Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. OnePlus Technology Shenzen Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: OnePlus Technology (Shenzen) Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sorey & Hoover, LLP; Prince Lobel Tye LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00290, W.D. Tex., 04/20/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant, OnePlus, is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones, which comply with industry standards for Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) and memory interfaces (JEDEC LPDDR), infringe patents related to wireless signal transmission and high-speed memory calibration.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to improving performance and reliability in two foundational areas of modern mobile devices: MIMO-OFDM wireless communications and high-speed DDR memory systems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that one of the asserted patents originated in the portfolio of Transmeta Corporation. It states that in 2006, Transmeta sued Intel over patents related to computer architecture, resulting in a 2007 settlement where Intel agreed to pay Transmeta $150 million upfront and $20 million per year for five years. Intellectual Ventures acquired much of the portfolio after Transmeta was acquired by Novafor Inc.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-11-17	’835 Patent Priority Date
2004-05-20	’439 Patent Priority Date
2006-10-XX	Transmeta sues Intel Corp. for patent infringement
2007-10-XX	Transmeta and Intel settle litigation
2009-11-24	’439 Patent Issue Date
2010-01-12	’835 Patent Issue Date
2023-04-20	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,623,439 - "CYCLIC DIVERSITY SYSTEMS AND METHODS," issued November 24, 2009

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In wireless systems using multiple antennas (MIMO) and OFDM, prior art methods used "linear diversity schemes" to reduce signal interference (Compl. ¶15). A key problem with these schemes was that delaying one signal relative to another could consume the "guard interval"—a buffer built into the signal to protect against echoes—thereby degrading performance (’439 Patent, col. 3:45-50). A related issue was that another technique, "cyclic delay," could be misinterpreted by a receiver as unintentional "beamforming," where signals constructively interfere in an undesired manner (Compl. ¶16).
• The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a system of "cyclic advancement" rather than delay (’439 Patent, col. 4:26-34). Instead of delaying a signal, this method shifts samples from the main data portion of an OFDM packet forward into the guard interval of a second, otherwise identical packet (’439 Patent, col. 10:20-36). This achieves the desired signal decorrelation to prevent interference but does so without consuming the guard interval, allowing for more robust communication (Compl. ¶35).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve packet reception performance and reduce error rates in MIMO-OFDM systems, which were becoming foundational to high-throughput Wi-Fi standards like IEEE 802.11n (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A method for transmitting OFDM signals.
  • Generating a first OFDM packet with a guard interval portion and a symbol data portion.
  • Cyclically advancing the packet by shifting samples in a first direction an amount less than the guard interval's duration, creating a shifted version where samples from the symbol data portion are shifted into the guard interval portion, and an equal number of samples are shifted out of the guard interval portion.
  • Substantially simultaneously transmitting the first OFDM packet and the shifted version.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,646,835 - "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATICALLY CALIBRATING INTRA-CYCLE TIMING RELATIONSHIPS FOR SAMPLING SIGNALS FOR AN INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DEVICE," issued January 12, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The design of high-performance memory systems, such as Double Data Rate (DDR) memory, requires extremely precise control of timing specifications. Even slight variations from manufacturing or operating conditions (e.g., temperature, voltage) can cause intermittent failures that are difficult to diagnose and correct manually (’835 Patent, col. 1:15-31; Compl. ¶55).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method to automatically calibrate the timing relationships within an integrated circuit. The system systematically alters the phase shifts of the three key signal types—command signals, data signals, and sampling signals—to explore the device's operating parameters and determine a "valid operation range" that includes an "optimal operation point" (’835 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-14). This automated search finds a working configuration without needing to know a stable starting point in advance (’835 Patent, col. 4:1-9).
• Technical Importance: This automatic calibration provides an "extra margin" of reliability for computer systems using high-speed memory, increasing both the reliability rate and the maximum obtainable performance from the components (Compl. ¶56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A method for automatically calibrating intra-cycle timing relationships.
  • Generating command signals to access an integrated circuit component.
  • Accessing data signals to convey data for the component.
  • Accessing sampling signals to control sampling of the data signals.
  • Systematically altering a phase shift of the command signals, a phase shift of the data signals, and a phase shift of the sampling signals to determine a valid operation range, which includes an optimal operation point.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names the OnePlus 11 5G family of smartphones as a specific example (Compl. ¶¶39, 59). More broadly, the accused products for the ’439 Patent are wireless communication products that support IEEE 802.11n, 802.11ac, and 802.11ax standards (Compl. ¶39). For the ’835 Patent, the accused products are mobile devices that include Qualcomm-based processors and LPDDR4, LPDDR4X, or LPDDR5 memory (Compl. ¶59).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused functionality stems from the products' compliance with established industry standards (Compl. ¶¶41, 60). For the ’439 Patent, the accused devices implement MIMO and OFDM and employ a "cyclic diversity shift" as required by the IEEE 802.11 standards to manage multiple spatial streams (Compl. ¶39).
• For the ’835 Patent, the accused devices utilize LPDDR5 memory that, per the JEDEC industry standard, must undergo a series of training and calibration procedures at initialization to establish reliable, high-speed operation. These procedures include "Command Bus Training," "WCK2CK Leveling," and "WCK-DQ Training," which allegedly involve adjusting the timing of command, data, and clocking signals (Compl. ¶¶62, 66-68).
• The complaint positions OnePlus as "one of the leading manufacturers of smartphones" (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’439 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A method for transmitting orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) signals comprising: generating a first OFDM packet for transmission including a guard interval portion and a symbol data portion each comprised of a plurality of samples;	The accused products' 802.11 transmitter creates an OFDM packet, known as an HT-SIG packet, with a symbol data portion and a guard interval portion. The complaint references an IEEE standard diagram showing an OFDM frame with a guard interval (TGI) and a transform period (TFFT).	¶42	col. 10:11-15
cyclically advancing the first OFDM packet by shifting the samples in a first direction an amount less than a sample duration of the guard interval portion to generate a shifted version...	The accused products, in compliance with the IEEE 802.11 standard, apply a cyclic shift to different spatial streams to prevent unintentional beamforming. The complaint cites a standard table showing cyclic shift values (e.g., -200 ns to -50 ns) that are less than the guard interval (0.8 µs). This diagram shows the application of a Cyclic Shift Definition (CSD) in the transmitter block chain.	¶¶43, 22	col. 10:16-21
...in which at least a non-zero number of the samples from the symbol data portion of the first OFDM packet are shifted into the guard interval portion of the shifted version and a same non-zero number of samples from the guard interval portion of the first OFDM packet are shifted out of the guard interval portion of the shifted version; and	The complaint alleges this shifting occurs by cyclically advancing samples corresponding to the time duration of the cyclic shift (	Tcs	) out of the symbol portion and into the guard interval, while the same number of samples are shifted out. The complaint references a diagram explaining the function of a cyclic prefix in OFDM.
substantially simultaneously transmitting the first OFDM packet and the shifted version of the OFDM packet.	The signals transmitted from different transmit chains are alleged to be aligned and synchronized in the time domain. A transmitter block diagram from the IEEE standard is provided to show multiple transmit chains operating in parallel.	¶45	col. 10:48-50

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The patent claims "cyclically advancing," which the specification contrasts with "delay" (’439 Patent, col. 4:26-34). The complaint's evidence, drawn from the IEEE standard, refers to a "cyclic shift," which can be a negative value (i.e., a delay) (Compl. p. 23, Table 20-9). A central question will be whether the standard's "cyclic shift" falls within the scope of the claimed "advancing," or if the term is limited to a positive time shift.
• Technical Questions: Does the accused products' implementation of the IEEE standard's "cyclic shift" function in the specific manner claimed, where samples from the symbol data portion are moved into the guard interval? The infringement theory relies on the assertion that compliance with the standard equates to performance of the claimed steps.

’835 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
...generating command signals to access an integrated circuit component;	The accused products use LPDDR5 memory, which follows a JEDEC standard specifying that CA (command/address) signals are used to access the memory. A provided table from the standard defines the CA signals.	¶63	col. 3:1-4
accessing data signals to convey data for the integrated circuit component;	The accused products access data via a bi-directional data bus (DQ bus) to convey data for the LPDDR5X memory, as defined in the JEDEC standard.	¶64	col. 3:5-7
accessing sampling signals to control sampling of the data signals; and	The accused products use WCK2CK Leveling, a JEDEC-specified procedure that uses WCK (data clock) signals as sampling signals to control the sampling of data signals. The complaint includes a timing diagram for this procedure.	¶65	col. 3:8-9
systematically altering a phase shift of the command signals, a phase shift of the data signals, and a phase shift of the sampling signals to determine a valid operation range of the integrated circuit device, wherein the valid operation range includes an optimal operation point...	The accused products follow JEDEC standards that require signal training at initialization, including: Command Bus training (altering CS/CA command signal phase), WCK-DQ training (altering DQ data signal phase), and WCK2CK Leveling (altering WCK sampling signal phase) to establish reliable operation.	¶¶66-69	col. 3:10-14

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: What is the scope of "systematically altering...to determine a valid operation range"? The infringement argument equates mandatory, pre-defined JEDEC training sequences with the patent's described calibration process. The defense may argue that these standard routines are not the same as the patent's more flexible search for an "optimal operation point" within a "valid operation range."
• Technical Questions: Do the accused products' JEDEC-compliant training procedures actually "determine a valid operation range" in the manner claimed, or do they simply execute a fixed sequence to achieve a pre-determined state of compliance? The complaint asserts the training is required to meet tighter timing requirements and account for variations, which aligns with the patent's purpose (Compl. ¶69), but the underlying mechanism may be a point of dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’439 Patent: "cyclically advancing"

• The Term: "cyclically advancing"
• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the asserted novelty, distinguishing the invention from prior art "cyclic delay." The infringement case hinges on whether the "cyclic shift" defined in the IEEE 802.11 standard, which the accused products allegedly implement, constitutes "cyclically advancing."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language defines the term functionally as "shifting the samples in a first direction...in which at least a non-zero number of the samples from the symbol data portion...are shifted into the guard interval portion" (’439 Patent, col. 10:18-28). Plaintiff may argue this covers any shift, regardless of its label in a standard, that achieves this structural result.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly contrasts "cyclic advance" with "cyclic delay" and describes the resulting impulse response as occurring "earlier in time" (’439 Patent, col. 9:65-10:1). Defendant may argue that the term is limited to a positive time shift that is the functional opposite of a delay, and cannot read on the negative shift values shown in the standard cited by the complaint (Compl. p. 23, Table 20-9).

’835 Patent: "systematically altering...to determine a valid operation range"

• The Term: "systematically altering...to determine a valid operation range"
• Context and Importance: This phrase captures the essence of the automated calibration method. The dispute will likely focus on whether the JEDEC-mandated training procedures in the accused products meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the case depends on equating standard-mandated initialization with the patent's described dynamic calibration process.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the process as one that can "efficiently explore" the operating parameters to "search for and find the valid region of operation" (’835 Patent, col. 4:1-12). Plaintiff may argue that any automated, multi-parameter adjustment process that results in a working device, such as the JEDEC training flow, meets this definition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific coarse-then-fine calibration method to "determine the boundaries of the valid region" (’835 Patent, col. 6:40-43). Defendant may argue that "systematically altering" requires a specific, iterative search algorithm as disclosed, not the execution of a fixed, one-time training sequence defined by a standard.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges inducement for both patents. For the ’439 Patent, this is based on Defendant providing products that are required to be compliant with the IEEE 802.11 standard and providing instructions and manuals promoting that compliance (Compl. ¶47). For the ’835 Patent, inducement is alleged based on requiring memory chips to comply with the JEDEC standard where the claimed calibration is mandatory (Compl. ¶71).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The allegations are based on the assertion that Defendant "knew of the...patent, or should have known," and was "willfully blind to its existence," with knowledge presumed "at least as early as Defendant received a copy of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶49, 73). This frames the willfulness claim primarily on post-suit conduct.

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

• A core issue will be one of standards-based infringement: Both infringement theories rely on the argument that practicing an industry standard (IEEE 802.11 for the ’439 Patent, JEDEC for the ’835 Patent) necessarily results in infringement. The case will likely test whether the specific requirements of those standards map directly onto the specific limitations recited in the patent claims.
• A key question for the ’439 Patent will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "cyclically advancing," which the patent specification contrasts with delay, be construed to cover the IEEE standard's "cyclic shift," which can include negative values that are functionally equivalent to a delay?
• A central question for the ’835 Patent will be one of functional equivalence: Do the accused products' JEDEC-mandated initialization routines perform the claimed method of "systematically altering" phase shifts to "determine a valid operation range," or are these fixed procedures that merely place the device into a single, standard-compliant state without performing the exploratory calibration process described in the patent?