PTAB

IPR2023-01364

Ericsson Inc v. Woodbury Wireless LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: MIMO METHODS AND SYSTEMS
  • Brief Description: The ’895 patent discloses a multiple-in-multiple-out (MIMO) wireless communication system. The system features an access point that alters its transmissions to multiple client devices based on signal measurements and other channel characteristics reported by those devices to reduce interference and improve performance.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-25 and 27-29 are obvious over Lastinger alone or in view of Sadowsky.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lastinger (Application # 2005/0003865) and Sadowsky (Patent 7,881,390).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lastinger, which shares inventors with the ’895 patent, discloses the core inventive concepts. Lastinger teaches a MIMO-capable access point with a nearly identical architecture (multiple radios, antennas, RF switches, and a processor) that serves multiple clients simultaneously. Lastinger’s system selects channels and antennas based on client-reported signal quality measurements (e.g., signal strength, error rate) to optimize transmissions and reduce interference between simultaneous communications. Petitioner contended that Lastinger teaches every key limitation of independent claim 1, including selecting channels based on channel characteristics, initiating simultaneous transmissions to multiple devices, receiving performance feedback from those devices, and altering transmissions based on that feedback to reduce interference.

    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted that while Lastinger teaches using 802.11 protocols generally, it does not explicitly name the 802.11n protocol recited in the claims. Sadowsky was introduced to supply this express teaching. A POSITA would combine Lastinger with Sadowsky for several reasons. First, Sadowsky explicitly teaches that the 802.11n protocol is designed for high-throughput MIMO systems, directly aligning with Lastinger’s stated goal of increasing throughput in its MIMO architecture. Second, Sadowsky teaches that the draft 802.11n standard was backward compatible with legacy 802.11 protocols (e.g., a/b/g), which supports Lastinger’s teaching that its system can use any 802.11 protocol. The combination would therefore involve applying the known, MIMO-specific 802.11n protocol to Lastinger's already-disclosed MIMO system to achieve the well-understood benefits of higher throughput and interoperability.

    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because implementing the 802.11n protocol in Lastinger’s MIMO system was merely applying a known protocol to a system for its intended purpose. The inherent backward compatibility of the 802.11n standard, as taught by Sadowsky, ensured that integrating it with a system designed for general 802.11 protocols would be straightforward and predictable.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) because, while Lastinger was cited during prosecution, it was "buried" within an IDS containing over 700 references and was never substantively applied or considered by the examiner.
  • Petitioner further argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv factors (§314(a)), asserting that the petition’s merits are exceptionally strong, as Lastinger discloses an identical architecture and functionality. Additionally, the parallel district court litigation is in its early stages with minimal investment, and there is not a complete overlap of issues, as the court is expected to adjudicate far fewer claims than are challenged in the IPR.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 1-25 and 27-29 of the ’895 patent as unpatentable.