Upon information and belief, the Accused Products comply with the 802.11n,
802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax standards and the 12 LDPC error correction codes defined in those
standards. In addition, upon information and belief, the Accused Products are implemented in a
manner that not only complies with the 802.11n, 802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax standards, but also
infringesthe ’710 patent. This is because implementations of the 802.11n, 802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax
standards that infringe the ’710 patent perform substantially fewer computations, have substantially
more efficient circuitry, use less memory, consume less semiconductor die area, consume less power,
and are otherwise more efficient and cost effective than implementations that do infringe the ’710
[para 33. of Microsoft complaint]
Putting to one side the question of obviousness [Aside: it is obvious that the approach on which the Std's are based is inefficient, but whether the solution CalTech arrived at is or isn't obvious is open to debate.]
What is interesting here is that effectively CalTech have improved the performance of the Std effectively making their patent 'essential' to anyone who wishes to implement a "more efficient and cost effective " version of the Std. However, they have avoided having their patent classed as "Std essential" and thus are not constrained by FRAND...
A question is if HP/Dell/MS are using the infringing Broadcom WiFi chips, do CalTech get a second bite of the cherry ie. double-dip royalties.