PTAB

IPR2024-00868

Ericsson Inc v. XR Communications LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Directed MIMO Communications
  • Brief Description: The ’511 patent discloses a wireless communication system combining beamforming and Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) capabilities. The invention focuses on a specific architecture defining the relationships between the number of antenna arrays, the beams they generate, and their interconnection with a corresponding number of MIMO transceivers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Trigui - Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 18-20 are obvious over Trigui.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Trigui (Application # 2011/0150050).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Trigui’s "digital integrated antenna array" (DIAA) system, particularly when configured for sharing between multiple network operators, teaches all elements of the challenged independent claims. Petitioner asserted Trigui discloses a system with m antenna arrays (e.g., two) each producing n beams (e.g., two). The claimed n MIMO transceivers correspond to Trigui’s disclosure of separate modems for each operator sharing the array. The specific claimed interconnection, where each transceiver processes signals from each of the m arrays, is allegedly taught by an obvious "cross-connect" configuration that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would implement to optimize MIMO performance. Dependent claims related to compliance with wireless standards (e.g., LTE, WiMAX) and physical antenna characteristics were argued to be inherent or obvious implementations of Trigui's base station design.
    • Motivation to Combine: Although a single-reference ground, the motivation argument focused on implementing Trigui's multi-operator scenario. A POSA would combine Trigui’s teachings of shared antenna arrays with the known practice of providing separate baseband units (modems/transceivers) for each operator. The motivation for a "cross-connect" wiring scheme would be to achieve the well-understood benefits of signal decorrelation and improved MIMO capacity, which are primary goals of such systems.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success because the implementation involved applying a predictable interconnection method to Trigui's disclosed system to achieve well-known performance improvements in a multi-operator environment.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Trigui in view of Rudrapatna - Claims 4-6, 9, 13-15, and 18 are obvious over Trigui in view of Rudrapatna.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Trigui (Application # 2011/0150050) and Rudrapatna (Patent 6,801,790).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that Rudrapatna provides express, reinforcing disclosures for the limitations of several dependent claims, rendering them obvious over Trigui. While Petitioner argued these limitations were already obvious from Trigui and POSA knowledge, Rudrapatna was cited to remove any doubt. Specifically, Rudrapatna was alleged to expressly teach separating antenna arrays by more than one wavelength (claims 4, 13), spacing individual antenna elements at half-wavelength or less for effective beamforming (claims 5, 14), using electronically operated switches that constitute an electronic beamformer (claims 6, 15), and designing an array to "simultaneously" perform both MIMO and beamforming operations (claims 9, 18).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine Rudrapatna’s explicit teachings on optimal antenna geometry and functionality with Trigui's shared DIAA system to enhance its performance. Both references address the same technical field of combining MIMO and beamforming in antenna arrays. A POSA would look to a reference like Rudrapatna to find established design parameters (e.g., antenna spacing for decorrelation) to predictably optimize the performance of the system disclosed in Trigui.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be highly expected, as Rudrapatna simply supplies express teachings for well-established design principles that a POSA would naturally apply when implementing the advanced wireless communication system taught by Trigui.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325, emphasizing that the primary reference, Trigui, was never before the Examiner during prosecution.
  • Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and the Fintiv factors. It asserted that the petition presents "compelling evidence of unpatentability," aligning with Director guidance to avoid denial on strong petitions. The analysis of the Fintiv factors concluded they weigh in favor of institution, citing the early stage of parallel district court litigation, a trial date that is not significantly earlier than the projected Final Written Decision (FWD), and Petitioner's stipulation not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 18-20 of the ’511 patent as unpatentable.