DCT
6:23-cv-00124
XR Communications LLC v. Microsoft Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES (Delaware)
- Defendant: Microsoft Corp (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00124, W.D. Tex., 02/15/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a permanent and continuous presence in the district, including regular and established places of business in Austin and San Antonio.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Microsoft Surface products, which support MIMO and MU-MIMO wireless technologies, infringe a patent related to directed wireless communication and beamforming.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for improving wireless network performance by steering radio signals into focused beams, a foundational technique for modern high-speed standards like Wi-Fi 6E.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation, administrative proceedings such as inter partes review, or specific prosecution history events that would bear on claim scope.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-11-04 | U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235 Priority Date |
| 2020-07-14 | U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235 Issued |
| 2023-02-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235 - Directed Wireless Communication
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235, issued July 14, 2020 (the "'235 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of conventional omni-directional wireless networks, which transmit signals equally in all directions. This approach leads to limited range, inefficient power use, and susceptibility to electromagnetic interference and data corruption from signals reflecting off surfaces (multipath interference) (’235 Patent, col. 1:40-67; Compl. ¶7).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for directed communication. It involves a receiver that simultaneously receives multiple distinct signal transmissions from a remote device via separate antenna elements. The system analyzes these incoming signals to determine "signal information" (e.g., channel characteristics) for each path. Based on this information, it calculates a set of "weighting values" which are then used to construct and transmit one or more focused, "beam-formed" signals back to the remote device, thereby directing the transmission energy where it is needed (’235 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:8-17).
- Technical Importance: This adaptive beamforming approach was a key development for increasing the signal strength, range, reliability, and data throughput of wireless networks while minimizing interference, laying the groundwork for modern high-capacity standards (Compl. ¶¶8-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 8 and 12 of the ’235 Patent (Compl. ¶¶25, 30, 34).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1, directed to a "receiver," are:
- An antenna with at least a first and second antenna element, a transceiver, and a processor.
- The processor is configured to simultaneously receive a first and second signal transmission from a remote station via the respective antenna elements.
- The processor determines first and second "signal information" from these transmissions, where the information is different for each.
- The processor determines a "set of weighting values" based on this signal information.
- The weighting values are configured to be used by the transceiver to construct "one or more beam-formed transmission signals."
- The processor causes the transceiver to transmit a "third signal" to the remote station, with the third signal comprising "content based on the set of weighting values."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶34).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names Microsoft's Surface Go 3, Surface Pro 8, Surface Pro 9, Surface Laptop SE, Surface Laptop Go 2, Surface Laptop 5, and Surface Laptop Studio as the "’235 Accused Products" (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused functionality is the products' support for MIMO (Multiple-Input, Multiple-Output) and MU-MIMO (Multi-User MIMO) technologies, which are features of the Wi-Fi 6E (IEEE 802.11ax) standard (Compl. ¶¶27, 29). The complaint alleges these devices, often incorporating Intel's AX211 Wi-Fi chipset, engage in MU-MIMO "sounding" and "channel estimation" procedures. This involves receiving training fields from a remote access point, using that information to generate a "compressed beamforming report," and transmitting that report back to the access point to enable directed communications (Compl. ¶¶27-28).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’235 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a receiver for use in a wireless communications system, the receiver comprising an antenna...a first antenna element and a second antenna element; a transceiver...and a processor... | The Microsoft Surface Pro 9 is a receiver with an antenna, transceiver, and processor for wireless communications, sending and receiving signals via its antenna elements (Compl. ¶27). | ¶27 | col. 31:35-40 |
| receive a first signal transmission from a remote station via the first antenna element and a second signal transmission from the remote station via the second antenna element simultaneously; | The Surface Pro 9 receives first and second signals containing training fields from a null data packet used for MU-MIMO sounding and channel estimation (Compl. ¶27). | ¶28 | col. 31:41-49 |
| determine first signal information for the first signal transmission; determine second signal information for the second signal transmission, wherein the second signal information is different than the first signal information; | The Surface Pro 9 determines channel information corresponding to a first spatial stream and a second spatial stream, with the information for each stream being different (Compl. ¶28). | ¶28 | col. 31:50-57 |
| determine a set of weighting values based on the first signal information and the second signal information, | The Surface Pro 9 determines weighting values through the process of generating a transformed estimate of the channel state, which is contained in a compressed beamforming report as parameters of a beamforming feedback matrix (Compl. ¶28). | ¶28 | col. 31:58-61 |
| wherein the set of weighting values is configured to be used by the transceiver to construct one or more beam-formed transmission signals; | The Surface Pro 9 configures the set of weighting values to be used by its transceiver to construct beam-formed signals corresponding to at least first and second space-time streams (Compl. ¶28). | ¶28 | col. 31:62-66 |
| cause the transceiver to transmit a third signal to the remote station via the antenna, the third signal comprising content based on the set of weighting values. | The Surface Pro 9 transmits a third signal, which the complaint identifies as the compressed beamforming report containing the parameters of the beamforming feedback matrix. This report constitutes the "content based on the set of weighting values" (Compl. ¶29). | ¶29 | col. 32:55-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused client device (a "beamformee" in Wi-Fi parlance) performs the claimed steps. However, the complaint also cites technical standards stating that the "beamformer" (the access point) uses the feedback from the client device "to derive the steering matrix" (Compl. ¶10). This raises a critical question of actor: does the accused "receiver" actually "determine" the weighting values as required by the claim, or does it merely provide input for another device to perform the determination?
- Technical Questions: What constitutes the claimed "third signal... comprising content based on the set of weighting values"? The complaint's theory is that this is the beamforming feedback report itself (Compl. ¶29). A central dispute may be whether transmitting a feedback report satisfies this limitation, or if the claim requires a subsequent transmission of application data that is actively shaped or steered using a beam defined by those weighting values.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "determine a set of weighting values"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this phrase is central to identifying the infringing actor. The claim is directed to a "receiver" (the accused Surface device), but in a typical beamforming exchange, the access point (beamformer) performs the final calculations for the steering matrix. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome will likely decide whether the accused client devices can be liable for direct infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that "determine" should be read broadly to include the process of measuring the channel and generating the "parameters in the beamforming feedback matrix," as the complaint alleges (Compl. ¶28). The patent specification discusses generating such feedback matrices, which could support the idea that this intermediate step constitutes the claimed "determination" (’235 Patent, col. 11:5-12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "determine" requires the final calculation of the steering matrix used for transmission. The patent's abstract states the apparatus is configured to "determine a set of weighting values... and generate the one or more beam-formed transmission signals," which could imply a single apparatus performs both steps (’235 Patent, Abstract). The complaint itself acknowledges that the "VHT beamformer... derive[s] the steering matrix," which may support an interpretation that the accused receiver does not "determine" the final values (Compl. ¶10).
The Term: "a third signal... comprising content based on the set of weighting values"
- Context and Importance: This term's definition is critical for establishing the infringing act. The infringement theory depends on whether this "third signal" is the beamforming feedback report, as alleged, or a different type of transmission.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges the "content" is the set of parameters in the feedback matrix (Compl. ¶29). A plaintiff could argue that since these parameters are derived from the weighting values, the report itself is a signal "comprising content based on" them.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim preamble refers to "beam-formed transmission signals." A defendant may argue that the "third signal" must be one of these beam-formed signals, i.e., a data transmission steered by the weights, rather than the feedback report that enables the steering. The specification distinguishes between receiving feedback and routing data transmissions via directed beams (’235 Patent, col. 2:8-17), potentially supporting a narrower reading.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of at least claim 8. The factual basis is that Microsoft, with knowledge of the patent from the complaint, provides user manuals and online instructions that encourage customers to use the accused 802.11ax beamforming and MIMO functionalities in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶30-31).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on knowledge of the ’235 Patent acquired "Through at least the filing and service of this Complaint," establishing a basis for potential post-suit enhancement of damages. The complaint also makes a conclusory allegation of willful blindness (Compl. ¶¶30-31).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of actor scope: Does the accused client device, acting as a "beamformee," perform the claimed step of "determining" the weighting values when it generates and transmits a beamforming feedback matrix, or is that determination exclusively performed by the network's "beamformer" (the access point), which is not the accused party?
- A key legal and technical question will be one of functional definition: Can the transmission of a "compressed beamforming report" by the accused device be construed as the claimed "third signal comprising content based on the set of weighting values," or does the claim require the subsequent transmission of user data over a beam actively shaped by those values? The resolution of this issue will be critical to the infringement analysis.