Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

TOT POWER CONTROL, S.L.

Plaintiff,
v.
C.A. No. __________
APPLE, INC.

Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff TOT Power Control, S.L. (“TOT” or “Plaintiff”) for its

Complaint for Patent Infringement against Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or

“Defendant”), alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. TOT is an intellectual property and technology licensing company.

TOT’s patent portfolio is based on technology conceived, developed and patented

by its President, Alvaro Medrano, along with four colleagues. Mr. Medrano has a

Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from the Universidad Politecnica, but

it was during his Masters degree studies in Astronautics and Space Engineering at

Cranfield University, where he specialized in satellite attitude control, that he first

thought to apply certain control engineering principles to mobile communications.

Mr. Medrano and his colleagues developed the patented power control solutions

1
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 2

from concepts in control theory that had not previously been applied in the

context of telecommunications. TOT was founded in order to develop and

commercialize these superior methods of and devices for managing how power is

used to respond to decreases and increases in the ratio of radio signal to

interference (“SIR”). This technology is protected in the United States by the

patents identified below and at issue in this case (collectively, the “TOT Patents”).

2. Apple infringes the TOT Patents by making, using, offering for sale,

and/or importing products throughout the United States, including within this

District. Apple’s infringement is based on the power control processes practiced

by the wireless baseband processors that Apple’s mobile devices employ to access

and operate over the cellular networks operated by United States carriers,

including Verizon Wireless, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint.

3. Apple has infringed and continues to infringe the TOT Patents.

Apple and its suppliers of wireless baseband processors have thus far refused to

license the TOT Patents and, instead, have continued to make, use, sell, offer to

sell, and/or import TOT’s patented intellectual property within the United States

without TOT’s permission.

THE PARTIES

4. Plaintiff TOT is a limited liability company organized and existing

under the laws of Spain with its principal place of business at C/ Gobelas 17, 1st

2
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 3

floor, Urb. La Florida 28023 Madrid, Spain.

5. Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its principal place of

business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. Apple is a publicly traded

company that may be served through its registered agent for service, CT

Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) at least because this action arises under the patent

laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.

7. This Court has both general and specific jurisdiction over Apple

because Apple has committed acts within this District giving rise to this action and

has established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of

jurisdiction over Apple would not offend traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice. Among other things:

a. Apple has employees and operates a retail store at 125 Christiana Mall,

Newark, DE 19702. See https://www.apple.com/retail/christianamall/ (last

accessed Aug. 30, 2021); https://www.christianamall.com/en/directory/apple-

8718.html (last accessed Aug. 30, 2021). Defendant Apple’s retail store at 125

Christiana Mall sells and offers for sale products and services that infringe the

TOT Patents. On information and belief, the Apple retail store at 125 Christiana

3
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 4

Mall sells more infringing products than any other Apple retail store in the United

States. See Alan Farnham and Mark Mooney, Apple’s (AAPL) Delaware Store

Claims Title for Selling Most iPhones, ABC NEWS (Nov. 12, 2013, 6:14 AM),

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/applesdelaware-store-claims-title-selling-

iphones/story?id=20650009.

b. Apple, directly and through subsidiaries and intermediaries (including

distributors, retailers, franchisees and others), has regularly committed and

continues to commit acts of patent infringement in this District, by, among other

things, making, using, testing, selling, licensing, importing and/or offering for

sale/license products and services that infringe the TOT Patents. See, e.g.,

https://locate.apple.com/sales/. (last accessed August 30, 2021)

8. Venue is properly laid in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§1391(b) and (c) and 1400(b). Defendant Apple has a physical presence in this

District and has committed acts of infringement in this District by, among other

things, selling and offering for sale in this district (and elsewhere) infringing

products made, used, developed, tested and otherwise practiced by Apple. Venue

is further proper based on facts alleged in the preceding paragraphs which TOT

incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein.

4
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 5

THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT

A. U.S. Patent No. 7,532,865

9. U.S. Patent No. 7,532,865 (the ’865 patent), entitled “Outer Loop

Power Control Method and Device for Wireless Communications Systems,” was

duly and properly issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office

(“USPTO”) on May 12, 2009. A true and correct copy of the ’865 patent is

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

10. TOT is the assignee of the ’865 patent; owns all right, title and

interest in the ’865 patent; and holds the right to sue and recover damages for

infringement thereof, including past infringement.

B. U.S. Patent No. 7,496,376

11. U.S. Patent No. 7,496,376 (the ’376 patent), entitled “Outer Loop

Power Control Method and Apparatus for Wireless Communications Systems,”

was duly and properly issued by the USPTO on February 24, 2009. A true and

correct copy of the ’376 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

12. TOT is the assignee of the ’376 patent; owns all right, title and

interest in the ‘376 patent; and holds the right to sue and recover damages for

infringement thereof, including for past infringement.

5
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 6

BACKGROUND FOR THE INVENTIONS

13. Wideband CDMA (“WCDMA”) is the physical layer implementation

of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”) Universal Mobile Telephone

Service (“UMTS”) cellular standard. Code Division Multiple Access (“CDMA”) is

a radio access method used by various wireless communication technologies that

allows multiple channels to be carried on a single physical radio channel.

CDMA2000 is 3G technology that evolved from IS-95 CDMA compliant

systems. In all respects relevant hereto, CDMA2000 and WCDMA standards

share the same fundamental technologies, including channelization codes, and are

referred to collectively herein as 3G CDMA.

14. In 3G CDMA, a single radio frequency (“RF”) channel is utilized to

transmit voice calls and data between multiple mobile devices (such as mobile

phones, tablets, or watches which are generally referred to as end-user devices

(“UE”), and a base transmission station (the “Node B”) operated by a cellular

carrier. Each UE is assigned a code that is transmitted in an RF channel along with

the codes for other UEs. Some of the codes are close to, but not perfectly,

orthogonal (i.e., non-correlated). The imperfect orthogonal positioning results in a

certain degree of interference between codes in the same RF channel.

15. Power control is a critical aspect of 3G CDMA systems because it is

used, inter alia, to ameliorate interference within the uplink signals (i.e., UE

6
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 7

transmitting to the Node B) and the downlink signals (i.e., the Node B transmitting

to UE) exchanged between the UE and the Node B. Power control is especially

necessary to address the problem of near-far intracell interference. This

interference results from the differing transmission power requirements of UEs

near to and UEs far from the carrier’s Node B. The varying distances require

individualized power levels to maintain the level of call quality required by the

signal propagation conditions.

16. Power control for ongoing transmissions within a cellular system is

accomplished through a closed loop as specified in the 3GPP UMTS standard. The

closed loop is comprised of two intermeshed processes—inner loop and outer loop

power controls. As a general overview, the inner loop adjusts the transmission

power control (“TPC”) command based on a signal-to-interference ratio target

(“SIRTarget”) level provided by the outer loop. This intermeshed process allows the

cellular system to continuously adjust call quality.

A. Inner Loop

17. The 3GPP UMTS closed loop standard applies to both downlink and

uplink transmissions between the UE and Node B. A downlink transmission

originates with the Node B and is sent to the UE. An uplink transmission is the

converse—it is sent by the UE to the carrier’s Node B.

18. In power control for a downlink, a signal-to-interference ratio target

7
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 8

SIRTarget) is set in the UE as it receives the signal. Per the 3GPP UMTS standard,

the SIR is measured in the inner loop and then compared to the SIRTarget. The SIR

measurement is dictated by § 5.2.2 of ETSI TS 25.215, Physical layer -

Measurements (FDD):

See

https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/125200_125299/125215/11.00.00_60/ts_12521

5v110000p.pdf (last accessed August 30, 2021).

19. In the downlink, if the measured SIR is below the SIRTarget, the inner

loop of the UE directs the device to send a TPC command to the carrier’s Node B

to increase the transmission power. If the measured SIR is above the SIRTarget, the

8
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 9

inner loop of the UE directs the device to send a TPC command to the carrier’s

Node B to decrease the transmission power. In Annex B.2. of the standard

document TS 125.214, and from section 5.2.2. of the standard document TS

125.215, it is described that a mobile terminal should estimate the received SIR to

operate the inner loop.

20. The uplink works similarly. SIR measurements are made at the

carrier’s Node B and are compared in the inner loop to the SIRTarget which then

directs the Node B to send a TPC power control command to the UE. The inner

loop power control is dictated in § 5.1.2.2.1 of ETSI TS 25.214, Physical layer

procedures (FDD):

9
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 10

See

https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/125200_125299/125214/11.03.00_60/ts_12521

4v110300p.pdf (last accessed August 30, 2021)

B. Outer Loop

21. In addition to inner loop requirements, the 3GPP UMTS standard also

defines outer loop power control for maintaining the “long-term quality control of

the radio channel.”1 through adjustments to the SIRTarget value. From section

14.9.1 of the document TS 125.331, the creation of the SIRTarget results from the

following example embodiment in normal mode:

1
(ETSI TS 25.401, § 7.2.4.8.1 at 23, UTRAN overall description;
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/125400_125499/125401/04.02.00_60/ts_125401v040200p.p
df (last accessed August 30, 2021)

10
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 11

22. Furthermore, TS 125.401 states in section 7.2.4.8.2:

23. The quality requirement mentioned in section 14.9.1 of TS 125.331

refers to the SIR (required) in a specific radio environment in order to maintain a

specific Block Error Rate (“BLER”) target. The same applies to clause 7.2.4.8.2 of

TS 125.401, which refers to the target quality value, i.e., the value required or

determined for the corresponding radio link. To maintain the BLER set by the

network for a particular channel, the example embodiment sets an SIRTarget that

maintains the required Quality of Service (i.e., is close to the SIR in normal

operation).

24. However, unlike the inner loop, the 3GPP UMTS standard does not

define the specifics of the outer loop power control algorithm. As a general

overview, the outer loop’s purpose is to adjust the SIRTarget to account for the

changing radio conditions that a UE might encounter over the course of a call.

11
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 12

For example, call quality is adversely affected when the UE enters a tunnel or

elevator, when there is significant weather interference with the RF signal, or

when there are rapid changes in the speed of the UE. These kinds of conditions

will require a higher SIRTarget (and hence a more powerful radio signal) than

would otherwise be the case. Telecommunications standards do not specify how

the SIRTarget should be adjusted to achieve optimal efficiency.

25. The early universal approach to the adjustment of SIRTarget values in

the outer loop was based on block/frame errors indicated by Cyclic Redundancy

Check (“CRC”) errors. When a CRC error is detected, the SIRTarget was increased

by a number of decibels. For each successive block/frame without a CRC error,

the SIRTarget value was decreased by a percentage corresponding to the BLER

percentage that the system is configured for. This process of adjusting the

SIRTarget value is illustrated in the first figure below, with an exemplary BLER of

1%. The second figure below shows the rate at which the SIRTarget value is

decreased for BLER values ranging from 10% to 0.1%. Different values for the

maximum tolerated value for BLER can be set for different types of traffic,

allowing, for example, realtime interactive data traffic to maintain lower

transmission error rates than non-realtime video downloading operations.

12
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 13

26. Under normal conditions, the convergence rate of the SIRTarget value

based on the CRC and BLER diminishes performance of the UE and the cell

network whenever there is a resumption of favorable channel conditions, such as

coming out of a tunnel or elevator. The conventional BLER method of power

control slows the power adaptation of the transmitter between the UE and carrier’s

Node B, thereby degrading call quality. The BLER method of power control also

13
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 14

impacts potential capacity within an RF channel by experiencing excess power

levels on each channel in various circumstances and thus allowing fewer end-users

that can be serviced in each cell. To keep their networks operating through these

wasted resources, the carriers are forced to add expensive additional network

capacity.

THE PATENTED SOLUTIONS

27. The Patents-in-Suit are directed at better management of the SIRTarget

values so that power, and consequently wireless channel capacity, is not wasted

and call quality is maintained. This is achieved by the techniques taught and

claimed in the ’376 patent, which is directed at a more precise manner of adjusting

the SIRTarget in the outer loop under a variety of dynamic channel conditions; and in

the ’865 patent which is directed at managing control power during the unwinding

phase.

28. The ’865 patent describes and claims a technique to solve the problem

of convergence of the SIRTarget value when the exit from a “wind-up” condition has

started, i.e., when the unwinding process has started. The technique of the ’865

patent matches the SIRTarget value at wind-up exit to a value close to the SIRTarget

value before the wind-up began. By doing so, the unwinding time of the SIRTarget

value is drastically shortened and interference in the system is reduced. The

immediate effect is that the outer loop power control quickly returns to a normal

14
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 15

mode of operation when the wind-up conditions passes. The solution of the ’865

patent thus provides for increased system capacity and improved wireless

connections (e.g., reduction in dropped calls).

29. The ’376 patent describes and claims an outer loop power control

apparatus to address the problems that are associated with a certain type of fading

in the wireless channel. Fading is a change in the received level of signal even

when the distance between the UE and carrier’s Node B does not change. Channel

fading can occur as the result of a variety of conditions, e.g., multipath propagation

(often referred to as multipath-induced fading), weather (particularly rain), or

shadowing from obstacles affecting the wave propagation (sometimes referred to

as shadow fading). Channel fading can result in either constructive or destructive

interference, amplifying or attenuating the signal power seen at the receiver. The

’376 Patent enables better reaction to changes in signal propagation conditions by

(i) measuring the amount of fading within the channel and (ii) accounting for that

fading as part of the outer loop power control. As mentioned previously,

conventional channel quality control methods relied on the measured BLERs

which operate more slowly than an optimally designed system.

30. The ’376 patent describes and claims a technique to determine

SIRTarget values based on the collection of SIRRec values. These SIRRec values are

used to calculate the short-term historical conditions in the channel (which will

15
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 16

affect the received signal as judged by the SIR at the receiver). Based on the

historical conditions, one or more fading margin(s) can be calculated. A weighting

function is then used to map the fading margins to a SIRTarget value, taking into

account prior SIRTarget values. This approach allows the SIRTarget value to vary with

channel conditions and reduce the amount of data errors that occur because of the

channel conditions. This, in turn, reduces the amount of power that is wasted when

using conventional power control techniques based on measurements of data

errors.

31. The TOT Patents describe and claim techniques for better

management of the SIRTarget values so that power, and consequently wireless

channel capacity, are not wasted and call quality is maintained. TOT shared the

techniques of the TOT Patents with Defendant’s component chip suppliers, such as

baseband processor suppliers, who surreptitiously adopted the patented techniques

without approval, authority, or license to do so. As a result of (a) the suppliers

implementing TOT’s patented techniques in its transceivers and (b) Apple’s

inclusion of those infringing components in Apple’s mobile phones and other end-

user devices, Apple has been able to provide products to consumers that produce

superior call quality.

32. The claims in TOT’s Patents are not directed to abstract ideas and do

not merely attempt to limit a method of organizing human activity or an idea itself

16
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 17

to a particular technological environment. The claimed technologies are expressly

directed to the structure and operation of wireless communication networks, which

are not abstract methods or abstract ideas. The apparatus and methods claimed in

the Patents-in-Suit exist only in a concrete and tangible form, and the claimed

inventions cannot be accomplished through pen-and-paper or the human mind. As

alleged above, the claimed apparatus and methods provided a technical solution to

an existing technical problem. Accordingly, the claims of the Patents-in-Suit are

not directed to an abstract idea.

33. When viewed as a whole, the claims of the TOT Patents are not

merely a recitation of well-understood, routine, or conventional technologies or

components. The claimed inventions were not well-known, routine, or

conventional at the time of the inventions, and they represent specific

improvements over the prior art and existing systems and methods. The claimed

inventions were not known in the prior art at the time of the invention, let alone

well-known, routine, or conventional.

COUNT I

(Infringement of the ’865 patent)

34. TOT repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 33 as though the

same were set forth herein.

35. As alleged above, TOT is the assignee and lawful owner of all right,

17
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 18

title and interest in and to the ’865 patent.

36. The ’865 patent is valid and enforceable.

37. On information and belief and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Apple

has directly infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’865

patent, including but not limited to Claims 1 and 5, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a),

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

38. Defendant Apple has directly infringed, and continues to infringe, one

or more claims of the ’865 patent by among other things, making, using, selling,

offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States without authorization

certain mobile products (e.g., iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches) that contain

components which practice the invention claimed in the ‘865 patent (the “Apple

Accused Products”). The wireless baseband processors installed into the Apple

Accused Products include those manufactured and sold by Qualcomm (including

that company’s Snapdragon X55 wireless baseband processor) and by Intel

(including that company’s XMM 7660 wireless baseband processor).

39. As just one non-limiting example, Defendant Apple infringes Claim 1

of the ’865 patent through the operations performed by the Qualcomm and Intel

baseband processors that Defendant Apple has employed and continues to employ

in the Apple Accused Products.

40. Claim 1 of the ’865 patent requires “estimating a desired signal to

18
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 19

interference ratio received (SIRrec) based on a data signal (107, 108) received from

a base station (102, 103) or mobile station (104).” The Apple Accused Products, as

part of the outer loop power control mechanism required by the 3GPP UMTS

Standard, measure the received SIR value (SIRRec) and compares that value with an

established SIRTarget value to determine whether a TPC power command should be

sent to the UE to have the UE increase or decrease its power output.

41. Claim 1 of the ’865 patent further requires “setting a desired signal to

interference ratio target (SIRtarget) that is close to a signal to interference ratio

required (SIRrec) during the normal mode of the outer loop.” The Apple Accused

Products, as part of the outer loop power control mechanism required by the 3GPP

UMTS Standard, adjust the SIRTarget value based on block/frame errors indicated

by Cyclic Redundancy Check (“CRC”) errors.

42. Claim 1 of the ’865 patent further requires “detecting a start (402) of

the outer loop wind-up.” The Apple Accused Products detect a “wind-up”

condition in the channel that results in an increased SIRTarget value (as part of the

outer loop power control) and repeated commands from the carrier’s Node B to the

UE for an increase in power (as part of the inner loop power control). The Apple

Accused Products utilize SIRTarget values to determine when the channel entered

the “wind-up” condition.

43. Claim 1 of the ’865 patent also requires “setting a specific desired

19
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 20 of 28 PageID #: 20

signal to interference ratio target (SIRtarget) during the outer loop wind-up.” The

Apple Accused Products experience increases in the SIRTarget value as the signal

conditions deteriorate during the “wind-up” condition.

44. Claim 1 of the ’865 patent lastly requires “detecting a start (403) of

the outer loop unwinding, wherein the desired signal to interference ratio target

(SIRTarget) is modified at the start (403) of the outer loop unwinding, to match it to

the outer loop power control in normal mode just prior to the start of the outer loop

wind up.” The Apple Accused Products detect the end of the “wind-up” condition

in the channel based, at least in part, on the cessation of repeated CRC block errors

that characterized the “wind-up” condition. Upon the detection of the end of the

“wind-up” condition, Defendant Apple’s end-user devices will adjust the SIRTarget

to a value that matches the value of the SIRTarget before the “wind-up” condition

began.

45. As a direct and proximate result of Apple’s infringements, TOT has

sustained and is entitled to recover damages from Apple.

46. Apple’s infringement of the ‘865 patent has been knowing, deliberate

and willful. TOT disclosed the invention claimed by the ‘865 patent to both Intel

and Qualcomm at different times between 2005 and 2014, and the invention has

been so well publicized in the industry generally that Apple knew that the wireless

transceivers it incorporated into the Apple Accused Products infringed the TOT

20
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 21 of 28 PageID #: 21

Patents or should have known that its use of the wireless baseband processors

constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement.

COUNT II

(Infringement of the ’376 patent)

47. TOT repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 46 as though the

same were set forth herein.

48. As alleged above, TOT is the original and sole assignee and lawful

owner of all right, title and interest in and to the ’376 patent.

49. The ’376 patent is valid and enforceable.

50. On information and belief and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Apple

has directly infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’376

patent, including but not limited to Claims 1 and 6, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a),

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

51. Defendant Apple has directly infringed, and continues to infringe,

one or more claims of the of the ‘376 patent by among other things, making, using,

selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Apple Accused Products into the

United States without authorization. The wireless baseband processors installed in

the Apple Accused Products include those manufactured and sold by Qualcomm

21
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 22 of 28 PageID #: 22

(including that company’s Snapdragon X55 wireless baseband processor) and by

Intel (including that company’s XMM 7660 wireless baseband processor).

52. As just one non-limiting example, Defendant Apple infringes Claim 6

of the ’376 patent through the structure and operation of the Apple Accused

Products that employed and continue to employ wireless baseband processors that

practice all of the elements of Claim 6. These processors are supplied to

Defendant Apple by, among others, Qualcomm, and include power control

mechanisms as described in Claim 6.

53. Claim 6 of the ’376 patent requires “at least one programmable

electronic device the programmable electronic device operable to, based on a data

signal received from a base station or from a mobile station, perform the steps of.”

The Apple Accused Products include baseband processors that manage the inner

loop power control and outer loop power control processes for 3G CDMA

networks.

54. Claim 6 of the ’376 Patent further requires “establishing a target block

error rate (BLERtarget).” The Apple Accused Products, as part of the outer loop

power control mechanism required by the 3GPP Standard, maintain a configurable

parameter for the Block Error Rate (“BLER”) Target in the form of a percentage of

an acceptable error rate, e.g., 1%.

55. Claim 6 of the ’376 patent further requires “calculating an estimate

22
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 23 of 28 PageID #: 23

(701) of a desired signal to interference ratio (SIRrec).” The Apple Accused

Products, as part of the outer loop power control mechanism required by the 3GPP

Standard, measures the received SIR value (SIRRec), and compares that value with

an established SIRTarget value to determine whether a TPC power command should

be sent to the UE to have the UE increase or decrease its power output.

56. Claim 6 of the ’376 patent further requires “calculating . . . some

fading parameters in a channel (706) which characterize the data signal (107, 108)

received.” The Apple Accused Products, estimate fading in the downlink channel

by comparing the measured SIRRec values to the temporally commensurate SIRTarget

values that are used as part of outer loop power control to generate SIR error

values that are further collected to determine fading probability.

57. Claim 6 of the ’376 patent further requires “estimating some fading

margins (M1, M2, . . . , MN) associated with some outage probabilities (po1, po2, . . . ,

poN) and with the fading parameters in the channel (706).” The Apple Accused

Products use the collection of error values derived from the comparison of SIRRec

to SIRTarget values to determine a distribution of the error values over time. An

exemplary distribution function is shown in the figure below: applying the

distribution function, the Apple Accused Products use one or more of the

percentages of the derivation of the sum of the collected SIR error values from the

mean or average error value (outage probability) to calculate a fading margin

23
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 24 of 28 PageID #: 24

associated with each percentage.

58. Claim 6 of the ’376 patent also requires “indicating a status of the data

blocks (707) based on the checking of a Cyclic Redundancy Code (CRC), and

establishing a target desired signal to interference ratio (SIRtarget) for the outer loop,

based on said status of the data blocks (707).” The Apple Accused Products, as

part of the outer loop power control mechanism required by the 3GPP UMTS

Standard, adjust the SIRTarget value based on block/frame errors indicated by Cyclic

Redundancy Check (“CRC”) errors.

59. Claim 6 of the ’376 patent lastly requires “establishing a target desired

signal to interference ratio (SIRtarget) for the outer loop, based on . . . the fading

margins (M1, M2, …, MN) and the target block error (BLERtarget) of the outer loop,

by means of a dynamic adjusting function which performs a mapping between a

24
 Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 25 of 28 PageID #: 25

quality criterion based on the outage probabilities (po1, po2, . . . , poN) and the

quality criterion based on the target block error rate (BLERtarget), so that the power

is adapted to the propagation conditions of the data signal (107, 108).” In addition

to modifying the SIRTarget value based on the BLER as part of the outer loop power

control mechanism, the Apple Accused Products also adjust the SIRTarget value

using the one or more fading margin values calculated from the collection of error

values generated from the comparison of the SIRRec and SIRTarget values.

60. As a direct and proximate result of Apple’s infringements, TOT has

sustained and is entitled to recover damages from Apple.

61. Apple’s infringement of the ‘376 patent has been knowing, deliberate

and willful. TOT disclosed the invention claimed by the ‘376 patent to both Intel

and Qualcomm at different times between 2005 and 2014, and the invention has

been so well publicized in the industry generally that Apple knew that the wireless

transceivers it incorporated into the Apple Accused Products infringed or should

have known that its use of the wireless transceivers constituted an unjustifiably

high risk of infringement.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, TOT prays for the following relief:

a. A judgment in favor of TOT that Defendant Apple has infringed and

25
Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 26 of 28 PageID #: 26

is infringing, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents,

U.S. Patent No. 7,532,865;

b. A judgment in favor of TOT that Defendant Apple has infringed and

is infringing, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents,

U.S. Patent No. 7,496,376;

c. An Order permanently enjoining Defendant Apple, its respective

officers, agents, employees, and those acting in privity with them,

from further direct and/or indirect infringement of U.S. Patent No.

7,532,865;

d. An Order permanently enjoining Defendant Apple, its respective

officers, agents, employees, and those acting in privity with them,

from further direct and/or indirect infringement of U.S. Patent No.

7,496,376;

e. An award of damages to TOT arising out of Defendant Apple’s

infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,532,865, including supplemental

damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement up until entry

of the final judgment, with an accounting, as needed, and enhanced

damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment and

post-judgment interest, in an amount according to proof;

f. An award of damages to TOT arising out of Defendant Apple’s

26
Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 27 of 28 PageID #: 27

infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,496.376, including supplemental

damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement up until entry

of the final judgment, with an accounting, as needed, and enhanced

damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment and

post-judgment interest, in an amount according to proof;

g. An award of an ongoing royalty for Defendant Apple’s post-judgment

infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,532,865 in an amount according to

proof in the event that a permanent injunction preventing future acts

of infringement is not granted;

h. An award of an ongoing royalty for Defendant Apple’s post-judgment

infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,496,376 in an amount according to

proof in the event that a permanent injunction preventing future acts

of infringement is not granted;

i. A declaration that Defendant Apple’s infringement of U.S. Patent No.

7,532,865 was willful and an award of treble damages pursuant to 35

U.S.C. § 284;

j. A declaration that Defendant Apple’s infringement of U.S. Patent No.

7,496,376 was willful and an award of treble damages pursuant to 35

U.S.C. § 284;

k. An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or as

27
Case 1:21-cv-01302-MN Document 1 Filed 09/14/21 Page 28 of 28 PageID #: 28

otherwise permitted by law; and

l. Granting TOT its costs and further relief as the Court may deem just

and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

TOT demands a trial by jury of any and all issues so triable.

Dated: September 14, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

OF COUNSEL: FARNAN LLP

Walter D. Kelley, Jr. /s/ Michael J. Farnan

Bruce J. Wecker
HAUSFELD, LLP
600 Montgomery Street
Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 633-1907
[email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff TOT Power
Control, S.L.

28