The patent infringement trial of Dallas-based General Access Solutions against cell phone manufacturer Verizon kicked off in Marshall’s federal court this week over inventions related to 5G wireless mobile technology as it relates to beamforming and hotspots.
“We’re here because Verizon has been infringing two very important patents,” General Access’ attorney Glen Eric Summers, of Denver-based Bartlit Beck LLP, told the jury in opening statements Monday. “They’ve been using the patents without permission.
“These are not regular run-of-the-mill patents. The patents are the heart of 5G and mobile hotspots,” said Summers.
The plaintiff is seeking $847 million in the case.
“The numbers are big only because of the magnitude of Verizon’s infringement,” said Summers. “Beamforming increases the speed of their coverage and quality of their 5G network.”
Representing Verizon, attorney Josh Krevitt, of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP based in New York, argued that Verizon does not infringe and that the patents have nothing to do with 5G technology.
“These patents were (created) 25 years ago,” he said. “That’s way before Facebook, You Tube….” he said. “It has nothing to do with 5G.”
“This case is important for us because Verizon, the men and women of that company, have been accused of infringement,” said Krevitt.
Alleged Products-in-Suit
The lawsuit notes that Verizon began to roll out its 5G network around 2018 then followed with the release of 5G mobile services throughout 2019. The products accused of infringing the patents-in-suit include Verizon’s 5G base station equipment and wireless devices the defendant has sold in the United States that receive a cellular signal using 4G or 5G protocols and then route information to mobile stations using 802.11 Wi-Fi communication protocols. These products include, for example, Wi-Fi home or office routers with cellular backhaul, W-iFi “hot spots,” as well as smartphones with Wi-Fi hot spot functionality, the lawsuit explains.
Plaintiff’s Claims
Regarding the specific patent that incorporates “beamforming” into wireless networks, Summers said Verizon has been using the method described in the patent in more than 75,000 base stations across the country. Summers said because of the demand for more data, Verizon is always trying to increase the speed and coverage of its 5G network. He argued that Verizon would’ve had to spend $1.7 billion more to have the same network it has today without the use of General Access’ patent.
According to the lawsuit, Struhsaker sought to use beamforming in conjunction with Time Division Duplexing (“TDD”) to extend the range, speed, quality and throughput of cellular wireless networks.
As it relates to the second patent in suit, Summers noted Verizon has sold 94.6 infringing devices.
“These smartphones are the lifeblood of Verizon’s business,” he said.
Giving a history of the patents, Summers noted that back in 1999, the inventor of the patents-in-suit, Paul Struhsaker, had an idea to make internet accessible to homes and businesses by sending Internet over the air or “beam” the data to homes and then add a wireless hotspot for access at businesses.
In order to do that, Summers said Struhsaker knew he had to use two technologies that had never been used before in mobile communications. The first was beamforming, which creates a stronger signal that travels further. According to the lawsuit, Struhsaker worked to incorporate into wireless networks was “beamforming” — specifically the use of advanced antenna arrays to generate focused beams of radio-frequency energy in a desired direction.
He said at the time of Struhsaker’s invention, base stations with 5G antennas did not exist. As a result, he said Struhsaker and his team sought the help of an antenna manufacturer.
Explaining how groundbreaking the invention was, Summers said the patents were first filed in 2001 — 23 years ago.
“We’re talking about the days of the flip phone,” he said, adding that Struhsaker and his team of engineers were way ahead of their time as pioneers in the industry, inventing several groundbreaking inventions.
The lawsuit notes that another of the technologies developed by Struhsaker was the use of Wi-Fi to rebroadcast communications received from a larger cellular network to multiple wireless devices. The lawsuit states the technology he developed is commonly used today in connection with wireless cellular networks, including with so-called wireless “hotspots.”
Struhsaker worked on this development through his work at WestEnd Broadband Inc., which eventually became Raze, which was later acquired by the plaintiff, General Access Solutions.
And with a desire to support high data transmission speeds, he said the inventor realized they’ll need to use beamforming in conjunction with Time Division Duplexing “TDD” to extend the range, speed, quality, and throughput of cellular wireless networks.
Summers said the large telecom corporations were interested in the patents, but after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the collapsing of the World Trade Center, the companies stopped spending money. As a result, Raze was forced to shut down business operations in late 2002.
“They were just too far ahead of their time and the world was not ready for the technology,” said Summers.
The company then reorganized as General Access Solutions through the investment of Hynek, who filed this lawsuit.
“Mr. Hynek invested a significant amount of money along with other investors,” said Summers. “He believed in this technology.”
Defendant’s Claims
Arguing in opening statements for the defendant, Krevitt, representing Verizon, said the company is very proud of its 5G network, which he described as very sophisticated.
“It’s a massive sophisticated collection of millions of components, all cutting edge and new,” he said.
Krevitt argued that even the inventor of the patents, Struhsaker, is not accusing Verizon of infringement.
“He doesn’t work for Raze. Only Michael “Skip” Hynek — one man — (does),” said Krevitt, noting Hynek invested in Raze after it went under and acquired everything, including the patents-in-suit.
Krevitt argued that the patents-in-suit were only designed for teaching how to operate a fixed wireless network.
“That’s when you’d have big antennas bolted to houses — big antennas that don’t move bolted to houses,” said Krevitt. “That’s all Raze was doing. Raze never touched mobile.”
Krevitt said Raze’s only goal was to be a supplier of fixed broadband wireless access systems.
“It does not support mobility,” he said of the patents-in-suit. “Raze never did anything with mobility. A mobile network is entirely different.”
“We send a beam as you walk down (the street), as you race down a highway, as you duck around a corner (so one can communicate),” Krevitt said of Verizon. “It’s amazing to me.”
Summers alleged that Verizon infringes the patents by allegedly transmitting a broadcast beam signal to more than one sector and transmitting the broadcast beam signal to the start of the frame. Krevitt says that’s not how Verizon’s system works.
Summers further noted that 5G is so complex that a network of companies spent more than a decade to incorporate beamforming in mobile. Those companies included Verizon, Intel, T-Mobile, AT&T, Sony, Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung, ZTE, Panasonic and Sharp — to name a few.
Krevitt noted that Raze (General Access) was not involved in that.
“Raze’s own documents say it didn’t even support mobility,” said Krevitt. “General Access now comes out of the woodwork and says Raze actually invented that.”
“Raze never said they invented beamforming in mobile,” Krevitt continued. “General Access is seeking to take credit for that so that it can ask you for hundreds of millions of dollars.”
“There’s only one group that’s ever invested in Raze, and that’s Mr. Hynek’s group and the only one that will get the $800 something million dollars,” Krevitt argued.
Arguing Verizon’s claims of invalidity of the patents-in-suit, the Verizon attorney further noted that when Raze now General Access first applied for its patents in 2001, the patents were rejected in 2006. After being acquired by Hynek’s company General Access, he said Hynek sought assistance from patent lawyers to tweak the language of the patents.
“The lawyer changed the claims. They added all new requirements and even added brand new claims,” said Krevitt. “
“The question is were the changes General Access’ lawyer made, were the changes in the original application,” said Krevitt.
“It’s also invalid because the patent does not enable beamforming in a mobile network,” Krevitt argued. “This patent (language) was written 25 years ago and does not mention anything about mobility. It is 30 columns, 15,000 words and does not mention mobile — yet alone how to do beamforming in a mobile network.”
Expert Witnesses
Krevitt said for Verizon, Jeffrey Andrews, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Texas in Austin, will serve as the expert witness on non-infringement and Verizon’s claims of invalidity of the patents.
“He is a world renowned scholar of networks and mobile communications. He is a rock star,” said Krevitt, noting Andrews’ paper on 5G is the most widely cited paper ever written on the topic.
For the plaintiff, General Access, Vijay Madisetti, an electrical and computer engineering professor at Georgia Tech and an expert in wireless communications, will serve as the company’s expert witness.
“He’ll go through the claims of the patent and explain how Verizon infringes,” said Summers.
The first witness to take the stand, called by the plaintiff, Monday was the inventor of the patents, Paul Struhsaker. The trial resumes today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas-Marshall Division, with U.S. Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding.
This post was originally published on the 3rd party mentioned in the title ofthis site
