LG Electronics Inc v. Constellation Designs LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2023-00228
• Patent #: 10,693,700
• Filed: December 8, 2022
• Petitioner(s): LG Electronics, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Constellation Designs, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 4, 6-11, 14, 16-21, 24, and 26-30

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Receivers Incorporating Non-Uniform Multidimensional Constellations and Code Rate Pairs
• Brief Description: The ’700 patent is directed to communication systems that use geometrically-shaped, non-uniform symbol constellations. The technology involves a receiver that selects a specific Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) code rate and a corresponding multidimensional symbol constellation from a predetermined set of pairs to decode received signals.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 8, 10-11, 18, 20-21, 28, and 30 are obvious over Eroz in view of DVB-T.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Eroz (Application # 2004/0054960) and DVB-T (ETSI EN 300 744 V1.2.1, a 1999 digital video broadcasting standard).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Eroz disclosed the foundational communication system, including a transmitter and receiver configured to use LDPC codes. However, Eroz did not explicitly detail the use of a plurality of non-uniform constellations. DVB-T, a widely adopted standard for digital video, remedied this by teaching the use of various modulation schemes, including different non-uniform QAM constellations (e.g., non-uniform 16-QAM and 64-QAM) determined by a selectable parameter (α). The combination, which Petitioner referred to as "EDC," allegedly rendered the basic system of independent claims 1, 11, and 21 obvious by teaching a receiver with a demodulator, a demapper (disclosed in Eroz as a "bit metric generator"), and an LDPC decoder that selects from a plurality of multidimensional constellations, including the non-uniform types taught by DVB-T.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted that Eroz expressly stated its LDPC coding could be used in digital video applications like MPEG packet transmission. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) seeking to implement Eroz's system for digital video would have been motivated to look to the DVB-T standard to ensure compatibility and adopt its well-defined coding and modulation schemes, including its non-uniform constellations.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination involved applying established modulation and coding techniques from a public standard (DVB-T) to a known system architecture (Eroz) to achieve the predictable result of an LDPC-based, standard-compliant digital video communication system.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 6, 8, 10-11, 16, 18, 20-21, 26, 28, and 30 are obvious over EDC in view of DeGaudenzi.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Eroz, DVB-T, and DeGaudenzi (a 2006 journal article titled Turbo-coded APSK modulations design for satellite broadband communications).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the EDC combination by adding DeGaudenzi to address limitations related to optimizing constellations. Petitioner contended that DeGaudenzi taught a method for designing non-uniform constellations (specifically APSK, but with stated applicability to QAM) to maximize parallel decoding capacity (or mutual information) for a given Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR). DeGaudenzi explicitly provided tables of predetermined, optimized pairs of constellations and coding rates. This teaching allegedly rendered obvious claim 6's limitation of assigning labels and spacing points to "maximize parallel decoding capacity" and claim 1[f]'s requirement that each non-uniform constellation is included in only one predetermined code-rate pair.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA, having created the EDC system, would have been motivated to optimize its performance. Petitioner argued that DeGaudenzi provided a known, advantageous method to improve spectral efficiency and maximize capacity by optimizing the constellation design, representing a logical and desirable improvement to the base EDC system.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would have been expected because DeGaudenzi's optimization techniques were presented as broadly applicable to Forward Error Correction (FEC) codes (like LDPC) and QAM constellations, and could be implemented via software modifications to achieve predictable performance gains.

Ground 3: Claims 4, 14, and 24 are obvious over EDC in view of Sommer.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Eroz, DVB-T, and Sommer (a 2000 journal article titled Signal Shaping by Non-Uniform QAM for AWGN Channels and Applications Using Turbo Coding).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Sommer to the EDC combination to address limitations requiring a non-uniform constellation to provide greater decoding capacity than a similar uniform one. Petitioner argued that Sommer explicitly taught that non-uniform signal constellations could be used to obtain "shaping gain." Sommer demonstrated through graphs and data that a non-uniform constellation has a greater parallel decoding capacity at the same SNR than a comparable uniform constellation, directly mapping to the language of claims 4, 14, and 24.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Sommer with the EDC system to improve channel performance. Sommer's teachings provided a known method to achieve shaping gain, a desirable characteristic that enhances system robustness and efficiency.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination was argued to be predictable, as Sommer noted that achieving shaping gain did not entail significant additional computational effort or fundamental changes to the coder/decoder structure, making it a straightforward enhancement.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combining EDC with DVB-S2 (a satellite broadcasting standard) to teach adaptive modulation based on channel quality feedback, and with DVB-TS (a software update standard) to teach updating constellations via software. Further grounds argued combinations of these references with DeGaudenzi.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) Arguments: Petitioner argued against denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), stating that while an early version of DVB-S2 was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution, the Examiner never issued an Office Action or relied on it in a rejection. Therefore, the arguments presented in the petition were not substantially the same as those previously presented to and considered by the Office.
• §314(a) / Fintiv Arguments: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv by noting it had provided the Patent Owner with a Sotera-style stipulation. This stipulation asserted that, if the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted, Petitioner will not pursue in the parallel district court litigation the same grounds raised in the IPR, or any other grounds that it reasonably could have raised, thereby mitigating concerns of duplicative efforts and inefficiency.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14, 16-21, 24, and 26-30 as unpatentable.