Court: District Court, D. Delaware; October 31, 2016; Federal District Court
In June 2015, Evolved Wireless, LLC initiated separate patent infringement lawsuits against multiple defendants including Apple, HTC, Lenovo, Motorola, Samsung, ZTE, and Microsoft, alleging infringement of five patents, specifically U.S. Patent Nos. 7,746,916 ('916 patent) and 8,218,481 ('481 patent'). The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). The defendants filed motions for judgment on the pleadings, claiming these patents contain patent-ineligible subject matter per 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court determined that patent eligibility is a legal question suitable for resolution at the pleading stage and ultimately denied the defendants' motions.
The '916 and '481 patents pertain to mobile devices using the LTE standard, enhancing mobile functionality for faster, more reliable data and voice transmissions. The '916 patent specifically outlines methods for generating and transmitting a code sequence in a wireless communication system, detailing a process that includes cyclic extension and circular shifting of code sequences. Claim 1 of the '916 patent describes a method involving the acquisition of a code sequence, its transformation through a circular shift, and its transmission, specifying conditions related to the lengths of the sequences involved.
Limitations (a) through (c) of claim 1 outline the steps for generating and transmitting a code sequence. Limitation (a) involves acquiring a code sequence through a 'cyclic extension,' which replicates part of a starting sequence at its end, as exemplified by transforming '34567' into '345673' by appending '3' to the end. Limitation (b) describes a 'circular shift' operation that moves a section of the cyclically extended sequence to the opposite end, such as changing '345673' to '733456' by shifting '73' to the front. Limitation (c) mandates the transmission of the resulting circular-shifted code sequence to the receiving party.
Limitations (d) through (f) impose additional criteria: Limitation (d) specifies that the starting sequence must have a prime number length, demonstrated by '34567,' which has five digits. Limitations (e) and (f) allow the mathematical operations of cyclic extension and circular shift to be performed in either direction.
Independent method claim 11 mirrors most of claim 1’s requirements but alters the sequence of operations, executing the cyclic extension before the circular shift. Independent apparatus claim 6 parallels claim 1's language while framing the operations within a generic 'code sequence generator' and includes a 'transmitting unit' for sending the sequence. Dependent claims 2-4 and 7-8 specify that the starting sequence can include a 'cyclic prefix' or 'cyclic postfix,' or be a 'Zadoff-Chu (ZC) sequence,' which is a known mathematical sequence. Dependent claims 5 and 10 stipulate that the resulting code sequence must be transmitted as a 'reference signal sequence,' defined in the specification as analogous to a prior art signal in wireless communications.
The '481 patent pertains to methods and systems for generating and transmitting a preamble sequence over a random access channel in mobile communication systems. User equipment, such as mobile devices, utilizes this preamble to access the network when not synchronized with the base station. Independent claim 1 describes a method that includes: (a) repeating a specific sequence of length (L) a designated number (N) of times to create a consecutive sequence; (b) concatenating a cyclic prefix (CP) to the front of this consecutive sequence; and (c) transmitting the preamble sequence on a random access channel. For instance, repeating the sequence '123' twice results in '123123,' and adding a cyclic prefix could yield '3123123.' The patent asserts that these preambles are less prone to noise, enhancing reception at the base station.
Independent apparatus claim 8 mirrors claim 1 but frames the process in terms of a "preamble generation unit" and includes a "transmitting unit" for the sequence. Claims 2-7 and 9-16 impose further specifications on claims 1 and 8. Claims 2 and 9 define the starting sequence as a CAZAC sequence, which allows differentiation of signals from multiple devices due to their orthogonality. Claims 3-7 and 10-14 involve additional cyclic shift operations, while claims 15-16 specify repetition counts and cyclic prefix lengths.
The standard of review for a Rule 12(c) motion requires courts to view facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, granting judgment only when no relief could be afforded under any conceivable facts. The court must deny motions if the complaint includes basic allegations that justify relief, although it need not accept conclusory statements. Judgment is granted only when no material factual issues remain, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Section 101 of the Patent Act outlines patent-eligible subject matter, which includes processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has recognized an implicit exception for laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas, with the intent to protect fundamental scientific and technological tools. Defendants contend that the '916 and '481 patents focus on abstract ideas and thus are not patentable. In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, the Supreme Court established a two-step framework for evaluating patent eligibility: first, determining if the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept; if not, the inquiry ends. If they are, the second step assesses whether additional elements transform the claim into a patent-eligible application.
Defendants specifically argue that the claims in question represent a mathematical algorithm for generating a code sequence, which the Federal Circuit has classified as an abstract idea. It is established that mathematical formulas cannot be patented without additional limitations. A process using mathematical algorithms to manipulate data to produce new information fails to meet patent eligibility. Furthermore, merely applying a mathematical formula in a specific technological context does not render it patentable, nor does insignificant post-solution activity. However, a claim involving a mathematical formula may still qualify under § 101 if it integrates that formula into a structure or process that fulfills a function intended for patent protection.
Given the nature of software, which often involves data manipulation through algorithms, distinguishing between potentially patentable claims and unpatentable mathematical algorithms can be challenging. Notably, claims that improve computer functionality or enhance an existing technological process are generally patentable, even if they use mathematical algorithms. Therefore, courts must differentiate between claims that merely utilize abstract mathematical algorithms and those that contribute to technological advancements.
In assessing whether the mathematical algorithms in the disputed patents constitute abstract ideas or represent technological advancements, the court references comparable cases. The Hughes case involved an error correction code, specifically an irregular repeat and accumulate (IRA) code, designed to address data corruption from noise during transmission. The IRA code introduces redundancy by duplicating original bits irregularly and combining them with parity bits, allowing the receiver to verify data integrity. The court ruled that this innovation was not patent-ineligible under § 101, as it demonstrated a technological improvement over existing solutions.
The court noted that the IRA code effectively balances data accuracy and efficiency, which is a hallmark of patentable technological advancements. Similarly, the '916 and '481 patents address specific technological challenges in wireless communications. The '916 patent improves upon prior limitations in code sequences necessary for maintaining orthogonality, reducing interference and enhancing service capacity for mobile devices. The '481 patent tackles issues with fixed-length preamble sequences in random access channels, promoting flexibility and robustness against noise. By addressing these defined technological problems, both patents are deemed to claim patent-eligible subject matter under § 101.
Defendants argue that the patent claims should be viewed solely as a mathematical algorithm, suggesting that the preamble and claim limitations are merely constraints tied to a specific technological context or trivial activities after the solution. The court, however, maintains that it is standard practice to evaluate patent claims as a complete entity. According to Supreme Court precedent, a claim that includes a mathematical formula can meet the § 101 criteria if it applies the formula in a manner that fulfills the functions intended to be protected by patent law. A combination of conventional elements may yield an unconventional, patentable invention.
Defendants also contend that the patents disclose elements that are well-known in prior art, but the court emphasizes that § 101 eligibility should not replace a thorough patentability analysis regarding prior art and compliance with Title 35 requirements. The court concludes that the claims are patentable under § 101, but does not comment on their compliance with other sections of the Patent Act, such as § 102 or § 103. Consequently, the motions for judgment on the pleadings filed by the defendants are denied. The order was issued on October 31, 2016, referencing motions from multiple related cases. The court distinguishes the current claims from those in prior cases cited by defendants, clarifying that the patents at issue do not aim to improve established commercial practices through computer use, nor do they pertain to abstract ideas related to data organization or storage.
