Apple Inc v. Theta IP LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00818
• Patent #: 10,524,202
• Filed: May 1, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Theta IP, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-2, 4-23

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Methods for reducing power dissipation in wireless transceivers.
• Brief Description: The ’202 patent discloses methods for reducing power consumption in battery-operated wireless transceivers. The technology works by dynamically adjusting the receiver's "dynamic range" based on current signal conditions, reducing receiver circuit currents and power dissipation when not operating under "worst-case" conditions of low desired signal strength and high interferer strength.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2 and 4-23 are obvious over Behbahani in view of Leete and Tan.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Behbahani (a 2001 journal article titled "Adaptive Analog IF Signal Processor for a Wide-Band CMOS Wireless Receiver"), Leete (a 2000 journal article titled "A 2.4-GHz Low-IF Receiver for Wideband WLAN..."), and Tan (a 2000 journal article titled "A Broad-Band Tunable CMOS Channel-Select Filter...").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Behbahani teaches the core inventive concept: a wireless receiver that implements an "adaptive dynamic range" method to save power. It does so by switching between a high-power filter for worst-case conditions (low desired signal, high interferers) and a separate, scaled low-power filter for better conditions. This switching dynamically adjusts the filter's impedance and DC bias current in response to measured signal strengths, as claimed. The combination of Leete and Tan was asserted to supply the remaining details. Leete, expressly cited by Behbahani, was argued to disclose the RF front-end circuitry (including the claimed amplifier and mixer) that Behbahani's receiver architecture relies upon but does not detail. Tan, also expressly cited by Behbahani for its filter design, allegedly provided the specific details of Behbahani's scaled high-power and low-power filters, confirming that switching between them adjusts impedance and bias current.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Behbahani explicitly incorporates them by reference to describe components of its own system. Behbahani stated that its RF front-end is detailed in Leete and that its filter design is detailed in Tan. Petitioner argued this creates a clear motivation to combine the teachings to arrive at the complete, operational receiver described, as the references describe different aspects of the same research project by an overlapping team of authors.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the references were intended to be used conjunctively to describe a single, cohesive wireless receiver system. Combining the components as directed by Behbahani would be understood to result in a predictable and functional device.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner highlighted that the sole inventor of the ’202 patent had previously authored a 2003 article that pointed to Behbahani's switched filter process as an exemplary implementation of "Dynamic Impedance Scaling," the same concept of adjusting impedance to save power that is central to the challenged claims.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner noted that several terms were disputed in parallel district court litigation, including "impedance," "signal path," and the "dynamically changing" limitation.
• For the purposes of the IPR proceeding, Petitioner argued the Board should adopt the Patent Owner’s proposed constructions for "signal path" and the dynamic limitation to promote judicial efficiency.
• For claims 4 and 8, Petitioner stated it would apply the Patent Owner's proposed construction of "impedance" as "opposition to the flow of alternating current" to demonstrate obviousness even under the patentee's own interpretation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) Arguments: Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) was not warranted. Although the Behbahani and Tan references were cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution, the Examiner never applied them in a rejection or substantively discussed their teachings. Furthermore, Leete was not before the Examiner at all. Thus, the specific combination and the arguments based upon it were never considered by the Office.
• Fintiv/General Plastic Arguments: Petitioner contended that denial was inappropriate based on a separate IPR filed by a different party (Lenovo et al., v. Theta IP, LLC, IPR2023-00698). Petitioner asserted it was not a party to the Lenovo IPR, was using entirely different prior art and arguments, and was not using the earlier proceeding as an unfair "roadmap." To address the co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner proffered a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in district court any invalidity grounds that were raised or could have been reasonably raised in the IPR.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-2 and 4-23 of Patent 10,524,202 as unpatentable.