US 8315640

USPTO patent summary for US8315640

• Title: Methods and systems for transmission of multiple modulated signals over wireless networks.
• Assignee: Quarterhill Inc. (Current), WiLAN Inc. (Original).
• Inventors: Kenneth L. Stanwood, James F. Mollenauer, Israel Jay Klein, Sheldon L. Gilbert.
• Filing Date: December 23, 2009.
• Issue Date: November 20, 2012.
• Abstract: The patent describes a method and apparatus for requesting and allocating bandwidth in a broadband wireless communication system. It utilizes a combination of techniques, including a "polling" method where a base station polls Customer Premises Equipment (CPEs) individually or in groups, allocating bandwidth for them to respond with bandwidth requests. This polling can be periodic or in response to a CPE setting a "poll-me bit." Another technique involves "piggybacking" bandwidth requests on already allocated uplink bandwidth, where active CPEs use previously unused portions of their allocated bandwidth for requests. The CPE is responsible for distributing its allocated uplink bandwidth to accommodate its services. The invention aims to leverage the efficiency benefits of each technique.

Plain-language overview of independent claims

Claims 1-28 of US8315640 were all found unpatentable and cancelled, as detailed in the "Previously generated sections of this patent." However, for completeness, here is a plain-language overview of the independent claims as they were originally presented:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a method for allocating bandwidth in a broadband wireless communication system. The method involves a base station receiving bandwidth requests from multiple Customer Premises Equipment (CPEs). The base station then implicitly polls these CPEs by allocating uplink bandwidth in an uplink sub-frame map, enabling the CPEs to transmit bandwidth requests. This allocation serves as an implicit poll. The method further includes the base station implicitly informing a CPE of additional bandwidth allocation by modifying the uplink sub-frame map. The CPE then distributes this allocated bandwidth among its various services.
• Claim 10: This claim describes a base station configured to perform the method of Claim 1. It includes a medium access control (MAC) module that receives bandwidth requests from CPEs. The MAC module implicitly polls CPEs by allocating uplink bandwidth in an uplink sub-frame map for bandwidth requests. It also implicitly informs CPEs of additional bandwidth allocation by modifying the uplink sub-frame map. The base station further includes a data queue for managing data to be transmitted, where the data is queued by quality of service (QoS) designations.
• Claim 19: This claim describes Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) configured for use in a broadband wireless communication system. The CPE receives implicit bandwidth polls from a base station via an uplink sub-frame map, with the allocated bandwidth enabling the CPE to transmit a bandwidth request. The CPE also receives implicit notifications of additional bandwidth allocation from the base station through modifications to the uplink sub-frame map. The CPE is responsible for distributing this allocated bandwidth to its services based on their requirements.

CAFC 2026 dockets

A search of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for 2026 does not reveal any active cases specifically pertaining to US Patent 8315640. The information provided in the "Previously generated sections of this patent" indicates that appeals related to IPR2014-00277 (CAFC Docket No. 15-1959) and IPR2014-00278 (CAFC Docket No. 15-1960) were affirmed by the Federal Circuit on September 6, 2016. There are no indications of further appeals or new proceedings related to this patent in 2026.

The previous section already detailed the two IPR proceedings (IPR2014-00277 and IPR2014-00278) which resulted in the cancellation of all claims and were affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The litigation listed below focuses on district court cases and associated appeals, as indicated by the Google Patents links.

Here is a summary of known litigation involving US Patent 8315640, primarily asserted by Wi-LAN Inc. or its subsidiaries:

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. and Wi-LAN, Inc. v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.)

  • Jurisdiction: Initially filed in Florida Southern District Court, then transferred to California Southern District Court.
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-24318 (S.D. Fla.), subsequently 3:13-cv-00798 (S.D. Cal.)
  • Filing Date: December 6, 2012 (S.D. Fla.)
  • Outcome/Current Status: The California Southern District Court ruled that Apple did not infringe the patent on January 8, 2015. Wi-LAN appealed this decision. The Federal Circuit, in WI-LAN USA, INC. v. APPLE INC., No. 15-1256 (Fed. Cir. 2016), affirmed the district court's construction of certain terms, upholding the summary judgment of non-infringement. Separately, another Federal Circuit appeal, APPLE INC. v. WI-LAN INC., No. 20-2011 (Fed. Cir. 2022), related to patents including claim 1 of US 8,537,757, upheld findings of infringement of a patent directed to allocating bandwidth in a wireless communication system, but remanded for a new trial on damages. This may be a related patent, but 8315640 was specifically mentioned in the 3:13-cv-00798 case. It's important to note the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court's non-infringement ruling for the '640 patent in the 15-1256 case.

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. and Wi-LAN, Inc. v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: Florida Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-24319-KMM
  • Filing Date: December 6, 2012
  • Outcome/Current Status: The previous IPR section indicates that HTC Corp. was a petitioner in IPR2014-00278, which invalidated claims 1-28 of US8315640. This district court case likely led to or ran in parallel with that IPR. Specific outcome of this district court case for US8315640 is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results beyond its filing.

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. and Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: Florida Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-24320-KMM
  • Filing Date: December 6, 2012
  • Outcome/Current Status: The specific outcome for US8315640 in this case is not detailed in the provided search results beyond its filing.

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: Florida Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-23568
  • Filing Date: October 1, 2012
  • Outcome/Current Status: The specific outcome for US8315640 in this case is not detailed in the provided search results beyond its filing.

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.

  • Jurisdiction: Southern District of Florida
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-23611
  • Filing Date: October 3, 2012
  • Outcome/Current Status: The specific outcome for US8315640 in this case is not detailed in the provided search results beyond its filing.

• Case: Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., et al.

  • Jurisdiction: Southern District of California
  • Case Number: 3:14-cv-02235
  • Filing Date: September 19, 2014
  • Outcome/Current Status: This case was consolidated with Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple Inc. (3:14-cv-01507). The previous IPR section notes that Apple Inc. was a petitioner in IPR2014-00277, which invalidated claims 1-28 of US8315640.

• Case: Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: Southern District of California
  • Case Number: 3:14-cv-01507
  • Filing Date: June 23, 2014
  • Outcome/Current Status: This case was consolidated with Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., et al. (3:14-cv-02235).

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al v. Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson

  • Jurisdiction: California Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 3:13-cv-00871
  • Filing Date: April 11, 2013
  • Outcome/Current Status: The specific outcome for US8315640 in this case is not detailed in the provided search results beyond its filing.

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: California Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 3:13-cv-00843
  • Filing Date: April 8, 2013
  • Outcome/Current Status: The specific outcome for US8315640 in this case is not detailed in the provided search results beyond its filing.

• Case: Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Case Number: 15-1256
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in snippet, but the decision was issued in 2016.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment of noninfringement. This likely relates to the appeal of 3:13-cv-00798 (S.D. Cal.).

• Case: Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Supreme Court)

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. Supreme Court
  • Case Number: 16-913
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in snippets.
  • Outcome/Current Status: This case number appears in the Google Patents listing but specific details about its nature or outcome related to US8315640 are not in the provided search results. The results for "16-913" are primarily about unrelated Supreme Court cases (e.g., Wisconsin election laws). It is possible this docket number is a general reference or for a petition for certiorari that was denied, or for another patent in Wi-LAN's portfolio.

• Case: Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc. (Federal Circuit)

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Case Number: 20-2011
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in snippets, but decision was February 4, 2022.
  • Outcome/Current Status: The Federal Circuit upheld findings of infringement of a patent directed to allocating bandwidth in a wireless communication system (specifically claims 9, 26, and 27 of US 8,457,145 and claim 1 of US 8,537,757), but reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages. While this case involves Wi-LAN and Apple and related subject matter, the provided search results indicate it concerns US 8,457,145 and US 8,537,757, not specifically US8315640.

• Case: CAFC Docket No. 15-1959 and 15-1960

  • Plaintiff(s): Wi-LAN Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Apple Inc. (15-1959), HTC Corp. (15-1960)
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the snippets.
  • Outcome/Current Status: These are appeals of the IPR decisions (IPR2014-00277 and IPR2014-00278, respectively). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decisions, upholding the unpatentability of claims 1-28 of US8315640. This information was extensively covered in the "PTAB challenges" section.

Note on IPR-related appeals vs. direct infringement appeals: The previous sections clearly detail the Federal Circuit affirmation of the PTAB's cancellation of claims 1-28 for US8315640 in CAFC Dockets 15-1959 (Apple) and 15-1960 (HTC). The CAFC case 15-1256 (Wi-LAN v. Apple) appears to be a separate appeal from a district court summary judgment of non-infringement for US8315640, where the Federal Circuit also affirmed non-infringement based on claim construction. The CAFC case 20-2011 (Apple v. Wi-LAN) is explicitly stated to involve US 8,457,145 and US 8,537,757, not US8315640. Therefore, while Wi-LAN has been actively litigating, the specific claims of US8315640 have been consistently found unpatentable or not infringed.Known litigation involving US patent 8315640 primarily consists of infringement actions initiated by Wi-LAN Inc. and subsequent appeals, as well as inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. While the IPRs (IPR2014-00277 and IPR2014-00278) ultimately led to the cancellation of all claims of US8315640 and were affirmed by the Federal Circuit (CAFC Dockets 15-1959 and 15-1960), the following summarizes other known district court litigation and associated appeals where US8315640 was asserted:

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. and Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

  • Plaintiff(s): Wi-LAN USA, Inc. and Wi-LAN, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Apple Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: Initially U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, transferred to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-24318-KMM (S.D. Fla.); 3:13-cv-00798-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal.)
  • Filing Date: December 6, 2012 (S.D. Fla.)
  • Outcome/Current Status: The Southern District of California ruled that Apple did not infringe on January 8, 2015. Wi-LAN appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit, in WI-LAN USA, INC. v. APPLE INC., No. 15-1256 (Fed. Cir. 2016), affirmed the district court's judgment of noninfringement.

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. and Wi-LAN, Inc. v. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.

  • Plaintiff(s): Wi-LAN USA, Inc. and Wi-LAN, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-24319-KMM
  • Filing Date: December 6, 2012
  • Outcome/Current Status: Specific outcome not detailed in available search results, but HTC Corp. was a petitioner in IPR2014-00278, which invalidated claims 1-28 of US8315640.

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. and Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc.

  • Plaintiff(s): Wi-LAN USA, Inc. and Wi-LAN, Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Sierra Wireless America, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-24320-KMM
  • Filing Date: December 6, 2012
  • Outcome/Current Status: Specific outcome not detailed in available search results.

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.

  • Plaintiff(s): Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al.
  • Defendant(s): Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-23568-CMA
  • Filing Date: October 1, 2012
  • Outcome/Current Status: Specific outcome not detailed in available search results.

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.

  • Plaintiff(s): Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al.
  • Defendant(s): LG Electronics, Inc. et al.
  • Jurisdiction: Southern District of Florida.
  • Case Number: 1:12-cv-23611
  • Filing Date: October 3, 2012
  • Outcome/Current Status: Specific outcome not detailed in available search results.

• Case: Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., et al.

  • Plaintiff(s): Apple Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Wi-LAN Inc., et al.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
  • Case Number: 3:14-cv-02235
  • Filing Date: September 19, 2014
  • Outcome/Current Status: This case was consolidated with Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple Inc. (3:14-cv-01507).

• Case: Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple Inc.

  • Plaintiff(s): Wi-LAN Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Apple Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
  • Case Number: 3:14-cv-01507
  • Filing Date: June 23, 2014
  • Outcome/Current Status: This case was consolidated with Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., et al. (3:14-cv-02235).

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al v. Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson

  • Plaintiff(s): Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al.
  • Defendant(s): Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson
  • Jurisdiction: California Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 3:13-cv-00871
  • Filing Date: April 11, 2013
  • Outcome/Current Status: Specific outcome not detailed in available search results.

• Case: Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc.

  • Plaintiff(s): Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al.
  • Defendant(s): Sierra Wireless America, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: California Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 3:13-cv-00843
  • Filing Date: April 8, 2013
  • Outcome/Current Status: Specific outcome not detailed in available search results.

• Case: Wi-LAN Inc. v. Apple Inc.

  • Plaintiff(s): Wi-LAN Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Apple Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. Supreme Court
  • Case Number: 16-913
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: The provided search results for this case number generally relate to unrelated Supreme Court matters, making it unclear if this specific docket is relevant to US8315640 or if it represents a petition for certiorari that was denied.

Proceedings overview

There are two terminated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings on file for US Patent 8315640, both of which resulted in the invalidation of all challenged claims. Specifically, IPR2014-00277 and IPR2014-00278 collectively challenged and led to the cancellation of claims 1-28. This gives a defendant a very strong defensive posture, as the entire asserted scope of the patent has been cancelled, rendering it significantly weakened, if not entirely toothless, for assertion.

IPR2014-00277 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Wi-LAN Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2013-12-16
• Status: Terminated; Final Written Decision issued cancelling all challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Lead Judge Meredith P. Schoenfeld, Administrative Patent Judge Michael W. Kim, Administrative Patent Judge Lora M. Green
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-28 were challenged as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness) based on various combinations of prior art, including U.S. Patent No. 6,016,311 (Gilbert) and U.S. Patent No. 6,295,290 (Doshi).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2014-06-25. The panel determined that Apple had shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-28 were unpatentable based on the asserted grounds.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2015-06-25): All challenged claims (1-28) were found unpatentable.
  • Claims 1-28 were determined to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gilbert in view of Doshi. The Board stated, "For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–28 of the ’640 patent are unpatentable."
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding concluded with the FWD. There is no public record of settlement.
• Appeal: Wi-LAN Inc. appealed the FWD to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC Docket No. 15-1959). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2016-09-06, upholding the unpatentability of claims 1-28.
• Defensive value: All 28 claims of US8315640, including all independent claims, were cancelled as a result of this IPR and subsequent Federal Circuit affirmation. Any assertion based on these claims is entirely baseless.

IPR2014-00278 — HTC Corp. v. Wi-LAN Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2013-12-16
• Status: Terminated; Final Written Decision issued cancelling all challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Lead Judge Meredith P. Schoenfeld, Administrative Patent Judge Michael W. Kim, Administrative Patent Judge Lora M. Green
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-28 were challenged as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness) based on various combinations of prior art, including U.S. Patent No. 6,016,311 (Gilbert) and U.S. Patent No. 6,295,290 (Doshi).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2014-06-25. The panel found that HTC had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-28 were unpatentable on the grounds presented.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2015-06-25): All challenged claims (1-28) were found unpatentable.
  • Claims 1-28 were determined to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gilbert in view of Doshi. The Board concluded, "For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–28 of the ’640 patent are unpatentable."
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding concluded with the FWD. There is no public record of settlement.
• Appeal: Wi-LAN Inc. appealed the FWD to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC Docket No. 15-1960). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2016-09-06, upholding the unpatentability of claims 1-28.
• Defensive value: All 28 claims of US8315640, encompassing all independent claims, were cancelled due to this IPR and the subsequent Federal Circuit affirmation. This renders the patent effectively invalid for any further assertion.

Strategic summary

Claims 1-28 of US8315640 are CANCELED and therefore not available for assertion. There are no claims sustained, nor are there any untested claims, as claims 1-28 represent the entire scope of the patent as issued. The patent has been completely invalidated through the IPR process.

The estoppel landscape is comprehensive. Both Apple Inc. and HTC Corp. successfully challenged claims 1-28, with the PTAB's findings of unpatentability affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Therefore, these petitioners and their privies are barred from asserting the same grounds, but more importantly, any party attempting to assert claims 1-28 of this patent would face the unpatentability determination. The prior art grounds, notably Gilbert (U.S. Patent No. 6,016,311) and Doshi (U.S. Patent No. 6,295,290), used to invalidate the claims, are highly effective.

A clear pattern signal here is the simultaneous filing of IPRs by different petitioners (Apple and HTC) on the same patent and with similar grounds, leading to identical outcomes. Wi-LAN Inc., the patent owner, aggressively pursued appeals to the Federal Circuit for both IPRs, but the invalidation decisions were affirmed. This demonstrates a robust challenge to the patent's validity that was sustained through appeal. The patent owner's persistent litigation activity as shown in the Google Patents listing (e.g., cases in Florida Southern District Court, California Southern District Court, and US Supreme Court) suggests a strategy of aggressive assertion, which was effectively countered at the PTAB.

Recommended next steps

Given that all claims (1-28) of US8315640 have been found unpatentable and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, any defendant facing an assertion based on this patent should immediately point to these IPR outcomes.

• For IPR2014-00277, the Final Written Decision can be found at: https://e2e.uspto.gov/ptab/api/documents/IPR2014-00277/116. The disposition states: "For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–28 of the ’640 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,315,640 are hereby cancelled."
• For IPR2014-00278, the Final Written Decision can be found at: https://e2e.uspto.gov/ptab/api/documents/IPR2014-00278/115. The disposition states: "For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–28 of the ’640 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,315,640 are hereby cancelled."

Any demand letter or complaint citing claims 1-28 of US8315640 would be citing claims that have been legally cancelled. A defendant should prepare a strong response emphasizing the complete invalidation of the patent, potentially seeking sanctions if the patent owner continues to assert these cancelled claims.

There are no active PTAB proceedings. The patent is expired, as indicated by Google Patents.

The absence of any surviving claims means the patent effectively has no enforceable scope.

Inventors

• Kenneth L. Stanwood (Employer not determinable from patent text)
• James F. Mollenauer (Employer not determinable from patent text)
• Israel Jay Klein (Employer not determinable from patent text)
• Sheldon L. Gilbert (Employer not determinable from patent text)

The patent text does not explicitly state the employers of the inventors at the time of filing. However, the original assignee is WiLAN Inc, and a prior assignment shows the patent originated from Ensemble Communications, Inc. (See assignment timeline below).

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is WiLAN Inc.

WiLAN Inc. (now a subsidiary of Quarterhill Inc.) is primarily engaged in patent licensing and intellectual property management, rather than shipping products directly. While they have historically licensed technologies for wireless communication, there is no direct evidence in the patent text or general knowledge that WiLAN Inc. itself shipped products embodying the claims of US8315640.

WiLAN Inc. is currently an operating subsidiary of Quarterhill Inc.

Assignment timeline

• 2010-01-07 (executed) / recorded 2010-01-20 — Reel 024467/0635

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: ENSEMBLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
  • Assignee: WI-LAN, INC.
  • Correspondent: WI-LAN INC., 301 MOODIE DRIVE, SUITE 400, OTTAWA, ONTARIO K2H 9C4, CANADA
  • Context: Transfer of intellectual property from the original development company to a licensing firm.

• 2017-06-20 (executed) / recorded 2017-06-28 — Reel 039644/0744

  • Conveyance: MERGER AND CHANGE OF NAME
  • Assignor: WI-LAN INC.
  • Assignee: QUARTERHILL INC.
  • Correspondent: BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP, 1000 DE LA GAUCHETIERE STREET WEST, SUITE 900, MONTREAL, QUEBEC H3B 5H4, CANADA. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Corporate reorganization where Wi-LAN Inc. merged and changed its name to Quarterhill Inc.

• 2017-07-12 (executed) / recorded 2017-07-28 — Reel 039988/0925

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: QUARTERHILL INC.
  • Assignee: WI-LAN INC.
  • Correspondent: BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP, 1000 DE LA GAUCHETIERE STREET WEST, SUITE 900, MONTREAL, QUEBEC H3B 5H4, CANADA. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer of intellectual property from Quarterhill Inc. back to Wi-LAN Inc. (presumably as a subsidiary).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8315640
    1999 : Priority date
    2009 : Application filed by WiLAN Inc
    2010 : Assigned from Ensemble to Wi-LAN
    2012 : Patent issued
    2017 : Wi-LAN merged to Quarterhill Inc
         : Assigned from Quarterhill to Wi-LAN
    2019 : Anticipated expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. The initial transfer from Ensemble Communications, Inc. to Wi-LAN, Inc. (Reel 024467/0635, executed 2010-01-07) moved the patent to Wi-LAN, a company primarily focused on licensing. While Wi-LAN is a known licensing entity, it's not strictly a "shell" in the traditional sense, as it's a publicly traded company. The later transfers between Quarterhill Inc. and Wi-LAN Inc. (Reel 039644/0744 executed 2017-06-20 and Reel 039988/0925 executed 2017-07-12) appear to be internal corporate reorganizations.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Wi-LAN Inc. is explicitly mentioned in the prompt as a known asserter (NPE). Wi-LAN Inc. acquired the patent from Ensemble Communications, Inc. (Reel 024467/0635, executed 2010-01-07) and has been the assignee during periods of significant litigation activity for this patent family.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP (1000 DE LA GAUCHETIERE STREET WEST, SUITE 900, MONTREAL, QUEBEC H3B 5H4, CANADA) appears as the correspondent for both the 2017 merger/change of name (Reel 039644/0744, executed 2017-06-20) and the subsequent assignment back to Wi-LAN Inc. (Reel 039988/0925, executed 2017-07-12).
4. Cascading transfers — not present. The transfers occur over several years (2010, 2017). The two 2017 transfers happened within a short period, but they are clearly marked as a merger/change of name and a subsequent internal assignment, not a chain of transfers through multiple distinct LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While the patent family has litigation, the specific date of the first infringement suit naming this patent is not immediately available. The initial assignment to Wi-LAN (2010-01-07) happened before the patent was granted (2012-11-20). The earliest listed litigation for the family on Google Patents is a US case filed in Florida Southern District Court for 1:12-cv-24320. This case would have been filed in 2012, after the 2010 assignment to Wi-LAN but around the time of the patent grant. Without the exact filing date of the first suit for this specific patent, it's hard to confirm if the 2010 transfer was "pre-litigation" for this patent. However, Wi-LAN is known for asserting patents.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of bankruptcy proceedings for Ensemble Communications, Inc. or Wi-LAN Inc. within the assignment records or publicly available information related to the patent.
7. Privateering — unclear. While Wi-LAN Inc. acts as a licensing entity, it's not clear from the assignment records whether Ensemble Communications, Inc. (the original source) engaged Wi-LAN to assert patents on its behalf against competitors, or if it was a straightforward sale of IP.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The high confidence verdict is driven by Wi-LAN Inc., a known patent asserter, appearing as the assignee (Reel 024467/0635, executed 2010-01-07). Additionally, the consistent use of the same correspondent firm, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, for the 2017 corporate reorganization and subsequent internal assignment (Reel 039644/0744 executed 2017-06-20 and Reel 039988/0925 executed 2017-07-12), aligns with patterns observed in entities focused on IP management and assertion. The extensive litigation history associated with this patent family further supports this conclusion.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search for patent 8315640)

Here is an analysis of the most relevant prior art for US Patent 8315640, based on its own citations and disclosures:

US Patent 8315640: Methods and systems for transmission of multiple modulated signals over wireless networks

• Publication Number: US8315640B2
• Publication Date: 2012-11-20
• Filing Date: 2009-12-23
• Priority Date: 1999-05-21

US Patent 8315640 describes a novel method and apparatus for requesting and allocating bandwidth in a broadband wireless communication system. The invention focuses on reducing bandwidth consumption for request/allocation purposes and timely responses, particularly for uplink transmissions from Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) to a base station. Key techniques include a combination of polling (individual, group, periodic, and triggered by a "poll-me bit") and "piggybacking" bandwidth requests on existing transmissions. A significant aspect is that the CPE is responsible for distributing the allocated uplink bandwidth among its services.

The patent explicitly identifies two US patents as relevant prior art in its "Background of the Invention" section: U.S. Pat. No. 6,016,311 by Gilbert et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,573 by Karol et al.

Prior Art Reference 1: U.S. Pat. No. 6,016,311 (Gilbert et al.)

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,016,311, by Gilbert et al., entitled “Adaptive Time Division Duplexing Method and Apparatus for Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation within a Wireless Communication System.”
• Publication Date: January 18, 2000
• Filing Date: September 9, 1997
• Brief Description: This patent is described in US8315640 as defining a wireless communication system that facilitates two-way communication between subscriber units and a fixed network infrastructure, utilizing time division duplexing (TDD) or frequency division duplexing (FDD) methods. Specifically, US8315640 references Gilbert et al. for the concept of adaptive time-division duplexing (ATDD), where the number of physical slots (PSs) allocated to downlink versus uplink dynamically varies over time within a frame structure. It also covers the general architecture of a broadband wireless communication system, including base stations and active antenna arrays transmitting to multiple sectors.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Gilbert et al. potentially anticipates general aspects of dynamic bandwidth allocation within a wireless TDD system and the overall frame structure (e.g., TDD frames, multi-frames, hyper-frames, and the division into uplink and downlink time slots). Therefore, elements of claims in US8315640 that broadly relate to "a broadband wireless communication system" or "a base station allocating available bandwidth on an uplink and a downlink of a physical channel" in a TDD context (e.g., parts of Claims 1 and 11) could be considered anticipated or rendered obvious by Gilbert et al. However, the specific inventive steps of US8315640, such as the mechanisms for bandwidth requesting (e.g., setting a "poll-me bit" in a MAC header, piggybacking requests) and the implicit allocation by the base station in the uplink sub-frame map, or the CPE's role in distributing its allocated bandwidth, are not described as being present in Gilbert et al. according to the '640 patent's own background. US8315640 presents these as novel solutions to efficiency problems not adequately addressed by prior art like Gilbert et al.

Prior Art Reference 2: U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,573 (Karol et al.)

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,573, by Karol et al., entitled “Bandwidth Allocation System for a Shared Processing Fabric.”
• Publication Date: October 7, 1997
• Filing Date: December 14, 1995
• Brief Description: US8315640 describes Karol et al. as a bandwidth allocation system for a "shared processing fabric" that allows packets or cells from different sources to gain access based on individual guaranteed bandwidth requirements and secondary criteria like time of arrival. This system uses separate logical buffers/queues for data packets/cells from each source. US8315640 positions this as a prior art attempt to solve bandwidth allocation by maintaining logical queues for shared system resources.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Karol et al. potentially anticipates the general concept of allocating bandwidth based on quality of service (QoS) and managing queued data from various sources in a shared resource environment. Thus, the broad concept described in US8315640's claims regarding a base station allocating bandwidth "depending upon priorities and rules imposed by a quality of service (QoS) associated with each of the plurality of services" (e.g., parts of Claims 1 and 11) might find general conceptual overlap with Karol et al. However, Karol et al. appears to operate in a more general "shared processing fabric" context, rather than specifically addressing the unique challenges of uplink bandwidth allocation in a wireless network. The distinctive features of US8315640, such as using a "poll-me bit" in a MAC header for bandwidth requests, implicit bandwidth allocation via an uplink sub-frame map, "piggybacking" on existing transmissions, or the CPE's role in distributing its allocated bandwidth, are not described as being taught by Karol et al. within the context provided by US8315640. The '640 patent emphasizes its solutions for reducing control message overhead and ensuring timely responses in the wireless uplink.

The following analysis addresses the obviousness of US patent 8315640 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on the provided "Prior Art" section and the general background information within the patent text. The current date is April 26, 2026.

1. Prior Art References

The "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section of US8315640 explicitly cites the following prior art:

• Karol et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,573 (issued Oct. 7, 1997): This patent teaches a bandwidth allocation system that enables packets or cells from different sources, contending for access to a shared processing fabric, to gain access based primarily on individual guaranteed bandwidth requirements and secondarily on overall system criteria (e.g., time of arrival, due date). Data from each source is queued in separate logical buffers awaiting access.

In addition to this specific reference, the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section also describes the general state of the art in wireless communication systems at the time of the invention:

• General Wireless Communication Systems: These systems facilitate two-way communication between subscriber units (fixed and portable) and a fixed network infrastructure (e.g., mobile cellular, personal communication systems (PCS), cordless telephones). They typically use time "frames" subdivided into time slots and employ either time division duplexing (TDD) or frequency division duplexing (FDD) for uplink and downlink transmissions.
• Broadband Wireless Communication Systems: More recent systems proposed for enhanced broadband services (voice, data, video) facilitate two-way communication between base stations and fixed Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). Such systems aim to provide "bandwidth-on-demand" where CPEs request bandwidth based on service type and quality of service (QoS).
• Identified Problem: A significant challenge in broadband wireless systems, especially for uplink bandwidth allocation, is the burdensome and complex process due to the dynamic and varying bandwidth needs of numerous CPEs. The frequent requests for changes to uplink bandwidth can lead to a disproportionately high consumption of bandwidth by control messages, thereby reducing the capacity available for substantive traffic data. The need existed for a method and apparatus to dynamically and efficiently allocate bandwidth, be responsive to link needs, consume minimum bandwidth for the allocation process, respond timely to requests (especially for high-priority services), and process a large number of requests from many CPEs (e.g., hundreds active, thousands on a channel).

2. Invention of US8315640

US8315640 addresses the aforementioned problems by presenting a novel method and apparatus for requesting and allocating bandwidth in a broadband wireless communication system. The key inventive features, often implemented in combination, include:

• Combination of Bandwidth Request Techniques:
  • Polling: A base station polls one or more CPEs (individually, in groups/multicast, or broadcast) by allocating specific uplink bandwidth for the CPEs to respond with bandwidth requests. Polling can be periodic or in response to a CPE setting a "poll-me bit" in a MAC packet header.
  • Piggybacking: Currently active CPEs "piggyback" bandwidth requests on existing transmissions. This involves using previously unused portions of allocated uplink bandwidth or "stealing" bandwidth from time slots previously allocated for data.
• Implicit Bandwidth Allocation: Bandwidth allocations (including polls) are not transmitted as explicit messages but are implicitly communicated by allocating bandwidth within the uplink sub-frame map. The CPE receives this map and understands its granted bandwidth.
• CPE-Centric Bandwidth Distribution: The CPE is responsible for distributing its allocated uplink bandwidth among its various services. This means the CPE can use the allocated bandwidth in a manner different from what was originally requested or granted by the base station, based on its current service priorities and needs. This approach aims to reduce communication overhead by relieving the base station of this task.
• MAC Protocol: The base station Media Access Control (MAC) allocates bandwidth based on QoS priorities. While the base station reconstructs a logical picture of CPE queues from bandwidth requests, the actual data queues for the uplink are maintained by each individual CPE.
• Wireless Frame Structure: The system utilizes a time-division duplex (TDD) frame and multi-frame structure, with dynamically configurable downlink and uplink sub-frames, including specific contention slots for registration and bandwidth requests.

3. Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA): In the context of US8315640, a PHOSITA would be an individual with practical experience and knowledge in wireless communication system design, particularly in MAC layer protocols, network traffic management, and bandwidth allocation schemes. This person would be familiar with TDD/FDD systems, QoS principles, and common techniques for managing shared communication media.

Identified Problem and Motivation to Combine:
The "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" of US8315640 clearly articulates the problems faced by broadband wireless communication systems. Specifically, the dynamic and diverse bandwidth requirements of numerous CPEs lead to frequent uplink bandwidth requests, resulting in substantial overhead if not managed efficiently. This overhead consumed by control messages reduces the effective bandwidth for user data, necessitating a more efficient and responsive bandwidth allocation system.

A PHOSITA, recognizing these problems, would be strongly motivated to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of bandwidth allocation in broadband wireless networks. The existing Karol et al. patent provided a foundation for QoS-driven resource allocation in shared systems, but it did not specifically address the unique challenges and opportunities of a wireless environment, especially concerning efficient signaling for dynamic requests and implicit grants.

Combination of Prior Art References:
The claims of US8315640 would have been obvious to a PHOSITA by combining Karol et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,573, with the general knowledge of wireless communication systems and MAC protocols existing at the time.

Reasoning for Obviousness:

1. QoS-based Allocation and Queuing: Karol et al. teaches a system where access to a shared processing fabric is granted based on "individual guaranteed bandwidth requirements" and where packets are "queued in separate logical buffers". This directly establishes the concept of prioritizing traffic flows (analogous to QoS) and managing data in queues. A PHOSITA would readily apply these established principles to the allocation of bandwidth in a wireless communication system, as QoS management is fundamental to supporting various service types (e.g., T1, IP) with different latency and bandwidth needs.

   • Motivation: To manage diverse service requirements and ensure critical data (like T1-type services) receives timely allocation, while delay-tolerant data (like TCP/IP) is handled efficiently.

2. Efficient Bandwidth Requesting (Polling, Poll-me bit, Piggybacking):

   • Polling: Polling is a well-known technique in shared medium access control to manage and arbitrate access, reducing contention. Faced with the problem of "frequent and varying bandwidth allocation requests" in the wireless uplink, a PHOSITA would be motivated to control these requests. Implementing polling (individual, multicast, broadcast) to allocate specific contention opportunities for requests is a conventional method to manage access in a shared wireless medium. The idea of a "poll-me bit" is a straightforward signaling mechanism for a device to indicate it needs attention or resources.
   • Piggybacking: Piggybacking control information on existing data streams is a common optimization in data communication protocols to reduce overhead by avoiding the transmission of separate control packets. Given the problem of "bandwidth consumed by the actual bandwidth request and allocation process" being disproportionately high, a PHOSITA would be motivated to allow CPEs to "piggyback" bandwidth requests on their currently allocated bandwidth, or even "steal" from lower priority data, as an efficient means to reduce control message overhead.
   • Motivation: To overcome the problem of excessive bandwidth consumption by control messages and to respond to dynamic bandwidth needs with minimal overhead.

3. Implicit Bandwidth Allocation via Sub-frame Maps: While Karol et al. describes granting access, it doesn't specify the mechanism in a wireless context. Wireless communication systems commonly use frame and sub-frame structures (as acknowledged in the background of US8315640, describing TDD/FDD frames). Communicating bandwidth allocations by simply updating a sub-frame map that specifies which time slots are available for which CPEs, rather than sending explicit grant messages, is an efficient signaling method in wireless MAC protocols. This approach directly addresses the desire to reduce "communication overhead."

   • Motivation: To minimize signaling overhead and increase the efficiency of bandwidth allocation in a wireless shared medium.

4. CPE-Centric Bandwidth Distribution: The concept of allowing the CPE to distribute its allocated bandwidth locally (as opposed to the base station dictating every detail) directly solves the problem of the base station's bandwidth allocation process becoming "burdensome and complex" due to the "wide variety of CPE service requirements". Decentralizing this decision to the CPE reduces the processing load and communication overhead on the base station, enabling faster adaptation to changing CPE-specific service needs. This aligns with the "logical picture of the state of the CPE data queues" that the base station reconstructs, as the CPE is ultimately responsible for managing those queues.

   • Motivation: To reduce the complexity and overhead at the base station, and to allow for more flexible and responsive handling of dynamically changing service requirements at the CPE.

5. Wireless-Specific Structures and Contention Resolution: The use of TDD frames, physical slots (PS), information elements (PI), modulation types (e.g., QAM-4), and contention slots for specific purposes (registration, bandwidth requests) are standard elements of wireless system design. Adapting a general bandwidth allocation scheme like Karol et al.'s to a wireless environment would necessitate implementing these known physical and MAC layer structures. Similarly, contention resolution mechanisms (like slotted ALOHA) are well-established for managing access in shared wireless channels when collisions occur.

   • Motivation: To implement bandwidth allocation within the practical and technical constraints of a wireless physical layer and MAC protocol.

Conclusion:
The problems identified in US8315640's background, namely the inefficiency and complexity of uplink bandwidth allocation in broadband wireless systems, would have motivated a PHOSITA to combine known techniques. While Karol et al. provides a basis for QoS-driven resource allocation, it lacks the specific mechanisms for efficient requesting and implicit granting in a dynamic wireless context. However, the solutions proposed in US8315640—such as various polling methods, piggybacking, implicit allocation via sub-frame maps, and CPE-level bandwidth distribution—are all logical applications and combinations of well-known communication and MAC protocol techniques tailored to address the specified problems of wireless network efficiency and responsiveness. Therefore, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the principles of Karol et al. with these conventional wireless communication techniques to achieve the improvements claimed in US8315640, rendering its claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.