DCT
6:22-cv-01128
Stormborn Tech LLC v. Itron Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Stormborn Technologies LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Itron, Inc. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01128, W.D. Tex., 10/27/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant operates a sales office and maintains a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Itron CCU 100" communications unit infringes a patent related to a closed-loop system for dynamically adjusting data transmission rates in a wireless network based on error rates measured at the receiver.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses interference management in spread-spectrum wireless communication systems, a foundational element of modern cellular and smart grid networks.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,247. The complaint notes a prior court ruling in separate litigation (Stormborn Technologies, LLC v. [TopCon Positioning Systems, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/topcon-positioning-systems-inc)) where a representative claim of the patent-in-suit was held to be "not functionally defined without a specific implementation" and tied to a concrete structure.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-06-14 | Earliest Priority Date for RE44,199 Patent |
| 2013-05-07 | U.S. Patent No. RE44,199 Issues |
| 2020-03-17 | Court Decision in Stormborn v. TopCon referenced in the complaint |
| 2022-10-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,199 - "Variable throughput reduction communications system and method"
- Issued: May 7, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In wireless multi-cell systems, a device near the edge of a cell can experience significant interference from adjacent cells, which degrades signal quality and increases error rates (’199 Patent, col. 1:50-57). Conventional methods to combat this, such as increasing the system's processing gain, were inefficient because they invariably reduced the data rate and required complex architectural changes to the receiver hardware (Compl. ¶17; ’199 Patent, col. 1:58-66).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a closed-loop feedback system. A receiver decodes incoming data across multiple parallel subchannels and calculates an "error rate" from this process (’199 Patent, col. 4:58-63). Based on this measured error rate, a "command processor" at the receiver generates a "data-rate control signal" and transmits it back to the original transmitter. The transmitter then adjusts its data rate—for example, by changing how many subchannels it uses or by sending redundant data—to maintain a desired quality of service without altering the receiver's core architecture (Compl. ¶19; ’199 Patent, Fig. 5).
- Technical Importance: This method provides an adaptive mechanism for a communication system to respond to real-time channel conditions, improving reliability and efficiency over static systems (Compl. ¶43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 11 (a receiver) and 13 (a method), as well as dependent claims 12 and 14 (Compl. ¶19, ¶21).
- Independent Claim 11 (receiver) requires:
- demodulator circuitry for detecting transmitted signals.
- decoder circuitry for FEC decoding, providing decoded channels with an error rate.
- command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate to generate a data-rate control signal.
- transmitting circuitry to convey the control signal back to the transmitter.
- multiplexer circuitry for combining the decoded channels.
- Independent Claim 13 (method) requires the steps of:
- detecting transmitted signals.
- FEC decoding and de-interleaving to provide decoded channels with an error rate.
- using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate to generate a data-rate control signal.
- transmitting the control signal back to the transmitter.
- multiplexing the decoded channels into a data stream.
- The complaint explicitly asserts claims 11-14 (Compl. ¶53-54, ¶56).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Itron CCU 100" and related solutions (Compl. ¶57). The plaintiff reserves the right to include additional products (Compl. ¶57, fn. 1).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the Accused Product as a system that practices a method for recovering wireless data transmitted over multiple sub-channels (Compl. ¶57). While not detailed in the complaint, Itron is a known provider of technology for smart grid and utility networks, suggesting the CCU 100 is a communications unit used in such applications. The allegations state the accused functionality is present "at least in internal testing and usage" (Compl. ¶58-63).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an exemplary claim chart in Exhibit C, which was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶57). The infringement theory is therefore drawn from the narrative allegations in the body of the complaint.
RE44,199 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for recovering wireless data conveyed in data symbols by a plurality of different subchannel signals transmitted over a wireless channel... | The Accused Product is alleged to practice a method for recovering wireless data transmitted via sub-channel signals. | ¶58 | col. 12:49-52 |
| detecting the transmitted signals in a plurality of demodulated channels; | The Accused Product allegedly "practices detecting the transmitted signals in a plurality of demodulated channels." | ¶59 | col. 12:53-54 |
| FEC decoding and de-interleaving the plurality of demodulated channels, providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate; | The Accused Product is alleged to practice "FEC decoding and de-interleaving the plurality of demodulated channels, providing a multiplicity of decoded channels, each having an error rate." | ¶60 | col. 12:55-58 |
| using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels to generate a data-rate control signal to produce a desired data rate to be sent by the data symbol transmitter... | The Accused Product allegedly "practices using command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels to generate a data-rate control signal." | ¶61 | col. 12:59-63 |
| transmitting the error rate dependent data-rate control signal back to the data symbol transmitter; | The Accused Product allegedly "practices transmitting the error rate dependent data-rate control signal back to the data symbol transmitter." | ¶62 | col. 13:1-2 |
| and multiplexing the multiplicity of decoded channels into a single stream of received data. | The Accused Product allegedly "practices multiplexing the multiplicity of decoded channels into a single stream of received data." | ¶63 | col. 13:3-5 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question is whether the Accused Product's rate-adaptation mechanism is actually "responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels" as required by the claim. The complaint itself notes that other methods exist, such as using a known "pilot signal," to control data rates (Compl. ¶47). The case may turn on evidence demonstrating that the Itron CCU 100 uses the specific feedback mechanism described in the patent, rather than an alternative channel quality metric like signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on internal testing and usage (Compl. ¶58-63), raising the question of what evidence Plaintiff possesses regarding the product's standard commercial operation versus its capabilities in a test environment.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "command processor circuitry responsive to the error rate of the decoded channels"
- Context and Importance: This phrase is the central functional limitation of the independent claims and defines the inventive concept. Its construction will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to link the data rate adjustment directly to the output of the Forward Error Correction (FEC) decoder.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses broad, functional language ("command processor circuitry," "responsive to"), which could arguably encompass any processing unit that adjusts data rate based on any metric derived from the decoded signal.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the error rate to a "syndrome signal" generated by the FEC decoder (’199 Patent, col. 4:58-63, col. 8:5-9). Defendant may argue this language limits the "error rate" to this specific technical output of an FEC decoder, thereby narrowing the claim scope to exclude systems that adapt based on other metrics (e.g., general signal strength). The complaint also highlights statements from prosecution history distinguishing the invention as controlling the transmitter based on the receiver's error rate (Compl. ¶26).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement "upon information and belief," asserting that Defendant encourages infringement by selling the Accused Product and that the product is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶70-71).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of infringement acquired "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶68). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical mechanism: does the accused Itron CCU 100 system adjust its data rate based on the specific "error rate of the decoded channels" as required by the claims, or does it utilize an alternative, non-infringing feedback metric such as pilot signal strength or a general signal-to-noise ratio? The plaintiff’s ability to produce evidence of the former will be critical.
- The case will also depend on a question of claim scope: will the court construe the term "responsive to the error rate" broadly to cover any feedback related to signal quality, or narrowly to mean a specific "syndrome signal" generated by the FEC decoder, as described in the patent’s preferred embodiments? The answer will define the boundary between infringement and non-infringement.