Quectel Wireless Solutions Co Ltd v. Koninklijke Philips NV

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00558
• Patent #: 9,178,577
• Filed: February 26, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): Koninklijke Philips N.V.
• Challenged Claims: 13, 17, 19, 20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Radio Communication System with Plural Paths from a Primary Station with Plural Antennas to a Secondary Station
• Brief Description: The ’577 patent relates to a radio communication system, particularly a Multi-Input Multi-Output (MIMO) system, operating between a primary station (e.g., base station) and a secondary station (e.g., mobile station). The patent asserts an improvement in performance is achieved by simultaneously transmitting a plurality of data packets in parallel over different subsets of the available communication paths.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Raleigh, Eriksson, and TS25.306 - Claims 13, 17, 19, and 20 are obvious over Raleigh, Eriksson, and TS25.306.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Raleigh (Patent 6,144,711), Eriksson (Patent 6,865,233), and TS25.306 (3GPP Technical Specification v3.0.0).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Raleigh taught the core system of the challenged claims: a MIMO communication system that transmits data symbols simultaneously over multiple, substantially independent spatial subchannels between a primary and secondary station. To address limitations related to error handling, Petitioner asserted that Eriksson taught the use of Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) techniques. This included the secondary station determining whether data packets were received correctly, and signaling this determination (e.g., ACK/NACK) back to the primary station to request retransmission if needed. To address the limitation of the secondary station informing the primary station of its capabilities, Petitioner cited TS25.306. This 3GPP standard was argued to disclose the conventional practice of a user equipment (secondary station) signaling its radio access capabilities, such as the "maximum number of simultaneous transport channels" it can receive, to the base station.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Raleigh's MIMO system with Eriksson's well-known ARQ error-correction methods to improve system reliability, a predictable and desired enhancement. Similarly, a POSITA would integrate the standardized capability-signaling from TS25.306 into Raleigh's system to ensure network compatibility and allow the primary station to efficiently manage and schedule downlink resources. Petitioner also argued Eriksson taught changing the modulation and/or coding scheme for retransmissions to adapt to link quality, which would have been a known technique to apply to Raleigh's system for improved performance.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that combining these known elements—a base MIMO architecture, standard ARQ error handling, and standardized capability reporting—would have yielded predictable results and involved a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Raleigh, Fong, TS25.306, and Eriksson - Claims 13, 17, 19, and 20 are obvious over Raleigh in view of Fong, TS25.306, and Eriksson.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Raleigh (Patent 6,144,711), Fong (International Publication No. WO 01/80476A1), TS25.306 (3GPP Technical Specification v3.0.0), and Eriksson (Patent 6,865,233).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented a similar argument to Ground 1 but introduced Fong as an additional or alternative reference for teaching ARQ protocols. Raleigh was again asserted to disclose the foundational MIMO system. Fong was argued to teach ARQ protocols at the physical and link layers, including a receiver determining if a physical layer frame was received correctly (e.g., via checksum or forward error correction) and sending a negative or positive acknowledgment to the transmitter. The arguments regarding TS25.306 for capability signaling and Eriksson for varying modulation/coding schemes on retransmission remained the same as in Ground 1. This combination was argued to teach all limitations of the challenged claims.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Raleigh with TS25.306 and Eriksson was identical to Ground 1. A POSITA would additionally or alternatively combine Raleigh's system with Fong's teachings on ARQ to implement a robust error-handling mechanism. Since improving reliability was a constant goal in wireless system design, implementing the ARQ operations taught by Fong into the MIMO system of Raleigh was presented as a common-sense, predictable design choice.
  • Expectation of Success: As with the first ground, Petitioner argued that the combination of these references represented the application of known techniques to a known system to achieve predictable results, and therefore a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation was in its nascent stages, with no trial date scheduled, no substantive orders issued, and minimal investment by the court. Petitioner asserted it acted with diligence by filing the IPR petition promptly after being sued and before its answer was due in the litigation. Furthermore, Petitioner stated that there was no overlap between the grounds presented in the IPR and any invalidity contentions in the district court case, as none had yet been served.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 13, 17, 19, and 20 of Patent 9,178,577 as unpatentable.