IP Law Daily, PATENT—N.D. Ill.: Motorola’s TDMA radio communication infringement claims against Hytera proceed to trial, (May 19, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Competing expert testimony and factual disputes regarding key claim limitations were fit to be resolved by triers of fact.

A federal district court in Illinois has denied Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd.’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement in Motorola Solutions, Inc.’s lawsuit. The court found that genuine disputes of material fact precluded judgment as a matter of law on both literal infringement and the doctrine of equivalents. The court concluded that competing expert testimony and factual disputes regarding key claim limitations, particularly the “assigned default timeslot” and “re-selecting” requirements, must be resolved by a jury. Accordingly, Motorola’s claims will now proceed to trial (Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd., No. 1:17-cv-01972 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2026)).

Background. Motorola Solutions, Inc. is a well-known provider of mission-critical communication systems, including two-way radio technologies used by public safety and enterprise customers. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd. is a Chinese manufacturer of digital mobile radio (DMR) devices, including portable radios, mobile units, and infrastructure products such as repeaters.

The dispute centered on Motorola’s U.S. Patent No. 8,116,284 (the ’284 patent), which relates to time division multiple access (TDMA) communication systems. The patent discloses methods and systems for temporarily selecting a communication timeslot in a radio network, allowing devices within a talk-group to dynamically switch between available timeslots when the default channel is unavailable.

Motorola alleged that Hytera’s Legacy, i-Series, and H-Series radio products infringed the ’284 patent, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. Hytera moved for summary judgment, arguing that its accused products did not meet critical claim limitations and therefore could not infringe as a matter of law.

Summary judgment standard and infringement framework. The court applied the summary judgment standard under Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), holding that summary judgment is appropriate only where no genuine dispute of material fact exists. It further relied on Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), to reiterate that the moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a triable issue. For infringement, the court noted that every claim limitation must be present in the accused product either literally or by an equivalent, citing Southwall Techs., Inc. v Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

Literal infringement. Hytera argued that its products did not satisfy the “assigned default timeslot” limitation because they did not use a fixed default timeslot. Instead, the accused devices selected the most recently used timeslot when available.

Motorola countered that this issue was disputed by expert testimony, particularly that of its expert, Dr. Wicker, who opined that, in certain operating modes, the accused devices effectively used a default timeslot consistent with the patent claims.

The court agreed with Motorola, finding that the expert evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact. It emphasized that even if the accused products infringed only under certain conditions, such evidence could still support a finding of infringement. Citing Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp., 920 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court noted that infringement need not occur in all circumstances to be actionable. The court held that a reasonable jury could conclude that the accused devices met the “default timeslot” limitation, particularly in specific operating configurations, such as extended pseudo-trunking mode.

Further, Hytera argued that its products did not satisfy the “re-selecting” limitation, which required devices to return to the default timeslot when it became available. This argument depended heavily on claim construction. After the court adopted Motorola’s proposed construction and rejected Hytera’s narrower interpretation, the analysis shifted.

Motorola again relied on expert testimony to show that the accused devices reselected timeslots in a manner consistent with the claimed invention. Dr. Wicker’s analysis suggested that the devices could satisfy the re-selection requirement depending on how they processed available timeslots during communication cycles. The court found that this competing evidence created a factual dispute unsuitable for summary judgment. It emphasized that determining whether the accused products met this limitation required evaluating technical evidence and expert opinions, which are matters for the jury.

Doctrine of equivalents. The court separately addressed infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, applying the function-way-result test articulated in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950).

Hytera argued that Motorola failed to provide sufficient evidence that the accused products performed substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed invention. It further contended that Motorola’s expert testimony was conclusory and insufficient.

Motorola responded by pointing to detailed expert analysis linking specific functionalities in Hytera’s devices to the claimed limitations. Dr. Wicker opined that the accused devices performed the same function, selecting communication timeslots, in substantially the same way, using similar decision logic, and achieved the same result of enabling communication within a talk-group. The court found that this evidence was sufficient to create a triable issue of fact. It rejected Hytera’s argument that Motorola’s evidence was conclusory, noting that the expert had tied his analysis to both the patent claims and the accused product’s source code.

Importantly, the court reiterated that equivalence is a question of fact and therefore generally unsuitable for resolution at the summary judgment stage. It held that a reasonable jury could find that the accused products satisfied the function-way-result test.

ITC findings not dispositive. Hytera relied on a prior International Trade Commission (ITC) determination finding no infringement for certain products. The court acknowledged that ITC decisions may be persuasive but are not binding in district court proceedings. Because additional evidence and expert analysis were presented in this case, the court declined to adopt the ITC’s conclusions and instead conducted an independent analysis.

Outcome. Hence, the court denied Hytera’s motion for summary judgment, allowing Motorola’s infringement claims to proceed to trial. It concluded that multiple factual disputes, including the operation of accused devices and the interpretation of claim limitations, required resolution by a factfinder.

The Case is No. 1:17-cv-01972.

Judge: Valderrama, F.

Attorneys: Argie Lagrimas Mina (Kirkland & Ellis LLP) for Motorola Solutions, Inc. Andrew Alexander (Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP) for Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd.

Companies: Motorola Solutions, Inc.; Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd.

Cases: Patent IllinoisNews