products and services. (Compl. ¶¶14, 20, 27, 33).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that both Verizon and Ericsson knew or should have known of the patents by at least the date of their issuance, or from an earlier date when the patents' underlying applications were allegedly cited by the USPTO during the prosecution of the defendants' own patent applications. (Compl. ¶¶14, 20, 27, 33). Based on this alleged pre-suit knowledge, Plaintiff seeks a finding of willful infringement and treble damages. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶¶ viii, ix).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technological translation: Can the architecture of a "system of computers" and a "privacy flag," as described in patents with a 2001 priority date, be construed to cover modern, distributed Self-Organizing Networks and user-controlled, OS-level privacy settings? The significant evolution of network technology in the intervening two decades will make the interpretation of these terms central to the dispute.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: Does the accused SON system's generation of general network "alarms" and its automated responses meet the specific claim requirements of generating an "error code" and "suggest[ing]... corrective action obtained from a list of possible causes," or is there a fundamental mismatch in the level of detail and mechanism of operation?
  • The allegations of willfulness will likely depend on a threshold legal question of notice: Does a reference to a patent application in a USPTO Office Action during the prosecution of a defendant's own, unrelated patent portfolio constitute legally sufficient pre-suit notice of the subsequently issued patent to support a claim of willful infringement?