Buffalo Patents LLC v. Coolpad Group Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Buffalo Patents, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Coolpad Group Limited (Cayman Islands) and Yulong Computer Telecommunication Scientific (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
• Case Identification: 6:21-cv-01061, W.D. Tex., 10/13/2021
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper as to the foreign-domiciled defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), which permits suing a non-U.S. resident in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Coolpad Legacy family of smartphones infringes four patents related to internet and wireless network telephony, specifically through their Voice over Wi-Fi (VoWi-Fi) functionality.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on Voice over Wi-Fi (VoWi-Fi) technology, which allows mobile devices to make and receive voice calls over an IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) network instead of a traditional cellular network.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit was developed in the late 1990s by the Danish company Nextlink.to A/S. It also notes that the inventions have been cited during the patent prosecution of applications by numerous leading telecommunications companies.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,187,670 - "Communications Terminal, a System and a Method for Internet/Network Telephony," issued March 6, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the high cost of conventional long-distance telephony and identifies drawbacks in prior art IP telephony systems, which often relied on specialized, proprietary equipment like dedicated base stations or gateways. This limited user mobility and increased system complexity and cost (’670 Patent, col. 1:12-2:54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a self-contained, portable communications terminal (e.g., a headset) that incorporates its own "protocol means" to handle standardized network protocols like TCP/IP locally. This terminal uses "wireless near field communications means" (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) to connect to any generic internet-connected device ("connecting unit"), rather than a specialized base station. This architecture decouples the voice terminal from proprietary hardware, aiming to increase flexibility and reduce cost (’670 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:36-50; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The claimed approach represented a shift toward embedding network intelligence directly into the user's portable device, enabling it to function as an independent network node for voice communication over any available internet connection (’670 Patent, col. 2:55-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
• Claim 1 of the ’670 Patent recites:
  • An electronic portable communications terminal for network telephony.
  • Audio means for reproducing sound from a first electrical signal and recording sound to produce a second electrical signal.
  • Converting means for converting the second electrical signal into transmission data and converting received data into the first electrical signal.
  • Protocol means connected to the converting means for handling communication according to a standardized network protocol, including embedding and extracting data into/from a first data packet format.
  • Wireless near field communications means connected to the protocol means, which embeds the transmission data from the first data packet format into a wireless second data format and extracts received data from the wireless second data format.
  • The wireless means performs communication with a connecting unit, where the exchanged data consists of packets in the first data packet format embedded in the wireless second data format.

U.S. Patent No. 7,408,915 - "Communications Terminal, a System and a Method for Internet/Network Telephony," issued August 5, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’670 Patent, the ’915 Patent addresses the same challenge of creating flexible, low-cost, and mobile IP telephony solutions that are not tied to specialized hardware (’915 Patent, col. 1:11-2:51).
• The Patented Solution: The ’915 Patent claims a method for network telephony that mirrors the functionality of the system in the ’670 Patent. The claimed method comprises the steps of converting audio signals to data, handling that data with a standardized network protocol to create packets, and then embedding those packets into a Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) format for wireless transmission to a connecting unit. This claimed process effectively covers the act of using a device to perform VoWi-Fi (’915 Patent, col. 11:43-12:67; Figs. 3a-3b).
• Technical Importance: By claiming the method of operation, the patent provides a different scope of protection than the system claim of the parent ’670 patent, focusing on the process of transmitting voice over Wi-Fi rather than the structure of the device itself (’915 Patent, col. 2:52-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 29 (Compl. ¶46).
• Claim 29 of the ’915 Patent recites a method comprising the steps of:
  • Reproducing and recording sound via audio means.
  • Converting between electrical signals and transmission/received data via converting means.
  • Handling communication according to a standardized network protocol and embedding/extracting data into/from a data packet format via protocol means.
  • Receiving/sending the data in the data packet format from/to the protocol means via wireless near field communication means.
  • Embedding transmission data from the data packet format into a WiFi or IEEE 802.11 format and extracting received data from that format.
  • Communicating the data embedded in the WiFi or IEEE 802.11 format with a connecting unit to establish a network connection.

U.S. Patent No. 8,611,328 - "Communications Terminal, a System and a Method for Internet/Network Telephony," issued December 17, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family, claims a method for internet telephony. The method comprises converting a detected sound signal into first digital data, converting that digital data into one or more data packets according to a network protocol, embedding these packets into wireless data, and transmitting the wireless data via a near-field communication network (’328 Patent, claim 8).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 8 (Compl. ¶73).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Coolpad Legacy devices' VoWi-Fi feature, alleging it practices the claimed method by using a microphone and codec to create digital voice data, a processor to encapsulate this data into IP packets, and a Wi-Fi chipset to embed and transmit these packets (Compl. ¶¶76-83).

U.S. Patent No. 9,001,816 - "Communications Terminal, a System and a Method for Internet/Network Telephony," issued April 7, 2015

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, also from the same family, claims a method focused on the receiving side of a communication. The method comprises receiving, via a near-field network, wireless data that accords to a first network protocol (e.g., Wi-Fi), where that data includes an embedded data packet according to a second network protocol (e.g., IP). The method further includes extracting the data packet and generating a sound based on it (’816 Patent, claim 10).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 10 (Compl. ¶89).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the Coolpad Legacy devices' VoWi-Fi feature, specifically the process of receiving Wi-Fi frames (PPDUs) containing IP packets with voice data, extracting those IP packets, and processing them with a codec and speaker to produce sound (Compl. ¶¶92-97).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Coolpad Legacy family of products that support Voice over Wi-Fi (VoWi-Fi) or Wi-Fi calling" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are smartphones capable of making and receiving voice calls over IEEE 802.11 wireless networks (Wi-Fi) (Compl. ¶¶21, 25). The complaint alleges this functionality relies on a microphone to capture sound, a speaker to reproduce sound, a codec to convert analog voice to digital data (and vice versa), a processor to create and handle Internet Protocol (IP) packets, and a Wi-Fi chipset to embed these IP packets into IEEE 802.11 frames for wireless transmission and reception (Compl. ¶¶21-38). A screenshot of the Coolpad Legacy's technical specifications in the complaint explicitly states "Wi-Fi Calling Capable: Yes" (Compl. p. 6).
• The complaint asserts that the defendants are among the "world's largest manufacturers of wireless devices" and "leading sellers" in the United States, suggesting the commercial significance of the accused products (Compl. ¶5). A diagram from the accused product's user guide identifies the physical locations of the "Receiver" and "Loudspeaker" (Compl. p. 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'670 Patent Infringement Allegations

'915 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be one of definitional scope. The patents' specifications frequently describe the invention in the context of simple peripheral devices like headsets or ear telephones (’670 Patent, Figs. 4, 5). The court may need to consider whether the term "portable communications terminal" can be construed to cover a complex, multi-function smartphone, or if the invention is limited to the simpler embodiments described.
• Technical Questions: For the system claims of the ’670 Patent, a question may arise regarding the structural mapping of the claimed "means" (protocol means, converting means, wireless means) onto the highly integrated System-on-a-Chip (SoC) architecture of a modern smartphone. The analysis may focus on whether these are structurally distinct components as arguably depicted in the patent's figures or if their functions are sufficiently separable to satisfy the claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "protocol means" (from ’670 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical for determining what structure within the accused smartphone must perform the functions of handling, controlling, embedding, and extracting data according to a standardized network protocol. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will dictate whether a general-purpose processor executing software can satisfy the limitation, or if a more specific, dedicated hardware component is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the "protocol means" provides for "the handling of data/information" and "may e.g. be comprised by a special- and/or general-purpose microprocessor, logic circuit, etc." (’670 Patent, col. 8:30-44). This language may support an interpretation that covers software running on a general-purpose processor.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's block diagram (Fig. 1) depicts "Protocol means (103)" as a distinct block from the general "μP (105)" (microprocessor). This separation could support an argument that the "protocol means" must be a structurally distinct component from the main CPU, such as a dedicated baseband processor.

• The Term: "wireless near field communications means" (from ’670 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the type of wireless technology covered by the claims. Its construction is central to determining whether the accused products' use of Wi-Fi falls within the patent's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly lists "IEEE802.11" (the standard for Wi-Fi) as an example of a protocol the "communications means" may use (’670 Patent, col. 8:60-62). This provides direct textual support for including Wi-Fi within the term's scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may suggest the possibility that the modifier "near field" limits the scope to shorter-range technologies than are typical for Wi-Fi, particularly given the patent's other examples like Bluetooth and its focus on personal-area devices connecting to a nearby host (’670 Patent, col. 4:14). However, the express inclusion of "IEEE802.11" in the specification presents a significant hurdle to such an argument.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement of the ’670 Patent. Inducement is alleged based on Defendant’s actions of "advising or directing customers" to use the infringing VoWi-Fi feature through instructions, advertising, and promotion (Compl. ¶¶100-106, 112-114). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products contain "special features," namely "improved wireless communication capabilities," that are not staple articles of commerce and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶117-121).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The complaint alleges post-suit willfulness based on knowledge of the patents from the date of the complaint's filing (Compl. ¶40). It also alleges pre-suit willfulness, asserting that Coolpad has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," constituting willful blindness, and that its infringement has been "intentional, deliberate, and/or in conscious disregard" of Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶¶124, 127).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "portable communications terminal," which is described in the specification with reference to simpler embodiments like headsets and earpieces, be construed to cover the complex and integrated architecture of a modern smartphone?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the integrated System-on-a-Chip (SoC) in the accused smartphones contain distinct hardware or software modules that map directly onto the separately claimed "protocol means," "converting means," and "wireless near field communications means," or does their functional integration create a mismatch with the claimed system architecture?
• A central question for damages will be willfulness: the court will likely examine whether Plaintiff can substantiate its allegation that Defendant maintained a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" and, if so, whether such a policy constitutes the objective recklessness required to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.