Hannibal v. Apple: Intel tied rate matching to the transmitting point in 2012

What the patent claims

Claim 1 of US 10,911,201 is performed by a user equipment. It receives TRP information from a base station and communicates with several TRPs. It receives downlink control information (DCI) whose rate-matching indicator selects one of several rate-match pattern configurations sent in an RRC message. It identifies the TRP that sent the DCI from the TRP information, and it rate-matches the PDSCH sent by that TRP according to the selected pattern. The TRP information maps the TRPs to downlink reference-signal resources through TRP IDs, CORESET IDs or a mapping table.

Hannibal accuses every 5G iPhone since the iPhone 12 and cellular iPads since 2021. The other five asserted patents cover different features (QCL assumptions, LBT failure detection) and are not addressed here.

What we found

Intel’s US 10,164,755 (priority March 2012) addresses transmission-point indication in LTE coordinated multipoint. The phone receives, by RRC signalling, several parameter sets, one per transmission point. Each set holds the reference-signal configuration (CRS antenna ports, frequency shift, MBSFN and CSI-RS parameters) and, in dependent claims, a transmission-point index. A 2-bit value in the downlink control channel corresponds to the transmission-point index of one set. The phone builds the PDSCH resource-element mapping pattern from that set and decodes the PDSCH sent by that point, which can differ from the point that sent the RRC configuration.

Texas Instruments’ US 10,785,758 (August 2013) uses a two-bit DCI field to select one of four RRC-configured sets of reference-signal resource elements and rate-matches the PDSCH around the selected set for coordinated multipoint. Samsung’s US 11,139,862 (November 2012) uses 2 bits in DCI format 2D to select one of several RRC-configured zero-power CSI-RS configurations, each carrying rate-matching and quasi co-location information, and does not map the PDSCH to those resource elements.

None of the three is cited on the ’201 or its family (nine references in total).

Why it matters to the defendant

Intel covers the structure of claim 1 six years before the priority date: per-point parameter sets signalled by RRC, a DCI field that selects one of them, a transmission-point index linking the selection to a specific point, and a PDSCH mapping built for that point. The open points are wording and generation. The claim identifies the TRP that sent the DCI, whereas Intel’s DCI names the scheduled point. The claim uses 5G NR rate-match patterns and CORESET IDs, whereas Intel’s sets are LTE CRS configurations. Samsung’s 2025 IPRs on three sibling Hannibal patents ended in settlement, and no petition has been filed against the ’201.

Limits of this analysis

• This covers claim 1 of the ’201 only. The other five asserted patents need their own searches.
• The references describe LTE coordinated multipoint. Mapping LTE CRS sets and PQI-style signalling onto NR rate-match patterns and CORESETs is an argument to make, not an identity.
• Our index holds the full claims and roughly the first 10,000 characters of each description. 3GPP contributions from 2016 to 2018 on multi-TRP and multi-PDCCH are likely further evidence and are outside this search.

“Not cited” means the reference does not appear in the examiner or applicant citations of the patent or its family in our index. This article is research, not legal advice, and makes no finding that any claim is invalid.