Showing posts with label Snapdragon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Snapdragon. Show all posts

Friday, September 20, 2013

German court tosses HTC subsidiary's lawsuit against Nokia over video compression patent

This morning the Mannheim Regional Court (which will later hold a Samsung v. Apple trial over a 3G standard-essential patent) announced its finding that Nokia phones incorporating Qualcomm's Snapdragon chipset don't infringe a patent asserted by HTC subsidiary S3 Graphics (EP0797181 on "hardware assist for YUV data format conversion to software MPEG decoder"). HTC can and presumably will appeal this ruling to the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court.

Two weeks ago the Mannheim court had ruled against another lawsuit by HTC (in that case, the parent company itself) targeting Nokia.

For details on the issues in this case let me refer you to my June trial report.

Nokia has already commented on its defensive win:

"Nokia is pleased with the court's decision and believes it is appropriate given the facts of this case.

We believe this decision, which follows the ruling of non-infringement by Nokia of another HTC patent by the same court on September 6, demonstrates the weakness of HTC's assertions against Nokia.

We see HTC's patent infringement allegations as a tactic to distract from HTC's own infringement of Nokia patents. To date, more than 50 Nokia patents have been asserted against HTC in actions in the US, Germany and the UK and an injunction is already in force in Germany against HTC products found to infringe Nokia's power management patent."

This has been a busy week in the Nokia-HTC dispute (which will almost certainly end in a settlement under which HTC will pay royalties, though nobody knows when). On Wednesday Nokia appeared to have the upper hand in a Munich trial over a USB configuration patent it asserts against various HTC devices including the HTC One, and HTC brought a motion asking the ITC to stay the investigation of Nokia's first complaint against HTC, in which a preliminary ruling is scheduled for Monday (September 23). HTC was hoping to settle this deal on very favorable terms by gaining some leverage over Nokia in Germany. That plan doesn't seem to be working out, and in a few months (after the closing of the sale of Nokia's wireless devices business to Microsoft) HTC will have a hard time finding any Nokia products against which to assert patents.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:


Sunday, June 30, 2013

Qualcomm may have to modify Snapdragon chip for Nokia to work around HTC graphics patent

On Friday the Mannheim Regional Court held a trial on HTC subsidiary S3 Graphics' patent infringement complaint against Nokia over the Qualcomm Snapdragon chip. As counsel for S3G confirmed when Judge Voss ("Voß" in German) asked about the possibility of a settlement, this lawsuit is "part of the wider dispute between HTC and Nokia". Between the U.S., UK and Germany, Nokia is asserting roughly 50 patents against HTC, and HTC (including S3 Graphics) has brought at least five German countersuits.

The longer I've been watching HTC's patent lawsuits, the more impressed I am with its handling of patent disputes. I admit that I underestimated HTC, as many others did, but I've come to recognize its defensive skills beyond stalling (a tactic at which HTC undoubtedly excels). And while S3 Graphics' first ITC complaint against Apple was dismissed in 2011 and a second one wasn't adjudged prior to the parties' settlement, this acquired patent portfolio may prove helpful to HTC in settlement negotiations with Nokia. Based on how the Friday trial went, I think HTC is more likely than not to win a German injunction against Nokia devices incorporating the Qualcomm Snapdragon chip, though the leverage this gives HTC will depend on whether the court agrees with its preferred or merely its alternative infringement theory. In the latter event, I believe leverage will be rather limited because Qualcomm would just have to remove a feature that Nokia doesn't use anyway, and the primary effect of a win for S3G would be that HTC could point to it whenever Nokia says HTC should cease its infringement of Nokia's patents.

The patent-in-suit is EP0797181 on "hardware assist for YUV data format conversion to software MPEG decoder". For information on the analog YUV format and the related YCbCr digital format, which is often referred to by the term YUV as well, let me refer you to Wikipedia (YUV, YCbCr) and provide my own condensed explanation:

While computers generally process and store images in a bitmap format (from left to right, from top to bottom), YUV is a format that separates for each pixel a luminance (brightness, Y) value from two chrominance (color, U and V) values. So you get one matrix of Y values (which would be enough to produce a black-and-white picture), one of U values, and one of V values. It's easy to convert a YUV image into a bitmap, but in connection with high-resolution video with a high frame rate, this transformation can put a drain on the central processing unit. The patent-in-suit covers the idea of assigning this task to a coprocessor. (Whether this idea should entitle someone to a patent is another question, a question that is not unique to this patent or company.)

Even though Nokia's litigators led by Bird & Bird's Boris Kreye (the same team is also defending Nokia against HTC's power management patent in four parallel actions) have developed various credible defenses, S3G (represented by Wildanger's Wolf Graf von Schwerin and Peter-Michael Weisse) appear to have persuaded the court of key parts of their infringement contentions.

I considered two of Nokia's defenses particularly important. One of them was discussed only toward the very end of the trial and relates to the claim element of a "predetermined address range", within which certain "video data addresses" must be. Nokia says that the accused technologies merely transfer information enabling the chip to determine the addresses, but that there's no separate communication or computation of a "predetermined address range". Without seeing the detailed infringement contentions I can't rule out that S3G's claim construction effectively renders the "predetermined address range" limitation meaningless. However. the court did not indicate that this issue might be outcome-determinative.

The more fundamental issue is the one that makes all the difference between S3G's primary and secondary infringement contentions. The specification of the patent, which is supposed to serve as its own dictionary, defines "component YUV format" as a planar format, meaning that there's one contiguous set of data for the Y, U and V values. But Nokia avers that its products only process something that can be described as pseudo-planar: instead of separate U and V planes, there's a single data block containing a pair of U and V values for each pixel. S3G's key argument in this regard is that the claim only requires "at least one second contiguous block of data of a second component" (as opposed to requiring two blocks) to be transmitted, and the only way in which this can make technical sense if there's a single block containing U and V data. But according to Nokia this still doesn't change the meaning of "YUV component data".

I saw some merit in both parties' claims. On the bottom line I would be inclined to agree with Nokia that the specification clearly defines "YUV component data" as a planar format and to attach more importance to this than to the "at least one ... block" argument. It appears to me that a significant part of the transformation the patent covers has occurred, or need not occur, if U and V data are already kept in a single block of paired values.

S3G has an alternative infringement theory for the event that Nokia's "not planar" defense succeeds: this is a hardware patent, and the hardware built into the accused Nokia phones can be configured to process fully planar data as well. There are registers, and the operating system (Windows Phone) could, though it doesn't at this stage, instruct the chip to handle planar data. S3G argues that a hardware patent claim like this is infringed if the capability is provided, even if not utilized in practice. The parties agree that hardware can't run without software. Still, S3G argues that shipping certain hardware functionality constitutes infringement -- and in this case, considering the structure of the claim-in-suit, I tend to agree with S3G.

If the court rules in S3G's favor based on its primary infringement theory (of pseudoplanar data falling within the scope of the claim), S3G's corporate patent, HTC, gets considerably more mileage out of this lawsuit than otherwise. If the court finds Nokia to infringe only to the extent that never-actually-utilized hardware functionality is shipped, it would be a minor tweak for Qualcomm to remove the "planar" option, such as by eliminating the related register or by having the chip ignore it (so as to always require data to be provided in a pseudoplanar format). There would be no performance impact. A special version of the Snapdragon chip for Nokia to use in Germany might affect Qualcomm's manufacturing costs as compared to a one-chip-fits-all scenario, but at the end of the day Qualcomm will want to ensure that its chips don't expose its customers to major IP liability issues if those can be avoided.

In March Nokia won its first German injunction against HTC over a power-saving patent, and HTC also worked around it, presumably by removing certain functionality without a non-infringing replacement delivering the same benefits. Here, the related functionality can always be removed, but if HTC's primary infringement theory succeeds, then there will be some impact on video processing performance. If a patent injunction issues, there will always be a workaround unless the patent-in-suit is a truly standard-essential patent. The key question is then whether the workaround is merely an internal thing or has effects (such as a degradation of battery life or video performance) that end users will notice.

A decision, which may or may not be a final ruling, has been scheduled for September 20, and if S3G wins, it will be interesting to see what Nokia says about a workaround.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:


Monday, March 4, 2013

HTC subsidiary claims Qualcomm's Snapdragon infringes one of its video processing patents

In addition to countersuing Nokia in two German venues over a power-saving patent, the Taiwanese wireless device maker is also striking back at its Finnish counterpart through a complaint its subsidiary S3 Graphics filed with the Mannheim Regional Court on July 18, 2012. The case number is 7 O 182/12, indicating that Judge Andreas Voss ("Voß" in German) is presiding over this case.

The patent-in-suit is EP0797181 on "hardware assist for YUV data format conversion to software MPEG decoder". This is the European equivalent of U.S. Patent No. 6,353,440. It was asserted against Apple through an October 14, 2011 amendment to S3 Graphics' second ITC complaint against Apple, which never came to judgment because of a settlement. Since the settlement with Apple, HTC's biggest patent worry is Nokia's ongoing enforcement campaign over more than 30 different patents.

What makes the German S3 Graphics v. Nokia lawsuit particularly interesting is the fact that the infringement allegation is (for the most part or even entirely) related to the video processing functionality of Qualcomm's multifunctional Snapdragon chip (official product website, Wikipedia entry), which is highly popular.

Both Nokia and S3 Graphics ("S3G") filed discovery requests with the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, in whose district Qualcomm is headquartered. S3G filed its request together with its parent company, HTC, whose German lawsuits against Nokia over a power-saving patent also involve Qualcomm chips (as well as Broadcom chips).

The HTC-S3G motion says the following:

"In its suit, S3G claims that certain Nokia smartphones infringe the '181 Patent. In particular, S3G claims that Lumia smartphones sold in Germany by Nokia GmbH infringe the Patent, due, among other things, to their inclusion of Qualcomm Snapdragon chipsets that, when used to process video data in the accused phones, infringe the '181 Patent."

"In general terms, these [discovery] requests seek documents relating to the video data processing functionality of the Qualcomm MSM8960, APQ8055, MSM8255, and MSM7227A chipsets, each of which are present in particular Lumia model smartphones that are accused of infringement. More specifically, the Applicants seek to identify the hardware that is involved in the conversion of video data from one format, the 'Planar YUV Format,' to another format, the 'Pixel Video Format.'"

S3G attached a declaration by its German counsel, Peter-Michael Weisse of the Wildanger firm. which describes the infringement contentions and the role of the Snapdragon chip in them as follows:

"4. The S3G Action concerns S3 Graphics' European Patent No. 0 797 181, entitled 'Hardware assist for YUV data format conversion to software MPEG decoder' ('the 181 Patent'). The invention disclosed in the 181 Patent relates to a display controller involved in the format conversion of video data. The display controller relieves the burden on a host CPU by decoding video data (referred to as YUV data) into displayable format.

[...]

6. In the S3G Action, smartphones in Nokia's Lumia series with Qualcomm Snapdragon chipsets are accused of infringing the 181 Patent because they include display controllers as described in paragraph 4 above. Accordingly, S3 Graphics seeks from Qualcomm technical documents relating to the capability of the display controller in specified Qualcomm Snapdragon chipsets to process video data, and the route (or 'pipeline') by which video data is conveyed in those chipsets. The documents sought are expected to further support S3 Graphics' case that the accused smartphones infringe the 181 Patent."

All claims of the asserted patent relate to display controllers. The claims also involve communication between a claimed display controller and the memory of a device over the data bus.

I'm not yet aware of a trial date in this case, but given the usual time lines of Mannheim patent infringement cases, it will probably be held in a matter of months.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn: