Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Core Wireless Licensing SARLl v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al

Representative Claim

  1. An apparatus comprising:

a memory adapted to store computer program instructions and a virtual transmission time interval;

a wireless transceiver;

a processor adapted to:

check to determine whether the apparatus is transmitting data packets in a current air interface transmission time interval; and

for the case where it is determined that the apparatus is not transmitting in the current air interface transmission time interval, to cause the transmitter to transmit a next data packet after a predetermined period associated with the virtual transmission time interval has elapsed, wherein the next data packet comprises at least one protocol data unit and the virtual transmission time interval is an integer multiple of the current air interface transmission time interval.

Posture:

Magistrate Judge recommendation denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment on patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Abstract Idea: No

While there are some parallels between LG’s freeway onramp analogy and claim 21, the claim is manifestly narrower than “traffic metering” and does not cover what happens at a freeway onramp. Claim 21 restricts its applicability to a “wireless” device with “a processor” and “a memory.” Moreover, claim 21 does not cover delaying any data transmission by any amount of time; claim 21 is limited to delaying the transmission of a “protocol data unit” (a specific type of data packet) by exactly “an integer multiple of the current air interface transmission time interval.”  Claim 21 is directed to a specific type of packet traffic-metering that is confined to, and solves problems arising in, mobile device networks. Accordingly, the Court finds that claim 21 passes the first step of the Alice test because it is not directed to an abstract idea.

Something More: N/A

[T]he Court need not consider the second step.