IP Law Daily, PATENT—S.D. Fla.: JEA’s Smart Meters did not infringe wireless communications technology, (Jun 26, 2017)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

A Jacksonville, Florida, municipal utility’s "Smart Meters" did not infringe a patent related to wireless communications technology allowing devices in a network to communicate without interfering with one another, while conserving battery life, the federal district court in Miami has ruled (Atlas IP, LLC v. JEA, June 21, 2017, Altonaga, C.).

Atlas IP brought suit against JEA, a municipal electric utility in Jacksonville, Florida, for infringing, directly and under the doctrine of equivalents, 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734 ("the ’734 patent"), entitled "Medium Access Control Protocol for Wireless Network." The ’734 patent related to wireless communications technology allowing devices in a network to communicate without interfering with one another, while conserving battery life.

Atlas alleged that JEA’s Landis Gyr Focus AX with Landis Gyr Gridstream RF communication modules, or "Smart Meters" or "remotes," and the base station or hub with which they communicate over a wide area network, "form a communication group" and infringe the ’734 patent.

Frame limitation. In its complaint and claim chart, Atlas alleged that the frame limitation requires that the cycle-establishing information must establish two elements: both an outbound portion when the hub transmits frames to remotes and an inbound portion when the remotes transmit to the hub, and the predetermined intervals during the outbound and inbound portions when each remote is allowed to transmit and receive.

The court found that Atlas’ claim for direct infringement failed because Atlas failed to allege that the accused product was required to have a frame that also established when each remote was allowed to transmit and receive. The claim chart did not convey the fact that the frame sends information from the base that established a starting time, specific intervals, duration of each interval, and the constituent intervals. In addition, the complaint did not allege that the frame communicates the assignment and duration of all constituent intervals of the inbound portion of the communication cycles to all of the remotes. Even if the frames initiated a communication cycle and informed the remote of the duration of its own inbound communication interval, that did not satisfy the elements of the frame limitation, the court noted.

Powering-off limitation. The powering-off limitation requires the remotes to power off their receivers when the remote is not expected to receive a frame from the hub by using the cycle to establish information and to power down the transmitters when they are not allowed to transmit. The complaint did not allege that the hub transmit the information remotes must use to power on and off. Thus, Atlas did not alleged that the accused products practice the powering-off limitation, the court determined.

Doctrine of equivalents. Finally, the claim for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents failed because the complaint pointed to no equivalent that might satisfy any of the limitations. The differences between the accused products as alleges and the limitations described in the claims were substantial, the court said.

The case is No. 1:17-cv-20243-CMA.

Attorneys: Michael Chapman Cesarano (Feldman Gale PA) for Atlas IP, LLC. Lawrence Hugh Kunin (Morris, Manning & Martin LLP) for JEA.

Companies: Atlas IP, LLC; JEA.

Cases: Patent FloridaNews