DCT
4:24-cv-00073
Wilson Electronics LLC v. Shaopeng Ye
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wilson Electronics, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Shaopeng Ye dba OBDATOR (China); Shenzhen Fuzhixing Electronics Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Workman Nydegger
- Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00073, D. Utah, 09/13/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are foreign corporations and individuals, making them subject to suit in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cell phone signal boosters infringe a patent related to the internal architecture for filtering and processing cellular signals.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns radio frequency (RF) signal boosters, devices that amplify cellular signals to improve connectivity for mobile devices in areas with weak reception.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants began registering cell phone signal booster products with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2017, with the most recent registration occurring on March 15, 2024.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-03-15 | ’399 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-06-17 | ’399 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-01-01 | Defendants allegedly began registering products with FCC |
| 2024-03-15 | Defendants' most recent product registration with the FCC |
| 2024-09-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,755,399 - "Common-Direction Duplexer," issued June 17, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty and cost of filtering wireless signals in systems that operate across multiple, closely-spaced frequency bands (Compl. ¶17; ’399 Patent, col. 1:59-64). When uplink or downlink bands from different cellular services are spectrally adjacent, preventing interference between them requires sophisticated and potentially expensive filtering components.
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "common-direction duplexer" architecture. Unlike a conventional duplexer that separates incoming (downlink) and outgoing (uplink) signals, this design is configured to process multiple signals that are all traveling in the same direction (e.g., two distinct uplink signals from a device to a cell tower) but in different frequency ranges (’399 Patent, col. 3:3-10). It uses a specific arrangement of filters to pass desired frequency bands while rejecting others, including signals in a "guard band" that lies spectrally between the desired bands (’399 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This architecture purports to enable more efficient and reliable operation of signal boosters in a crowded radio-frequency spectrum where multiple cellular bands must coexist with minimal interference (’399 Patent, col. 3:3-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 3 (Compl. ¶29).
- Claim 3 recites a signal booster comprising:
- A first interface port to receive a "first-direction signal" (e.g., uplink).
- A second interface port to receive a "second-direction signal" propagating in the opposite direction (e.g., downlink).
- A "first-direction path" between the ports that includes a "common-direction duplexer", a "first amplifier", and a "second amplifier" to process signals in two different frequency ranges.
- A "second-direction path" between the ports that includes a "band pass filter" and a "third amplifier" to process the signal going in the opposite direction.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are cell phone signal boosters sold by Defendants under the "obdator" brand, with the complaint identifying an exemplary product named "Verizon Cell Phone Signal Booster AT&T T Mobile Sprint US Cellular ATT Cell Phone Booster for All US Carriers Boost Voice/Data for 5G 4G LTE 3G 2G AT&T Signal Booster Verizon Cell Booster for Home" (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are described as devices designed to amplify cellular signals to provide more consistent connections between mobile electronic devices and cell sites (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges Defendants manufacture these products and sell them in the United States through Amazon's marketplace (Compl. ¶4). An image of an exemplary accused product shows a black amplifier unit with an LCD screen displaying gain, power, and frequency band information (Compl. p. 2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe at least claim 3 of the ’399 Patent because they have the "same architecture" as the claimed invention, and states that the infringement is detailed in an attached Exhibit E (Compl. ¶30). However, Exhibit E was not filed with the public complaint. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on the text of claim 3 as reproduced in the complaint and the general allegations that the Accused Products practice the patented architecture.
’399 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 3) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A signal booster comprising: | The Accused Products, which are identified as "cell phone signal boosters" (Compl. ¶3). | ¶4, 29, 30 | col. 26:12 |
| a first interface port configured to receive a first-direction signal transmitted in at least one of a first frequency range and a second frequency range; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element, beyond the general allegation of infringement. | ¶29, 30 | col. 26:13-16 |
| a second interface port configured to receive a second-direction signal...propagating in a direction opposite that of a propagation direction of the first-direction signal; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element, beyond the general allegation of infringement. | ¶29, 30 | col. 26:17-22 |
| a first-direction path...including: a common-direction duplexer configured to pass the first-direction signal based on the first frequency range and the second frequency range...the common-direction duplexer further configured to filter out the third frequency range; | The Accused Products are alleged to include the "patented cell phone booster architecture" (Compl. ¶4). | ¶4, 29, 30 | col. 26:23-38 |
| a first amplifier configured to amplify the first-frequency-range signal...; and a second amplifier configured to amplify the second-frequency-range signal...; and | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element, beyond the general allegation of infringement. | ¶29, 30 | col. 26:39-47 |
| a second-direction path...including: a band pass filter configured to filter the second-direction signal based on the third frequency range...; and a third amplifier configured to amplify the second-direction signal filtered by the band pass filter... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element, beyond the general allegation of infringement. | ¶29, 30 | col. 26:48-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Architectural Questions: The central dispute will likely be factual: does the internal circuitry of the Accused Products contain the specific combination of a "common-direction duplexer," a separate "band pass filter," and three distinct amplifiers as laid out in the claim? The complaint offers no technical evidence, such as a product teardown, to support its conclusory allegations of infringement.
- Functional Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused booster's filtering system operates as a "common-direction duplexer"—specifically, that it passes two frequency ranges associated with a first signal direction while filtering out a third, spectrally intermediate frequency range associated with an opposite-direction signal?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "common-direction duplexer"
- Context and Importance: This term appears to be coined by the patentee and is central to the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical because the infringement analysis depends on whether any component within the accused booster meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is not a standard industry term and its definition is derived solely from the patent's specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the device is configured to "facilitate the processing of wireless communications signals" where different bands "are spectrally adjacent" (’399 Patent, col. 3:3-7). Plaintiff may argue this supports a broader definition covering any duplexer that manages adjacent, same-direction frequency bands.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and claim 3 itself impose a specific structural and functional requirement: the duplexer must be configured to pass a first and second frequency range while filtering out a "third frequency range" that is "spectrally between the first frequency range and the second frequency range" (’399 Patent, Abstract; col. 26:37-38). Defendants may argue this language strictly limits the term to architectures with this specific three-band spectral relationship.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement on the basis that Defendants are "on notice of the Asserted Patent and aware of the scope of the claims" (Compl. ¶25, ¶36). The pleading does not specify whether this alleged knowledge is pre-suit or post-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can Plaintiff demonstrate through technical evidence that the accused "obdator" booster contains the precise internal architecture recited in claim 3, including the "common-direction duplexer" and three separate amplifiers? The complaint's current allegations are conclusory and defer all technical detail to an unprovided exhibit.
- The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "common-direction duplexer"? The resolution of whether this term is limited to the specific spectral arrangement described in the patent's embodiments, or can be read more broadly, will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.