DCT

6:22-cv-00060

Ericsson Inc v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00060, W.D. Tex., 01/17/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including multiple corporate campuses and retail stores in Austin.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cellular-enabled products, including iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches, infringe four patents essential to the 4G and 5G cellular communication standards.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves fundamental methods for managing data re-transmissions, system information delivery, user privacy, and signaling efficiency in modern 4G/LTE and 5G cellular networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a prior global cross-license between the parties, executed in 2015, has expired. It also alleges that the asserted patents have been declared essential to the 3GPP/ETSI cellular standards, implicating Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations. Plaintiff further alleges that one of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,102,805, was previously asserted against Apple in 2015, which may be relevant to the willfulness claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-10-31 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,102,805
2007-06-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,532,355
2012-01-24 U.S. Patent No. 8,102,805 Issued
2015-01-14 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,139,872
2015 Prior litigation involving the ’805 Patent filed
2016-12-26 U.S. Patent No. 9,532,355 Issued
2017-07-25 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,425,817
2019-09-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,425,817 Issued
2021-10-05 U.S. Patent No. 11,139,872 Issued
2022-01-17 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,102,805 - "HARQ in Spatial Multiplexing MIMO System" (Issued Jan. 24, 2012)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In advanced wireless systems like HSDPA with MIMO (Multiple-Input Multiple-Output), data is split into multiple streams transmitted simultaneously. This increases the number of required Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) processes needed to manage re-transmissions of failed data packets, which in turn increases signaling overhead on the control channel (Compl. ¶ 1; ’805 Patent, col. 3:20-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention reduces this overhead by assigning a single re-transmission process identifier to a pair of data substreams for a given transmission interval. To distinguish which of the two substreams a subsequent re-transmission belongs to, the system uses "disambiguation data," such as a dedicated one-bit flag or by ensuring the two original transport blocks have different sizes. This avoids the need to signal a full, separate process identifier for each substream ('805 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:51-65).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a more efficient use of scarce control channel resources, which is critical for maximizing data throughput in 4G/LTE networks that rely heavily on MIMO technology (Compl. ¶ 4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 19 and its dependent claims (Compl. ¶ 23).
  • Independent Claim 19 (Receiver Method): The essential elements include:
    • Receiving first and second transport blocks transmitted simultaneously during a first transmission interval on first and second data substreams.
    • Receiving first scheduling information comprising a single re-transmission process identifier and first disambiguation data.
    • Receiving a re-transmitted one of the transport blocks during a second transmission interval.
    • Receiving second scheduling information for the second interval, comprising the same re-transmission process identifier and second disambiguation data.
    • Using the second disambiguation data to determine whether the re-transmitted block is on the first or second data substream.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including claims 20, 22-27, and 29-32 (Compl. ¶ 23).

U.S. Patent No. 9,532,355 - "Transmission of system information on a downlink shared channel" (Issued Dec. 26, 2016)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Mobile devices need to receive system information from the network, but constantly monitoring for it drains battery power. Traditional methods were either inflexible (using fixed channels) or required continuous monitoring (’355 Patent, col. 2:25-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention defines regularly occurring "time windows" during which system information may be transmitted. A device only needs to monitor for a specific System Information-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (SI-RNTI) on a control channel during these windows. Crucially, the network transmits a distinct End-of-System-Information RNTI (ESI-RNTI) in the final subframe containing system info for that window. Upon detecting the ESI-RNTI, the device can stop monitoring and enter a power-saving state until the next window begins (’355 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:40-49).
  • Technical Importance: This approach creates a power-efficient mechanism for delivering dynamic system information, which is a foundational requirement for all modern smartphones operating on LTE and 5G networks (Compl. ¶¶ 4-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 17 and its dependent claims (Compl. ¶ 32).
  • Independent Claim 17 (User Equipment Method): The essential elements include:
    • Monitoring, within a recurring time window, at least one subframe for an indication of system information.
    • The indication is present in each subframe where system information is present.
    • Reading the system information from the subframe when the indication is present.
    • Recognizing an end-of-system-information indicator in a signal received within the time window.
    • Terminating monitoring within the time window in response to the end-of-system-information indicator.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including claims 19-21, 23-24, 26-27, and 29-36 (Compl. ¶ 32).

U.S. Patent No. 10,425,817 - "Subscription Concealed Identifier" (Issued Sep. 24, 2019)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the privacy vulnerability of transmitting a permanent user subscription identifier (e.g., IMSI) in clear text over the air, which can be intercepted by "IMSI catchers" (’817 Patent, col. 1:21-39). The invention solves this by creating a Subscription Concealed Identifier (SUCI), where the permanent identifier is encrypted. The SUCI contains a clear-text portion (like the home network ID) that allows a visited network to correctly route the authentication request, and an encrypted portion that only the user's home network can decrypt, thus protecting the user's identity from eavesdropping during the initial network connection process (’817 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11-16 (Compl. ¶ 41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Apple products that implement 5G technology (Compl. ¶ 40).

U.S. Patent No. 11,139,872 - "Codebook Subset Restriction Signaling" (Issued Oct. 5, 2021)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of excessive signaling overhead when communicating Codebook Subset Restrictions (CSR) in advanced MIMO systems with large antenna arrays. A simple bitmap approach becomes inefficient as codebook sizes grow (’872 Patent, col. 2:45-62). The patented solution is a method where the network generates signaling that jointly restricts entire groups of precoders by restricting a common underlying component (e.g., a specific beamforming vector) that those precoders share. This allows the network to restrict many precoders with a much smaller amount of signaling data (’872 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 7 and 19 and their dependent claims (Compl. ¶ 50).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Apple products that implement 5G technology (Compl. ¶ 49).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Products are identified as Apple's mobile telephones, tablet computers, and smart watches with cellular connectivity that implement 4G LTE and/or 5G technology, including iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 31, 40, 49).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products incorporate and use 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards to provide wireless communication (Compl. ¶ 4). The functionality accused of infringement pertains to the core operations of these devices in connecting to and communicating over cellular networks, including managing data transmissions and re-transmissions, receiving system information, and identifying the user to the network. The complaint asserts that Apple is the largest smartphone manufacturer in the United States, underscoring the commercial significance of the accused products (Compl. ¶ 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges infringement of the patents-in-suit by exclusive reference to claim charts attached as external exhibits (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 38, 47, 56). These exhibits were not included with the complaint document provided for analysis. As such, the complaint itself does not contain a narrative infringement theory or an element-by-element breakdown of the allegations. The analysis below identifies potential points of contention based on the high-level allegations and the language of the patents and claims.

’805 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: Does Apple’s implementation of HARQ process management in its 4G LTE products utilize what can be construed as "a single re-transmission process identifier" for two distinct data substreams, as required by claim 19? The dispute may focus on whether Apple's chosen identifier scheme, while compliant with the LTE standard, functions in the specific manner claimed by the patent.
    • Technical Question: What specific data in Apple's control signaling serves as the claimed "disambiguation data"? The analysis will require evidence showing that a specific bit field or a difference in transport block size is used to resolve the ambiguity of which substream is carrying a re-transmitted packet.

’355 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: Does a signal transmitted by the network and received by Apple's products function as an "end-of-system-information indicator" whose specific purpose is to terminate monitoring for the current window? The defense may argue that any power-saving behavior is a result of a different mechanism or a more general process not claimed by the patent.
    • Technical Question: The patent specification explicitly refers to an "ESI-RNTI" as the indicator (’355 Patent, col. 3:40-44). A key question will be whether the accused system uses this specific type of identifier, or an equivalent, to perform the claimed function of terminating UE monitoring.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’805 Patent (from Claim 19)

  • The Term: "a single re-transmission process identifier"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's claimed efficiency gain. The entire infringement theory rests on whether Apple’s system, which manages numerous HARQ processes, can be shown to associate one identifier with two substreams for a given interval. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether Apple’s standards-compliant implementation maps onto the patent’s specific architecture.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the concept more generally as "assigning a single re-transmission process identifier for the first transmission interval," which may support an argument that the specific format of the identifier is less important than its function of representing the paired transmission.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where the total number of processes (e.g., 16) is divided into pairs, and a shorter identifier (e.g., 3 bits) is used to identify the pair, effectively creating a single identifier for two potential sub-processes (’805 Patent, col. 6:7-21). This could support a narrower construction tied to this paired structure.

’355 Patent (from Claim 17)

  • The Term: "end-of-system-information indicator"
  • Context and Importance: This indicator is the trigger for the claimed power-saving benefit. The case will likely turn on whether this exact function—terminating monitoring for the current window—is performed by a specific signal in the accused system.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, describing an "indicator" that causes termination of monitoring. This could support arguments that any signal achieving this result meets the limitation, regardless of its name.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and explicitly ties this function to a specific identifier: the "End-of-System-Information RNTI (ESI-RNTI)" (’355 Patent, col. 3:40-44). This provides strong support for construing the term as being limited to the ESI-RNTI or a direct equivalent, rather than any general signal that might incidentally lead to power savings.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. The inducement claims are based on allegations that Apple provides directions, instructions, and manuals that lead end-users and others to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 34, 43, 52). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the Accused Products constitute a material part of the inventions, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Apple to be especially made for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 36, 45, 54).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement. For the ’805 Patent, the basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from prior litigation against Apple in 2015 at the ITC and in the Eastern District of Texas where the ’805 Patent was also asserted (Compl. ¶ 24). For the ’355, ’817, and ’872 patents, the basis for willfulness is knowledge acquired "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint," which primarily supports a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 42, 51).

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

  • A central issue, underlying the technical disputes, will be the characterization of the patents-in-suit as Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The case will likely involve significant argument over the implications of Ericsson's alleged FRAND licensing commitments, which could heavily influence the calculation of a reasonable royalty and the availability of injunctive relief.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation versus claim scope: Does Apple's implementation of complex 4G/5G protocols, which are governed by standards but allow for design flexibility, map directly onto the specific methods claimed in the patents? For example, does its management of HARQ processes in LTE utilize a "single re-transmission process identifier" as construed from the ’805 Patent, and does its system information delivery use a specific "end-of-system-information indicator" as required by the ’355 Patent, or are there material operational and structural differences?
  • A third critical question will concern willfulness and damages. For the ’805 Patent, the court will have to determine if the prior 2015 litigation placed Apple on sufficient notice to support a finding of pre-suit willful infringement. For all patents, the resolution of the SEP/FRAND issue will be dispositive for the ultimate quantum of damages.