DCT

7:25-cv-00393

Mesa Digital LLC v. Dell Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00393, W.D. Tex., 09/02/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, conducts substantial business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic wireless handheld media devices infringe patents related to devices containing multiple wireless transceivers for communicating over a variety of standards.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to the foundational architecture of multi-radio handheld devices, such as early smartphones and personal digital assistants (PDAs), capable of connecting to cellular, Wi-Fi, and short-range networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patents share a common specification and claim priority to provisional applications filed in 2000. The complaint notes that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and argues that patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287 are inapplicable. It also discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into settlement licenses with other entities, asserting these were to terminate litigation and did not require the licensees to produce a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-06-27 Earliest Priority Date for ’144 Patent and ’444 Patent
2017-05-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,646,444 Issues
2019-01-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,182,144 Issues
2025-09-02 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,182,144 - "Electronic wireless hand held multimedia device" (Issued Jan. 15, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical environment, circa 2000, where handheld devices like PDAs could connect to computers via single, limited means (e.g., infrared or a single wireless link) but lacked the capability to selectively connect to multiple different types of wireless networks (e.g., cellular, WLAN, short-range) to access remote multimedia data from sources like the Internet (’144 Patent, col. 2:60-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld multimedia device architecture that includes a microprocessor and, critically, "more than one wireless transceiver modules" (’144 Patent, col. 3:51-54). This multi-radio configuration enables the device to communicate over a variety of standards—such as cellular (GSM, CDMA), 802.11 (WLAN), and short-range protocols (Bluetooth, Infrared, RFID)—for retrieving, processing, and displaying multimedia data from remote servers (’144 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1(c)).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture describes a convergence device, combining the functions of a PDA, mobile phone, and internet appliance, which was a significant goal in the mobile computing field at the time of the invention (’144 Patent, col. 3:7-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim Asserted: The complaint asserts claims 1-18; Claim 1 is the lead independent claim (’144 Patent, col. 15:51-16:18; Compl. ¶9).
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
    • An electronic wireless hand held multimedia device, comprising:
    • At least one wireless unit supporting bi-directional data communications with remote data resources over (1) cellular networks, (2) wireless local area networks, and (3) a direct connection with devices in short range using RF.
    • A touch sensitive display screen configured to display the data (video and text).
    • A microprocessor configured to facilitate operation and communications.
    • A video camera.
    • An image processing unit to process video for display.
    • A GPS module for location and mapping.
    • A security module for protected data access.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of dependent claims 2-18 as well (Compl. ¶9).

U.S. Patent No. 9,646,444 - "Electronic wireless hand held multimedia device" (Issued May 9, 2017)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a parent to the ’144 Patent, the ’444 Patent addresses the same technical problem: the lack of integrated, multi-network handheld devices capable of accessing diverse remote data sources prior to the widespread adoption of modern smartphones (’444 Patent, col. 2:60-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is a handheld device incorporating multiple wireless transceivers to communicate over different standards like cellular, 802.11, and short-range protocols (’444 Patent, Abstract). The specification describes these transceivers as distinct modules, such as a "first transceiver module," "second transceiver module," and so on, which can be combined in a single device (’444 Patent, col. 7:4-21; Fig. 1(c)).
  • Technical Importance: The invention anticipated the need for a single, portable device that could seamlessly switch between different connectivity modes depending on the user's location and needs, a core feature of all modern mobile computing (’444 Patent, col. 3:5-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim Asserted: The complaint asserts claims 1-20; Claim 1 is a representative independent claim (’444 Patent, col. 15:50-16:5; Compl. ¶14).
  • Essential Elements of Claim 1:
    • An electronic wireless hand held multimedia device, comprising:
    • At least one of a wireless unit and a tuner unit supporting bi-directional data communications with remote data resources over (1) cellular networks, (2) wireless local area networks, and (3) a direct connection with devices in short range using RF, after accepting a passcode.
    • A touch sensitive display screen.
    • A microprocessor.
    • A video camera.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of dependent claims 2-20 (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify specific product models. It accuses a broad category of "electronic wireless hand held media devices" manufactured, sold, or imported by Dell (Compl. ¶9, ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are alleged to include a microprocessor and "more than one wireless transceiver modules" that enable communication over various standards, including Cellular (e.g., GSM, 3G), 802.11 (WLAN), and short-range protocols (e.g., Bluetooth, infrared, RFID) (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). These features are used for the "retrieval, processing and delivery of multimedia data to/from remote data resources" like the Internet (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the operation of any specific Dell product.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Dell's handheld devices infringe the patents-in-suit by incorporating the claimed combination of hardware and functionality (Compl. ¶¶9, 14). It references "exemplary table[s] included as Exhibit B" for the ’144 Patent and "Exhibit D" for the ’444 Patent to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). However, these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint.

The narrative infringement theory is that Dell’s devices practice the claims by including a microprocessor, multiple wireless communication modules (for cellular, WLAN, Bluetooth, etc.), a display, and other features for processing multimedia data from the internet (Compl. ¶9, ¶14). The complaint does not map specific product features to claim limitations in its main body.

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether modern, highly integrated wireless chipsets (Systems-on-a-Chip or SoCs), which combine cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth functions on a single piece of silicon, meet the claim limitation of "more than one wireless transceiver modules" as understood from a specification written in 2000. The defense may argue that an SoC constitutes a single "module," while the plaintiff may argue it contains logically distinct transceivers.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's lack of specificity regarding accused products raises an evidentiary question. It is unclear what specific evidence Plaintiff will rely on to demonstrate that any particular Dell device meets every limitation of the asserted claims, especially for elements like a "security module" or an "image processing unit" which have specific claim definitions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "at least one of a wireless unit" (’144 Patent, Claim 1) / "more than one wireless transceiver modules" (specification context)
  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is fundamental to the infringement case. The patents were filed when different wireless technologies were often implemented as physically separate hardware modules. The infringement question for modern devices like smartphones and tablets, which use integrated SoCs, may depend on whether a single chip containing multiple radio functions is construed as one "unit" or multiple "modules."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "at least one of a wireless unit supporting" communications over cellular, WLAN, and short-range networks could be argued to read on a single, integrated SoC that performs all three functions (’144 Patent, col. 15:53-61).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to the invention including "more than one wireless transceiver module" and depicts these as distinct blocks (e.g., "1st Transceiver," "2nd Transceiver"). Figure 1(c) explicitly shows "Wireless Transceiver Modules" (17) comprising separate sub-modules 17a, 17b, 17c, etc. This may support an argument that the claims require structurally or logically separate modules, not a single integrated chip (’144 Patent, col. 7:4-10; Fig. 1(c)).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint currently only pleads direct infringement (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). However, in footnotes, Plaintiff "reserves the right to amend to add claims for indirect infringement, including inducement and contributory, and/or willful infringement, to the extent fact discovery shows Defendant's pre-expiration knowledge of the patent" (Compl. p. 4, fn. 2; p. 5, fn. 3).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not currently pleaded, but Plaintiff reserves the right to add such a claim upon discovering evidence of pre-suit knowledge (Compl. p. 4, fn. 2; p. 5, fn. 3).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the concept of multiple, distinct "wireless transceiver modules," as described and depicted in the 2000-era specification, be construed to cover modern, highly integrated System-on-a-Chip (SoC) transceivers that combine cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth functionality onto a single die?
  2. A second issue will be evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint's broad accusation against "electronic wireless hand held media devices" without identifying specific models or providing claim charts, a key challenge for the plaintiff will be to present concrete evidence mapping the features of specific Dell products to every element of the asserted claims.
  3. A potential threshold issue involves the applicability of patent marking statutes: The complaint preemptively argues that as a non-practicing entity with only settlement licenses, its claims for pre-suit damages are not barred by 35 U.S.C. § 287. This assertion may be contested by the defendant, potentially impacting the scope of recoverable damages.