DCT

6:22-cv-00351

Lionra Tech Ltd v. Apple Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00351, W.D. Tex., 08/22/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Apple is registered to do business in Texas, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and maintains regular and established places of business in the district, specifically in Austin.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s iPhones and iPads equipped with LTE or 5G functionality infringe a patent related to an integrated architecture for modem and digital beamforming functions.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for efficiently processing signals in wireless transceivers that use phased-array antennas, which is fundamental to modern high-speed cellular communication standards.
  • Key Procedural History: This document is a Second Amended Complaint. The complaint notes that the Court has previously found the district to be a convenient forum and that Defendant does not contest personal jurisdiction for the purposes of this action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-02-28 '141 Patent Priority Date
2007-08-21 '141 Patent Issue Date
2022-06-30 Date referenced in patent marking allegation
2023-08-22 Second Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141, “Integrated beamformer/modem architecture,” issued August 21, 2007.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of high computational cost and hardware complexity associated with conventional digital beamforming in multi-user wireless systems. Traditional methods often perform beamforming as a separate process from symbol demodulation, forcing computationally intense operations to occur at high sampling rates. (’141 Patent, col. 2:7-19).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modem architecture that integrates digital beamforming directly into the baseband processing functions. Signals from each antenna element are independently processed down to the baseband level, where data rates are lower. The computations for beamforming (adjusting signal phase and amplitude) are then combined with the computations for modem functions like carrier phase tracking and automatic gain control (AGC), allowing them to be performed by shared processing hardware in a time-multiplexed manner. (’141 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:55-63).
    • Technical Importance: This integrated approach was designed to reduce the hardware cost, size, and complexity required to implement steerable phased-array antennas in devices like cellular base stations. (’141 Patent, col. 3:12-18).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶10).
    • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
      • An apparatus for modulating and demodulating signals for a phased array antenna, comprising:
      • a baseband modulator;
      • a baseband demodulator; and
      • a shared baseband processor configured to receive digital baseband signals from both the modulator and demodulator, with the processor "applying a single phase adjustment to each of the digital baseband signals to jointly account for both beamforming phase rotation and carrier phase rotation of individual antenna elements".
    • The complaint states that one or more claims of the ’141 Patent are infringed, reserving the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies a wide range of Apple products with LTE or 5G functionality, including the iPhone 6 through iPhone 14 series, and various cellular-capable iPad models (collectively, the “Accused Products”). (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The infringement allegation centers on the functionality of the "Qualcomm baseband processors" contained within the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶10). The complaint alleges these processors implement the patented technology to manage wireless communications over LTE and 5G networks. The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of these processors but identifies them as the component that satisfies all claim limitations. (Compl. ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that claim charts are attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 but does not include these exhibits in the filing. (Compl. ¶10). The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’141 Patent. (Compl. ¶10). The narrative theory suggests that the Qualcomm baseband processors in Apple's products contain the claimed "baseband modulator", "baseband demodulator", and "shared baseband processor". (Compl. ¶10). The central allegation is that these processors perform a "single phase adjustment" that "jointly account[s] for both beamforming phase rotation and carrier phase rotation", thereby meeting the core functional limitation of claim 1. (Compl. ¶10; ’141 Patent, col. 13:38-41). The complaint does not specify the mechanism by which this allegedly joint adjustment is performed in the accused processors.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be the proper construction of "shared baseband processor". The dispute could center on whether this term covers any processor that performs the recited functions in a modern System-on-Chip (SoC) architecture, or if it is limited to the specific time-multiplexed, hardware-reducing architecture detailed in the patent’s specification. (’141 Patent, col. 7:6-16).
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question for the court will be whether the accused Qualcomm processors actually perform a "single phase adjustment" that "jointly" accounts for both beamforming and carrier rotation. The analysis will require evidence of whether the accused processors combine these two logical inputs before applying a phase rotation, as described in the patent (’141 Patent, col. 8:45-49), or if they perform these as distinct, sequential operations that do not meet the "jointly account for" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "shared baseband processor"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed apparatus. Its construction will determine whether the architecture of the accused Qualcomm modems falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant will likely argue it is limited to the specific hardware-sharing embodiment disclosed, while the plaintiff will argue for a broader interpretation covering the functionality of the accused processors.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular structure for the "shared baseband processor", only its function of receiving signals and applying adjustments.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes that a key object of the invention is to reduce hardware by sharing processing elements in a "time-multiplexed manner." (’141 Patent, col. 3:6-11, 7:6-16). Figure 1 depicts a distinct block labeled "Shared Baseband Processor 38," which could be argued to define the required structure. (’141 Patent, Fig. 1).

  • The Term: "applying a single phase adjustment to ... jointly account for both beamforming phase rotation and carrier phase rotation"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core inventive function. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused processors perform this specific combined operation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that any sequence of operations that results in a final phase adjustment reflecting both beamforming and carrier rotation inputs satisfies the "jointly account for" requirement, regardless of the precise mathematical steps.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific method for this joint accounting: "by adding the desired beamforming rotation to the sample-by-sample desired carrier tracking rotation, a new sum rotation is formed. This sum rotation is then applied to the existing complex multiplier..." (’141 Patent, col. 8:45-49). A party could argue this "summing-then-multiplying" process is required by the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement. The substantive count is for direct infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. (Compl. ¶11).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or plead facts related to pre-suit knowledge of the patent. However, the prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Can the term "shared baseband processor", which is described in the patent as a means to reduce hardware, be construed to read on the highly integrated, multi-function architecture of a modern Qualcomm baseband SoC, or is it limited to the specific time-multiplexed embodiment disclosed?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused processors' method for applying phase adjustments constitute a "single phase adjustment" that "jointly" accounts for beamforming and carrier rotation by combining them into a "new sum rotation" as taught in the patent, or does it utilize a different, non-infringing sequence of discrete operations? The resolution will likely require detailed discovery into the inner workings of the accused chips.