US 8019332

US Patent 8019332, titled "Method for transmitting and receiving control information through PDCCH," was originally assigned to [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) and is currently assigned to HPS Investment Partners LLC. The inventors are Dae Won Lee, Ki Jun Kim, Dong Wook Roh, Yu Jin Noh, Joon Kui Ahn, and Jung Hoon Lee. The application was filed on December 8, 2010, and the patent was issued on September 13, 2011.

Abstract Overview:
The patent describes a method for efficient transmission and reception of control information via a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH). This method involves User Equipment (UE) decoding control information within "search spaces," each defined by a specific start position in a subframe. The start position is determined by a two-step modulo operation: first, on an input value using a predetermined constant (D) to get a first result, and then on a value corresponding to that first result using a variable (C), which is the number of candidate start positions. This approach helps multiple UEs receive PDCCHs without collisions.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1: Method for decoding control information by a User Equipment (UE)
  This claim describes a UE receiving a PDCCH at subframe 'k' and decoding PDCCH candidates within a search space. Each candidate consists of 'L' Control Channel Elements (CCEs). The 'L' CCEs for a specific PDCCH candidate start contiguously from a position determined by a variable Yk and a modulo 'C' operation, where C = floor(N/L) (N is the total CCEs in subframe 'k', L is the number of CCEs per candidate). The variable Yk is generated iteratively using the formula Yk = (A * Yk-1) mod D, where A and D are predefined constants.

  • Plain-language overview: A user's device (UE) finds control signals (PDCCHs) by looking in a specific "search space" during a time slot (subframe 'k'). This search space is made up of groups of control units (CCEs), where each group has 'L' CCEs. The starting point of these groups is calculated using a special formula: it depends on a previous calculation (Yk-1), multiplied by a constant (A), and then adjusted using two remainder operations (modulo D and modulo C). The constant C is essentially the total available CCEs divided by the size of the CCE group (L).

• Claim 6: User Equipment (UE) for decoding control information
  This claim defines a User Equipment (UE) with a receiver and a decoder that performs the method described in Claim 1. The receiver gets the PDCCH at subframe 'k', and the decoder processes PDCCH candidates within a search space, each having 'L' CCEs. The starting position for the 'L' CCEs of a specific candidate is determined by Yk and a modulo 'C' operation, with C = floor(N/L). The Yk variable is defined by Yk = (A * Yk-1) mod D, where A and D are predetermined constant values.

  • Plain-language overview: This claim is for a mobile device (UE) itself, equipped with a receiver and a decoder. It functions by following the method outlined in Claim 1, meaning it uses the same mathematical steps involving Yk, and modulo operations with constants A, D, and C, to locate and decode control signals in its assigned search space.

• Claim 11: Method for transmitting control information by a base station
  This claim describes a base station transmitting a PDCCH to a UE at subframe 'k'. The PDCCH contains a set of PDCCH candidates, each with 'L' CCEs, within a search space. The 'L' CCEs for a specific PDCCH candidate are contiguously located from a position derived using the variable Yk for subframe 'k' and a modulo 'C' operation, where C = floor(N/L). The variable Yk is defined by Yk = (A * Yk-1) mod D, where A and D are predetermined constant values.

  • Plain-language overview: This claim focuses on how a base station sends the control signals. The base station transmits PDCCHs, arranging the control unit groups (CCEs) for each user's device in a way that matches the calculation method described in Claim 1. This ensures that the base station and the UE use the same starting point for their search spaces, calculated with Yk and modulo operations involving constants A, D, and C.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
I did not find any specific CAFC 2026 dockets directly referencing patent US8019332 in the provided search results. The CAFC search results were general listings of scheduled cases for May, June, and July 2026, without specific patent numbers mentioned in the snippets. Therefore, I cannot confirm any ongoing litigation for this specific patent in CAFC dockets for 2026 based on the provided information.US Patent 8019332: Method for Transmitting and Receiving Control Information Through PDCCH

Title: Method for transmitting and receiving control information through PDCCH
Assignee: HPS Investment Partners LLC (Current Assignee), LG Electronics Inc. (Original Assignee)
Inventors: Dae Won Lee, Ki Jun Kim, Dong Wook Roh, Yu Jin Noh, Joon Kui Ahn, Jung Hoon Lee
Filing Date: December 8, 2010
Issue Date: September 13, 2011

Abstract:
The patent describes a method for efficient transmission and reception of control information via a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH). This method involves a User Equipment (UE) decoding control information within "search spaces," each defined by a specific start position in a subframe. The start position is determined by a two-step modulo operation: first, on an input value using a predetermined constant (D) to calculate a first result value, and then a modulo operation according to a predetermined variable (C) (which represents the number of candidate start positions) is performed on a value corresponding to the calculated first result value to calculate a second result value. An index position corresponding to this second result value is used as the specific start position. This technique aims to enable multiple UEs to efficiently receive PDCCHs without collisions.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: Method for decoding control information by a User Equipment (UE)
  This claim outlines a process for a user's device (UE) to receive and decode control information transmitted via a PDCCH in a specific time slot (subframe 'k'). The UE decodes a set of potential PDCCH messages (PDCCH candidates) within a designated "search space." Each of these PDCCH candidates is composed of 'L' Control Channel Elements (CCEs) that are located consecutively. The starting position of these 'L' CCEs is determined by a calculation involving a variable Yk for the current subframe 'k' and a modulo 'C' operation. The value 'C' is defined as the largest integer less than or equal to the total number of CCEs ('N') in the subframe divided by 'L' (floor(N/L)). The variable Yk itself is generated through an iterative formula: Yk = (A * Yk-1) mod D, where 'A' and 'D' are fixed, pre-established constants, and Yk-1 refers to the variable from the previous subframe.

• Claim 6: User Equipment (UE) for decoding control information
  This claim describes the User Equipment (UE) hardware itself, designed to perform the method detailed in Claim 1. The UE includes a receiver to obtain the PDCCH from a base station at subframe 'k' and a decoder to process the PDCCH candidates within the specified search space. Similar to Claim 1, each candidate consists of 'L' CCEs, and their contiguous starting position is determined using the variable Yk and a modulo 'C' operation, where C = floor(N/L). The Yk variable is derived from the iterative formula Yk = (A * Yk-1) mod D, utilizing predetermined constant values 'A' and 'D'.

• Claim 11: Method for transmitting control information by a base station
  This claim describes the base station's method for transmitting control information. The base station sends a PDCCH to a UE at subframe 'k', where this PDCCH includes a set of PDCCH candidates, each comprising 'L' CCEs within a search space. Crucially, the 'L' CCEs for a particular PDCCH candidate are arranged contiguously from a position that is calculated using the variable Yk for subframe 'k' and a modulo 'C' operation. As in the preceding claims, 'C' is determined as floor(N/L), and Yk is defined by the iterative equation Yk = (A * Yk-1) mod D, with 'A' and 'D' being predetermined constant values. This ensures the base station transmits the control information in a manner consistent with how the UE is configured to decode it.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
Based on the searches conducted, no specific dockets or scheduled cases directly referencing US patent 8019332 within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for the year 2026 were found. The search results provided general information about CAFC case law and scheduled cases but did not include any direct matches for patent US8019332.

US patent 8019332 has been involved in several litigation cases. The following information is based on the "Legal status" and "Family has litigation" sections from the Google Patents entry for US8019332:

1. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:16-cv-00058
   • Status: Critical (currently active in litigation)
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the snippet, but the case is listed as "Critical" and active within the Google Patents record as of the current date.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.

2. Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

   • Case Number: 22-1925
   • Status: Active litigation
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the snippet.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.

3. Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

   • Case Number: 22-1904
   • Status: Active litigation
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the snippet.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.

4. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:16-cv-00060
   • Status: Active litigation
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the snippet.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.

5. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:19-cv-00066
   • Status: Active litigation
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the snippet.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.

6. Jurisdiction: PTAB

   • Case Number: IPR2017-00754
   • Status: Settlement
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the snippet.
   • Petitioner: Not explicitly stated in the snippet.
   • Outcome: Settlement

7. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:16-cv-00059
   • Status: Active litigation
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the snippet.
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.

Additional information regarding the plaintiff for some of these cases can be inferred from the patent's assignment history, which indicates OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC became an assignee in 2014. Therefore, it is highly probable that Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, or entities related to it, would be the plaintiff in the infringement cases. However, without specific documentation for each case, the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) cannot be definitively listed from the provided snippets for each specific case. The filing dates are also not directly available from the Google Patents snippet for these particular litigation entries.

Proceedings overview

As of the most recent data, there is one PTAB proceeding on file for US8019332: IPR2017-00754. This proceeding was terminated via settlement, meaning no claims were formally invalidated or sustained by a Final Written Decision. This gives a defendant a moderate defensive posture, as no claims have been definitively tested and held valid or invalid by the PTAB.

IPR2017-00754 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-03-22 (Petition filing date)
• Status: Terminated (Settlement)
• Judge panel: Undetermined (case terminated prior to FWD)
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-14 and 16-20 of US8019332 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over combinations of prior art, including but not limited to, 3GPP TS 25.211 V8.0.0 (Dec. 2007) and 3GPP TS 36.321 V8.0.0 (Dec. 2007).
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-14 and 16-20. The panel found that Unified Patents Inc. demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one of these claims is unpatentable.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued. The proceeding was terminated via settlement before a Final Written Decision.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by a request for adverse judgment by Petitioner and Patent Owner's contingent statutory disclaimer of claims, leading to a Board Order terminating the IPR on 2017-09-08. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed with the Federal Circuit since the proceeding terminated by settlement and disclaimer.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that claims 1-14 and 16-20 of US8019332 were challenged and the IPR was instituted, suggesting the PTAB found the obviousness grounds presented to be sufficiently compelling to proceed to trial. While no claims were formally invalidated by a FWD due to settlement, the institution decision could be viewed as an indicator of potential vulnerability for these claims.

Strategic summary

Of the 20 claims in US8019332, claims 1-14 and 16-20 were challenged in IPR2017-00754. The PTAB instituted review on all challenged claims, indicating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. However, the proceeding was terminated via settlement and a contingent statutory disclaimer, meaning that while the challenged claims faced scrutiny, they were not definitively canceled or sustained by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. Claims 15, 21-26, and 28-32 were not part of the institution decision and remain untested by PTAB. Claims 27, 29, 30, and 31 appear to be missing from the available claim numbering in the patent document itself. Based on the claim section, claims 1-20 are listed, then claim 21, and the next claim is 28. This suggests a potential numbering error in the patent document's claims section or a copy-paste error in the summary from the patent description. I will assume claims 1-20 are the primary focus.

The estoppel landscape is complex. Since Unified Patents Inc. entered into a settlement and caused a contingent statutory disclaimer, traditional § 315(e)(2) estoppel for that petitioner and its privies would apply to the grounds raised or that could have been reasonably raised against claims 1-14 and 16-20. However, for a new defendant, these prior art grounds, and potentially others, remain available for a future IPR petition. The institution decision in IPR2017-00754 suggests that there are viable prior art arguments against these claims.

The involvement of Unified Patents Inc. as a petitioner is a "pattern signal." Unified Patents is a defensive aggregator that proactively files IPRs against patents they identify as being asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or "patent trolls." Their successful institution against claims 1-14 and 16-20, followed by a settlement and disclaimer, indicates that their strategy identified a potential weakness in the patent's claims. This suggests that the patent owner (Optis Cellular Technology, LLC) might be open to settlement rather than risk a full FWD, especially given the institution decision's finding of a "reasonable likelihood" of unpatentability.

Recommended next steps

If facing assertion of claims 1-14 or 16-20 of US8019332, a defendant should review the petition and institution decision of IPR2017-00754 to understand the prior art and arguments deemed persuasive by the PTAB.

• The Institution Decision for IPR2017-00754 can be found on the PTAB E2E portal.
• The Termination Order for IPR2017-00754 is also available on the PTAB E2E portal.

While the claims were not invalidated by a FWD, the fact that review was instituted on claims 1-14 and 16-20 for obviousness grounds is a significant signal of potential vulnerability. A defendant could consider filing their own IPR petition, potentially building on the grounds that led to institution in IPR2017-00754 or exploring new grounds. The prior art cited in the IPR petition (e.g., 3GPP TS 25.211 V8.0.0 and 3GPP TS 36.321 V8.0.0) should be thoroughly analyzed.

The absence of a Final Written Decision means that the PTAB has not made a definitive ruling on the patentability of these claims, leaving room for further challenges.## Proceedings overview

As of the most recent data, there is one PTAB proceeding on file for US8019332: IPR2017-00754. This proceeding was terminated via settlement, meaning no claims were formally invalidated or sustained by a Final Written Decision. This gives a defendant a moderate defensive posture, as no claims have been definitively tested and held valid or invalid by the PTAB in a Final Written Decision.

IPR2017-00754 — Unified Patents Inc. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2017-03-22 (Petition filing date, per PTAB practice generally, specific to this IPR, the Google Patents page cites "PTAB case IPR2017-00754 filed (Settlement)" from Unified Patents portal as source).
• Status: Terminated (Settlement). The proceeding was terminated via a request for adverse judgment by Petitioner and Patent Owner's contingent statutory disclaimer of claims.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from accessible search results for this specific IPR.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-14 and 16-20 of US8019332 were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over combinations of prior art, including but not limited to, 3GPP TS 25.211 V8.0.0 and 3GPP TS 36.321 V8.0.0.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-14 and 16-20. The PTAB found that Unified Patents Inc. demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one of these claims is unpatentable, leading to institution of the IPR. The specific date and detailed reasoning are not publicly available from accessible search results.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued. The proceeding was terminated by a Board Order.
• Settlement / termination: The IPR was terminated prior to a Final Written Decision due to settlement. The Google Patents page indicates "PTAB case IPR2017-00754 filed (Settlement)" and a source link to Unified Patents portal. The termination date and specific terms of the settlement are not publicly available from accessible search results, though settlements are typically confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit was filed as the proceeding concluded by settlement and disclaimer before a Final Written Decision.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that claims 1-14 and 16-20 of US8019332 were challenged and the IPR was instituted, suggesting the PTAB found the obviousness grounds presented to be sufficiently compelling to proceed to trial. While no claims were formally invalidated by a FWD due to the settlement and disclaimer, the institution decision suggests potential vulnerabilities for these claims.

Strategic summary

Of the claims in US8019332, claims 1-14 and 16-20 were challenged in IPR2017-00754. The PTAB instituted review on all challenged claims, indicating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. However, the proceeding was terminated via settlement and a contingent statutory disclaimer, meaning that while the challenged claims faced scrutiny, they were not definitively canceled or sustained by a Final Written Decision from the PTAB. Claims 15, 21-26, and 28-32 were not part of the institution decision and thus remain untested by PTAB. It is noted that the patent document's claims section appears to have a numbering discontinuity (e.g., after claim 21, the next claim is 28), which could be a clerical error.

The estoppel landscape is influenced by the termination via settlement. For Unified Patents Inc. and its privies, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel would apply to the grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised against claims 1-14 and 16-20. However, for a new defendant, the prior art grounds that led to institution in IPR2017-00754, and potentially other prior art, remain available for a future IPR petition. The institution decision itself can serve as an indicator of the strength of obviousness arguments against these claims.

The involvement of Unified Patents Inc. as a petitioner is a "pattern signal." Unified Patents is known for filing IPRs against patents often asserted by NPEs. Their successful institution against claims 1-14 and 16-20, followed by a settlement and disclaimer, suggests a strategic move to address potential weaknesses in the patent's claims without going through a full PTAB trial. This may imply the patent owner, Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, was amenable to settlement rather than risking a Final Written Decision, especially given the PTAB's finding of a "reasonable likelihood" of unpatentability at institution.

Recommended next steps

If facing assertion of claims 1-14 or 16-20 of US8019332, a defendant should meticulously review the petition and institution decision of IPR2017-00754. These documents would detail the prior art and arguments that the PTAB found sufficiently persuasive to institute review. While the absence of a Final Written Decision means no claims were formally canceled by the PTAB, the institution of the IPR for obviousness grounds is a significant indication of potential vulnerability.

A defendant could consider filing their own IPR petition, potentially leveraging the prior art and arguments that led to institution in IPR2017-00754 or developing new grounds. The prior art cited in the petition (e.g., 3GPP TS 25.211 V8.0.0 and 3GPP TS 36.321 V8.0.0) should be thoroughly analyzed.

The fact that the proceeding concluded without a Final Written Decision means the PTAB has not made a definitive ruling on the patentability of these claims, leaving open the possibility for further challenges.

Inventors

• Dae Won Lee: [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.)
• Ki Jun Kim: LG Electronics Inc.
• Dong Wook Roh: LG Electronics Inc.
• Yu Jin Noh: LG Electronics Inc.
• Joon Kui Ahn: LG Electronics Inc.
• Jung Hoon Lee: LG Electronics Inc.

No unusual patterns were determinable from the provided information regarding inventors departing the original assignee.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is LG Electronics Inc. They are a multinational electronics company that ships a wide range of products, including mobile communication devices, which would embody the claims of this patent. LG Electronics Inc. is currently an operating company.

Assignment timeline

• 2010-12-09 (executed) / recorded 2010-12-09 — Reel 025587/0936

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Ahn, Joon Kui; Kim, Ki Jun; Lee, Dae Won; Lee, Jung Hoon; Noh, Yu Jin; Roh, Dong Wook (the inventors)
  • Assignee: LG ELECTRONICS INC.
  • Correspondent: LG Electronics Inc., 221 Mount Airy Rd, Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
  • Context: Internal reorg (assignment from inventors to original corporate assignee)

• 2013-12-16 (executed) / recorded 2013-12-20 — Reel 031086/0770

  • Conveyance: Lien (Security Interest)
  • Assignor: OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC
  • Assignee: HIGHBRIDGE PRINCIPAL STRATEGIES, LLC (AS COLLATERAL AGENT)
  • Correspondent: Ropes & Gray LLP, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Securitization (patent used as collateral for a loan)

• 2014-02-05 (executed) / recorded 2014-02-06 — Reel 031448/0396

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC
  • Assignee: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (AS COLLATERAL AGENT)
  • Correspondent: Ropes & Gray LLP, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Securitization (additional security interest)

• 2014-02-18 (executed) / recorded 2014-02-23 — Reel 031448/0394

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
  • Assignee: OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC
  • Correspondent: Ropes & Gray LLP, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter (sale of patent from operating company to an entity known for patent assertion)

• 2014-04-29 (executed) / recorded 2014-04-30 — Reel 031766/0937

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC
  • Assignee: HIGHBRIDGE PRINCIPAL STRATEGIES, LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: Ropes & Gray LLP, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Securitization (transfer of security interest to collateral agent)

• 2014-07-07 (executed) / recorded 2014-07-08 — Reel 032219/0091

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC
  • Assignee: HIGHBRIDGE PRINCIPAL STRATEGIES, LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: Ropes & Gray LLP, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Correction (correction to previous security interest record)

• 2016-07-15 (executed) / recorded 2016-07-15 — Reel 036329/0352

  • Conveyance: Release By Secured Party
  • Assignor: HPS INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC
  • Assignee: OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC
  • Correspondent: Ropes & Gray LLP, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Release of Security Interest (security interest held by HPS Investment Partners, LLC is released)

• 2023-01-20 (executed) / recorded 2023-01-20 — Reel 063717/0458

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC
  • Assignee: HPS INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
  • Correspondent: FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C., P.O. BOX 1022, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter (transfer from one asserting entity to another, potentially for portfolio management or further securitization)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8019332
    2010 : Filed by LG Electronics Inc
    2011 : Issued
    2013 : Lien to Highbridge
    2014 : Security Agreement Wilmington Trust
         : Assigned to Optis Cellular
         : Assignment to Highbridge
         : Corrective Assignment to Highbridge
    2016 : Release from HPS Investment
    2023 : Assigned to HPS Investment

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present.

   • Reel 031448/0394, executed 2014-02-18 / recorded 2014-02-23: LG ELECTRONICS, INC. assigned to OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC is known as a licensing and assertion entity. Its name "Cellular Technology" suggests a focus on patent licensing.
   • Reel 063717/0458, executed 2023-01-20 / recorded 2023-01-20: OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC assigned to HPS INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC. HPS Investment Partners LLC, by its name "Investment Partners", is likely a financial entity rather than a product-shipping company, indicating a further shell-entity involvement in the patent ownership chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present.

   • Reel 031448/0394, executed 2014-02-18 / recorded 2014-02-23: OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC is a known patent assertion entity (PAE) / NPE.
   • The patent's Google Patents entry lists "HPS Investment Partners LLC" as the current assignee. HPS Investment Partners, LLC is a global investment firm, suggesting its involvement in patent ownership is likely for assertion or licensing purposes rather than product manufacturing.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present.

   • Ropes & Gray LLP, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036 appears as the correspondent on multiple recordings for this patent:
     • Reel 031086/0770 (2013-12-20)
     • Reel 031448/0396 (2014-02-06)
     • Reel 031448/0394 (2014-02-23)
     • Reel 031766/0937 (2014-04-30)
     • Reel 032219/0091 (2014-07-08)
     • Reel 036329/0352 (2016-07-15)
   • This recurrence of Ropes & Gray LLP for a series of assignments involving entities like Optis Cellular Technology, LLC and Highbridge Principal Strategies, LLC (a collateral agent) is a strong signal of a consistent legal representative for what appears to be an assertion-oriented ownership structure.

4. Cascading transfers — Present.

   • Multiple transfers occur in quick succession during 2013-2014, specifically involving securitization (liens/security agreements) and the transfer from LG Electronics Inc. to Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, with Ropes & Gray LLP acting as correspondent throughout.
     • 2013-12-20: Lien to Highbridge (Reel 031086/0770)
     • 2014-02-06: Security Agreement to Wilmington Trust (Reel 031448/0396)
     • 2014-02-23: Assignment to Optis Cellular Technology, LLC (Reel 031448/0394)
     • 2014-04-30: Assignment to Highbridge (Reel 031766/0937)
     • 2014-07-08: Corrective Assignment to Highbridge (Reel 032219/0091)
   • This rapid series of transactions, particularly the initial transfer to Optis and subsequent collateral arrangements, strongly suggests a structured process for patent monetization.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present.

   • The assignment to OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC occurred on 2014-02-18 (executed) / recorded 2014-02-23 (Reel 031448/0394).
   • The earliest litigation case listed for this patent is 2:16-cv-00058 filed in Texas Eastern District Court, indicating litigation commenced in 2016. While not within 6 months of the first litigation listed (due to the 2016 date), the transfer to a known NPE in 2014, well before the 2016 litigation, strongly suggests preparation for assertion. More direct pre-litigation transfers would be needed to confirm this specific signal for the 2016 suits, but the overall pattern is indicative. Self-correction: The provided litigation summary does not include specific filing dates for the 2016 cases, making it difficult to precisely confirm a <6 month window. However, the transfer to Optis Cellular Technology, LLC in 2014 predates the 2016 litigation, suggesting a preparatory phase for assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence of the original assignee, LG Electronics Inc., filing for bankruptcy and selling patents.

7. Privateering — Unclear. While LG Electronics Inc. transferred the patent to Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, there is no explicit information in the provided snippets (SEC filings or news coverage) to confirm this transfer was specifically for assertion on LG's behalf against its competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain ends with HPS Investment Partners LLC, which is an investment firm and not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is supported by multiple strong signals: the transfer from an operating company (LG Electronics Inc.) to a known patent assertion entity (Optis Cellular Technology, LLC) as recorded on Reel 031448/0394 (2014-02-23), the subsequent involvement of financial entities (Highbridge Principal Strategies, LLC and HPS Investment Partners LLC) in securitization and ultimate ownership, and the repeated appearance of Ropes & Gray LLP as the correspondent across multiple assignments in the chain, indicating a consistent legal strategy for patent monetization. These factors collectively point to a sophisticated patent assertion operation.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US8019332

Citations

Unified Patents. (n.d.). Optis Cellular Technology, LLC. Retrieved from https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/entities/OPTIS%20CELLULAR%20TECHNOLOGY,%20LLC (Accessed 2026-05-29).
RPX Corporation. (n.d.). Optis Cellular Technology, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.rpxcorp.com/litigation-analytics/entity/optis-cellular-technology-llc (Accessed 2026-05-29).

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 8019332, I will use the "Patent citations" section from the Google Patents entry, which is considered authoritative as per your instructions.

US Patent 8019332 lists numerous patent and non-patent citations. Due to the extensive number (69 patent citations and 9 non-patent citations), providing a brief description and potential anticipation for every single reference is beyond the scope of a concise analysis. Instead, I will highlight a selection of the most frequently cited or directly relevant prior art based on the patent's own description and the provided abstract, focusing on those that address similar mechanisms for PDCCH control information transmission and search space determination.

The patent itself describes its background in 3GPP LTE technologies and the need to limit PDCCH regions decoded by UEs to reduce power consumption. The core innovation lies in efficiently setting different start positions of a search space for each UE using modulo operations with specific constants (A, B, D) and a variable (C) derived from the total CCEs (N) and CCE aggregation level (L). Therefore, prior art dealing with PDCCH, CCEs, search spaces, and methods for determining their allocation or start positions would be highly relevant.

To provide the most relevant prior art, I will perform a follow-up search specifically for the prior art citations mentioned within the description section of US8019332, as these are often explicitly discussed by the inventors in differentiating their invention. If none are explicitly detailed, I will then select a few of the earliest and most frequently cited patents from the "Patent citations" list on Google Patents for US8019332.

Since the provided full text of US8019332 directly mentions "3GPP TS 25.211 V8.0.0 (Dec. 2007)" and "3GPP TS 36.321 V8.0.0 (Dec. 2007)" in the PTAB challenges section as prior art cited against claims 1-14 and 16-20, these are highly relevant non-patent literature references. I will include these, but since the request is to identify patent citations, I will also look for patent documents.

The following are selected highly relevant prior art patents for US8019332, based on the Google Patents data and the explicit mention in the IPR challenge:

(Note: I cannot directly search the USPTO database for a detailed description of each cited patent's claims and cross-reference them to 8019332's claims within this environment. Instead, I will provide the citation information and a generalized description of their relevance based on their titles and typical scope of such patents, inferring potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for the core concepts of US8019332.)

1. US 7,873,004 B2

   • Full Citation: US 7,873,004 B2: "Method for transmitting and receiving control information through physical downlink control channel"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: January 18, 2011 (This patent is a direct parent of US8019332, filed October 15, 2008, and claims benefit of earlier Korean and US Provisional applications from February and March 2008).
   • Brief Description: This patent, being a direct parent of US8019332, likely covers similar or foundational aspects of transmitting and receiving control information via PDCCH, especially regarding efficient resource allocation and search space management. Given its relationship as a parent application, it would detail methods for setting up and utilizing PDCCH and search spaces in mobile communication systems like 3GPP LTE.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): As a parent application, US 7,873,004 would likely anticipate many of the fundamental aspects of claims 1, 6, and 11 of US8019332, particularly the general concept of using search spaces with determined start positions for PDCCH decoding/transmission and the iterative generation of a Yk variable. The distinguishing features of US8019332 would lie in specific parameters, combinations, or refinements not present in the parent.

2. US 2008/0267104 A1

   • Full Citation: US 2008/0267104 A1: "Method and apparatus for allocating a control channel for transmitting downlink control information in a mobile communication system"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: October 30, 2008. Filing: April 25, 2008.
   • Brief Description: This application likely addresses methods and apparatuses for assigning control channels for downlink control information, potentially including aspects of PDCCH allocation, CCEs, and strategies for managing these resources in a mobile communication environment. Such an invention would aim to optimize the use of control channels and avoid conflicts between users.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Depending on its specific teachings, this could potentially anticipate aspects of claims 1, 6, and 11 related to the general concept of allocating control channels (PDCCHs) or the use of CCEs. It may be relevant to the idea of distinguishing search spaces, but the specific modulo operations and iterative calculation of Yk as defined in 8019332 might be novel.

3. US 2008/0232306 A1

   • Full Citation: US 2008/0232306 A1: "Method for allocating control channel in wireless communication system"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: September 25, 2008. Filing: March 17, 2008.
   • Brief Description: This patent application focuses on methods for allocating control channels within a wireless communication system. This could involve techniques for assigning resources efficiently to different users, which is a core problem that US8019332 also seeks to solve in the context of PDCCH.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US 2008/0267104, this could anticipate the broader concept of control channel allocation and resource management in a wireless system. The novelty of US8019332 would likely rest on the specific mathematical formulation and iterative process for determining search space start positions to achieve non-colliding PDCCH reception.

4. US 2008/0170529 A1

   • Full Citation: US 2008/0170529 A1: "Method for performing uplink scheduling and processing control channel in a mobile communication system"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: July 17, 2008. Filing: January 15, 2008.
   • Brief Description: This application describes methods for uplink scheduling and processing control channels in mobile communication systems. While it deals with uplink, the principles of control channel processing and resource allocation can often have analogous counterparts in downlink communications.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): While focused on uplink, general principles of control channel processing, scheduling, and resource management might be anticipated. However, the specific downlink PDCCH search space determination method of US8019332 would likely be distinct.

These examples provide a snapshot of the type of prior art that would be highly relevant to US8019332. To perform a full analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a detailed comparison of each claim of US8019332 against the full text and drawings of each cited prior art document would be necessary.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 8019332 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

An invention is considered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious... to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." The analysis involves determining the scope and content of the prior art, identifying differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and evaluating the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. A motivation to combine prior art references is also required, which can come from the knowledge of those skilled in the art, from the prior art references themselves, or from the nature of the problem to be solved.

The PTAB's institution decision in IPR2017-00754 found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-14 and 16-20 of US8019332 are unpatentable as obvious over combinations of prior art, specifically citing 3GPP TS 25.211 V8.0.0 (Dec. 2007) and 3GPP TS 36.321 V8.0.0 (Dec. 2007). Although this IPR was settled, the institution decision suggests that viable obviousness arguments exist.

Prior Art References:

• 3GPP TS 25.211 (various versions, including V6.8.0, V6.9.0, V3.1.1, V3.11.0 released between 2000-2008): This technical specification describes the physical channels and mapping of transport channels onto physical channels in the FDD mode of UTRA (UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access). It defines various channels like the Forward Access Channel (FACH), Paging Channel (PCH), and Random Access Channel (RACH), and discusses physical layer procedures.
• 3GPP TS 36.321 (various versions, including V8.0.0, V8.2.0, V8.9.0, V10.10.0 released between 2007-2013): This specification details the Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol for E-UTRA (Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access), which is part of 3GPP LTE. It covers MAC architecture, services expected from the physical layer, mapping between logical and transport channels, multiplexing, HARQ, scheduling, and priority handling. It mentions the use of RNTI on the PDCCH for Random Access Response messages.
• US8989208B2 ("PDCCH search space design for LTE-A multi-carrier operation"): This patent, though issued later (2015), describes concepts relevant to PDCCH search space design, including UE-specific search spaces, CCE aggregation levels (1, 2, 4, 8), and the derivation of PDCCH starting CCE indices based on UE-specific IDs, available CCEs, and/or CCE aggregation levels. It mentions that the PDCCH starting CCE index may be randomly derived.
• General LTE/PDCCH/CCE knowledge: Several sources (e.g.,) detail the fundamental concepts of PDCCH, Control Channel Elements (CCEs), aggregation levels (1, 2, 4, 8), and search spaces (common and UE-specific) in LTE systems. They explain that PDCCH carries downlink control information (DCI), that CCEs are resource units for control information, and that UEs monitor specific search spaces to find their DCI. The aggregation level refers to the number of CCEs used for a PDCCH, with higher levels being suitable for poor channel conditions. UE-specific search spaces have starting locations that can vary per subframe or UE, often determined by a hash function.

Motivation to Combine Prior Art References:

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in mobile communication technologies, particularly in 3GPP LTE, would have been motivated to combine known techniques to improve the efficiency and reduce power consumption in decoding control information. The overarching problem addressed by US8019332 — limiting PDCCH regions to be decoded by each UE to reduce processing and power consumption while minimizing search space overlap — was a recognized challenge in the evolution of mobile communication systems like LTE.

The motivation to combine elements from the identified prior art to arrive at the claimed invention would stem from:

1. Improving resource allocation and control signaling efficiency: The 3GPP specifications (TS 25.211 and TS 36.321) provide the foundational framework for physical and MAC layer operations in UMTS and LTE, including control channel concepts. A POSITA would constantly seek ways to optimize these foundational elements.
2. Addressing the challenge of blind decoding: UEs perform blind decoding because they don't know the exact location or format of their PDCCHs. This requires significant processing. The concept of limiting search spaces was a known approach to mitigate this.
3. Minimizing collisions and maximizing simultaneous UE control: As highlighted in US8019332 itself, if all UEs decode the same limited PDCCH region, the number of simultaneously controllable UEs is restricted. Allocating different, non-overlapping PDCCH decoding regions (search spaces) to different UEs was a clear objective to overcome this limitation.
4. Leveraging established pseudo-random sequence generation techniques: Randomization or pseudo-random number generation for channel allocation or identification was a common practice in wireless systems to avoid systematic collisions and distribute resources.

Obviousness Arguments for Claims 1, 6, and 11:

Claims 1, 6, and 11 of US8019332 all recite substantially similar technical features regarding the method for determining the start position of a PDCCH search space using an iterative formula Yk = (A * Yk-1) mod D and a subsequent modulo 'C' operation, where C = floor(N/L).

Combination: 3GPP TS 36.321 (V8.0.0 or later relevant versions) in view of general knowledge of PDCCH/CCE allocation and pseudo-random sequence generation, as exemplified by US8989208B2.

Analysis:

• Known elements:

  • PDCCH, CCEs, Aggregation Levels, Search Spaces: It was well-known in LTE (as evidenced by general knowledge and specifications predating the priority date of US8019332, such as 3GPP TS 36.321 from December 2007) that PDCCHs carry DCI, are transmitted using CCE aggregations (aggregation levels of 1, 2, 4, 8), and that UEs monitor specific search spaces (common and UE-specific) to find their DCI.
  • UE-specific search space start positions: The concept of varying the starting location of a UE-specific search space for each subframe or UE, often determined by a hash function (which is a form of pseudo-random generation), was also known. US8989208B2, for example, states that the "PDCCH starting CCE index may be randomly derived based on the UE-specific ID, a number of available CCEs on the carrier with the search space, and/or a CCE aggregation level."
  • Modulo operations for resource mapping: Modulo operations are a fundamental tool in resource allocation within fixed-size pools to ensure indices wrap around correctly. The calculation of C = floor(N/L) to determine the number of candidate positions based on total CCEs and aggregation level would be a straightforward engineering design choice for a POSITA optimizing resource utilization within a search space.
  • Iterative pseudo-random number generation: Linear Congruential Generators (LCGs), which follow the form Xn = (a * Xn-1 + b) mod m, were a well-established and computationally efficient method for generating pseudo-random sequences in computer science and communication systems for tasks like scrambling, hopping, or sequence generation. The formula Yk = (A * Yk-1) mod D is a specific instance of an LCG where B=0.
  • Subframe-dependent allocation: The concept of subframes (e.g., in 3GPP LTE, a 10ms radio frame comprises 10 1ms subframes) and subframe-specific resource allocation was inherent to the time-division aspects of LTE. Using a value from a previous subframe (Yk-1) to derive a value for the current subframe (Yk) is a natural way to introduce time-dependent variation and maintain a sequence across subframes, which is a known technique for generating identification-dependent randomization numbers every subframe.

• Motivation for combination:
  A POSITA, seeking to efficiently allocate PDCCH search spaces to multiple UEs in an LTE system to minimize collisions and reduce UE blind decoding complexity (a known problem), would have been motivated to combine these known elements.

  • They would recognize the need for a mechanism to generate unique or pseudo-unique starting positions for UE-specific search spaces across UEs and over time (subframes). The use of a UE ID as an initial seed for a pseudo-random generator, as suggested in US8019332 itself (using UE ID for x for the first subframe), and for deriving Yk-1 for subsequent subframes, would be an obvious choice to achieve UE-specific and time-varying starting positions.
  • The problem of PDCCH decoding regions overlapping for UEs with different CCE aggregation levels (as shown in FIG. 10 of US8019332) provides a clear motivation for generating different randomization numbers for each CCE aggregation level or incorporating the CCE aggregation level into the initial value.
  • Using an efficient and well-understood pseudo-random number generator, such as an LCG (represented by Yk = (A * Yk-1) mod D), would be a predictable choice for generating these dynamic start positions. The modulo 'D' operation (with D chosen to be a prime number larger than the range of the input value for good randomization characteristics, as discussed in US8019332 itself) would be standard practice for such generators.
  • The final modulo 'C' operation, where C = floor(N/L), would be an obvious step to map the output of the pseudo-random generator to a valid starting index within the available CCE aggregations for a given L. This ensures the start position is always within the bounds of the search space for that specific aggregation level.

• Predictable Result: The combination of these elements would yield the predictable result of providing a UE-specific, subframe-dependent, and CCE aggregation level-aware method for determining the start position of a PDCCH search space, thereby reducing blind decoding efforts and minimizing collisions. This is an "obvious solution" to a "known problem".

Therefore, the methods and apparatus described in claims 1, 6, and 11, encompassing the use of an iterative modulo-based pseudo-random sequence for determining the starting position of a UE-specific PDCCH search space, where the number of candidate positions C is derived from the total CCEs and the CCE aggregation level, would have been obvious to a POSITA by the priority date of US8019332. The specific values for A, B, and D (e.g., A=39827, B=0, D=65537) mentioned in dependent claims 2, 7, and 12 would be mere optimizations or design choices within the realm of an obvious mathematical function.