DCT

2:23-cv-01049

Entropic Communications LLC v. Cox Communications Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-01049, C.D. Cal., 09/24/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Cox has regular and established places of business within the Central District of California, including retail stores and other operational facilities.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s provision of cable television and internet services via accused cable modems and set-top boxes infringes ten patents related to cable network architecture, signal processing, and network management.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for efficiently delivering and managing high-speed data and television services over hybrid fiber-coaxial cable networks, a foundational infrastructure for the U.S. telecommunications market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of most of the patents-in-suit in a communication dated August 9, 2022. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant was aware of several asserted patents through its analysis of a separate lawsuit Plaintiff filed against Charter Communications on April 27, 2022.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-09-30 ’775 Patent Priority Date
2008-12-15 ’690 Patent Priority Date
2009-04-17 ’362, ’866, ’206, and ’275 Patents Priority Date
2011-09-08 ’008 and ’826 Patents Priority Date
2012-07-17 ’775 Patent Issue Date
2012-07-23 ’682 and ’438 Patents Priority Date
2012-10-09 ’690 Patent Issue Date
2014-07-29 ’008 Patent Issue Date
2015-12-08 ’362 Patent Issue Date
2017-11-21 ’826 Patent Issue Date
2018-01-09 ’438 Patent Issue Date
2018-11-20 ’682 Patent Issue Date
2022-04-27 Entropic files suit against Charter Communications
2022-07-05 ’866 Patent Issue Date
2022-07-26 ’206 Patent Issue Date
2022-08-09 Entropic sends communication to Cox regarding patent portfolio
2023-10-10 ’275 Patent Issue Date
2023-11-03 Entropic serves infringement contentions for ’438 and ’275 Patents
2025-09-24 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,223,775 - "ARCHITECTURE FOR A FLEXIBLE AND HIGH-PERFORMANCE GATEWAY CABLE MODEM"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of integrating a variety of data networking and Voice over IP (VoIP) services with traditional cable modem functions in a flexible, cost-effective, and functionally partitioned manner (’775 Patent, col. 1:11-30). Conventional methods required complex integration that hindered independent software development and upgrades for different functionalities (’775 Patent, col. 1:31-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a functionally partitioned architecture for a gateway cable modem. It comprises a "cable modem engine" that performs all core cable modem functions (e.g., DOCSIS and VoIP) and a separate "data networking engine" that performs all data and home networking functions (e.g., CableHome) (’775 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-14). This separation allows the two engines to operate and be updated independently, even while implemented in a single device (’775 Patent, col. 4:25-45).
  • Technical Importance: This architectural partitioning simplified the development and deployment of new value-added home networking services without disturbing the highly standardized and regulated core cable modem operations.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 18 and 19 (Compl. ¶63).
  • Claim 18 (System Claim) requires:
    • A data networking engine in a first circuit with a RISC processor, programmed to perform home networking functions.
    • A cable modem engine in a second circuit, separate from the first, programmed to perform cable modem functions.
    • The cable modem engine is configured to enable software upgrades independent of the data networking engine's software.
    • A data bus connecting the two engines.
    • The cable modem functions are "completely partitioned" from the home networking functions.
    • A DOCSIS MAC processor configured to process and forward downstream packets directly to the data networking engine without involving the DOCSIS controller.
  • Claim 19 (Method Claim) requires similar steps performed by the partitioned engines.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,284,690 - "RECEIVER DETERMINED PROBE"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In network communications, "probes" are used to characterize the channel between nodes. The patent notes that conventional probes are typically well-defined and predetermined, which reduces the flexibility of the characterization process and requires the receiving node to know the precise form of the transmitted probe in advance (’690 Patent, col. 1:41-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method where the receiving node determines the form of the probe. The receiving node sends a "probe request" to a transmitting node, and this request specifies a plurality of parameters for the probe to be generated, such as its modulation profile, payload content, transmit power, and number of transmissions (’690 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4). This allows the receiving node to customize the test signal to diagnose specific network conditions it is experiencing (’690 Patent, col. 2:5-18).
  • Technical Importance: This "receiver determined" approach enhances the flexibility and efficiency of network diagnostics, enabling more targeted and sophisticated channel analysis than was possible with predefined probes.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 7 and 8 (Compl. ¶90).
  • Claim 7 (Method Claim) requires:
    • A first node transmitting a probe request to a second node.
    • The request specifies a first plurality of probe parameters for a physical layer probe, including a form and modulation profile.
    • The first node receiving the probe from the second node.
    • The received probe is generated in accordance with the first plurality of parameters and a second plurality of parameters determined by the second node.
  • Claim 8 (Method Claim) is similar but specifies the probe request is generated by a network operator and uploaded to the second node.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,792,008 - "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SPECTRUM MONITORING"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system that receives a signal with multiple channels, digitizes it, and reports signal characteristics back to the signal source, enabling network monitoring (Compl. ¶111). This allows for analysis of network health and performance.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-6, 9, and 10 (Compl. ¶117).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Cable Modem and Set Top Products, which allegedly perform full band digital tuning and signal monitoring functions (Compl. ¶120, 127).

U.S. Patent No. 9,210,362 - "WIDEBAND TUNER ARCHITECTURE"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a wideband receiver system that can down-convert, digitize, and select desired television channels from a broad spectrum of both desired and undesired channels, outputting a digital data stream for demodulation (Compl. ¶138).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 11 and 12 (Compl. ¶144).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Set Top Products, which are alleged to perform the claimed functions of digitizing and selecting desired television channels (Compl. ¶147, 154).

U.S. Patent No. 9,825,826 - "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SPECTRUM MONITORING"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system that receives, digitizes, and analyzes a signal containing multiple channels to report signal characteristics back to the source (Compl. ¶165). This technology is aimed at monitoring network performance.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 9 (Compl. ¶171).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Cable Modem and Set Top Products, which allegedly provide signal monitoring functions claimed by the patent (Compl. ¶174, 181).

U.S. Patent No. 10,135,682 - "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SERVICE GROUP MANAGEMENT IN A CABLE NETWORK"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for managing a cable network by determining a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metric for cable modems, assigning them to service groups based on that metric, and selecting communication parameters for each group (Compl. ¶192). This allows for optimizing network performance based on signal quality.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-5 and 9 (Compl. ¶198).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Services, which allegedly utilize cable modem termination systems that perform the claimed SNR-based service group management (Compl. ¶201).

U.S. Patent No. 11,381,866 - "CABLE TELEVISION DEVICE"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a cable television device that digitizes an entire input signal and concurrently selects a plurality of desired channels from it without selecting undesired channels (Compl. ¶214). This enables efficient multi-channel processing.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 27, 28, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42, 47, 50, and 51 (Compl. ¶220).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Set Top Products and Accused Services, which allegedly digitize and select desired television channels from an input signal (Compl. ¶223).

U.S. Patent No. 11,399,206 - "METHOD FOR RECEIVING A TELEVISION SIGNAL"

  • Technology Synopsis: The technology is similar to the ’866 patent, describing a device that receives an input signal from a cable network, digitizes the entire signal, and selects desired channels from it without selecting undesired ones (Compl. ¶241).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 13, 14, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 44, 47, and 48 (Compl. ¶247).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Services, Accused Cable Modem Products, and Accused Set Top Products, which are alleged to perform the claimed digitizing and selecting functions (Compl. ¶250).

U.S. Patent No. 11,785,275 - "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RECEIVING A TELEVISION SIGNAL"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a wideband receiver system that digitizes an input signal, selects desired channels, and outputs them for demodulation (Compl. ¶260), relating to efficient channel processing.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20 (Compl. ¶266).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Services provided through the Accused Set Top Products, which allegedly digitize and select desired television channels (Compl. ¶269).

U.S. Patent No. 9,866,438 - "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SERVICE GROUP MANAGEMENT IN A CABLE NETWORK"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a mechanism for determining communication parameters between a cable modem termination system and cable modems (Compl. ¶279), focusing on network optimization.
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-5 and 9 (Compl. ¶285).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Services, which allegedly utilize cable modem termination systems that perform the claimed methods (Compl. ¶288).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s "Accused Services," which are cable television and internet services provided through "Accused Cable Modem Products" and "Accused Set Top Products" (Compl. ¶25, 39). The complaint provides an extensive, non-exhaustive list of device models from manufacturers such as Technicolor, Arris, Pace, Samsung, Motorola, and Netgear (Compl. ¶39).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products are deployed by Cox to customer premises to provide telecommunication services (Compl. ¶60). While at customer locations, the devices allegedly remain the property of Cox and operate in a manner controlled and intended by Cox (Compl. ¶61-62). Functionally, these devices are alleged to perform the various patented methods, including partitioning modem and networking functions, generating and responding to network diagnostic probes, monitoring signal characteristics across the cable spectrum, and efficiently selecting and processing multiple television channels simultaneously (Compl. ¶57, 84, 111, 138, 192). Cox is alleged to be the "largest private telecom company in America" (Compl. ¶10).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As the complaint references claim-chart exhibits that were not provided with the filed complaint, the infringement allegations for the lead patents are summarized below in prose.

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,223,775 Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that Cox's Accused Cable Modem Products directly infringe at least claims 18 and 19 of the ’775 Patent (Compl. ¶63). The core of the allegation is that the accused modems embody the claimed partitioned architecture. The complaint asserts that these products are functionally divided into a "cable modem engine" that handles core DOCSIS and VoIP functions and a separate "data networking engine" that handles home networking functions, thereby mapping onto the key limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶57).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,284,690 Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that Cox directly infringes at least claims 7 and 8 of the ’690 Patent by using the Accused Cable Modem Products and providing the Accused Services (Compl. ¶90). The infringement theory is that during network operation, a receiving node (e.g., a cable modem or termination system) sends a request to a transmitting node, and this request specifies parameters for a "probe" transmission. This functionality, which allegedly enhances network flexibility and diagnostic capabilities, is asserted to practice the steps of the claimed method (Compl. ¶84).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: For the ’775 Patent, a central question may be whether the terms "cable modem engine" and "data networking engine" require distinct hardware or if a logical, software-based partitioning within a single integrated circuit meets the claim requirement of being in a "separate" circuit and "completely partitioned." For the ’690 Patent, a question is whether standard network management communications within the DOCSIS protocol can be properly characterized as the claimed "receiver determined probe," which the patent describes as a solution to the inflexibility of prior art probes.
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for the ’775 Patent will be what evidence demonstrates the alleged functional separation and independence of software upgrades for the two "engines" within the accused products' integrated architecture. For the ’690 Patent, the analysis may focus on whether Cox's network equipment actually performs the claimed step of a receiving node specifying a "plurality of parameters" to customize a probe generated by a transmitting node, or if network communications operate differently.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "cable modem engine" and "data networking engine" (from ’775 Patent, claim 18)

  • Context and Importance: These terms are foundational to the infringement allegation against the ’775 Patent. The definition will determine whether a single, highly integrated device can be considered to have two "separate" and "completely partitioned" engines as the claim requires. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products are single physical units, and infringement depends on finding this specific partitioned architecture within them.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the engines by their functions (e.g., "cable modem engine performs all cable modem functions, and a data networking engine performs all data and home networking functions") (’775 Patent, Abstract). This functional language could support an interpretation where logical or software-based separation on a single processor is sufficient.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the engines be in "a second circuit being separate from the first circuit" and "completely partitioned." (’775 Patent, col. 6:1-8). The Abstract also uses the phrase "completely partitioned." This language, combined with figures depicting them as distinct blocks (e.g., ’775 Patent, Fig. 2), may support a narrower construction requiring more distinct hardware or processing environments.

  • The Term: "probe request specifies a plurality of parameters" (from ’690 Patent, claim 7)

  • Context and Importance: Infringement of the ’690 Patent hinges on whether communications within Cox's network constitute this specific type of request. A narrow definition could place standard network protocol messages outside the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish the patented invention from conventional network handshaking or diagnostic signals.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of potential parameters, including "modulation profile," "payload content," "number of times to transmit," and "transmit power," suggesting the term is intended to be flexible and cover a variety of specified characteristics (’690 Patent, col. 2:10-18).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent presents the invention as a solution to the inflexibility of predetermined probes (’690 Patent, col. 1:56-67). This context suggests the "probe request" may require a specific, customizable diagnostic function initiated by the receiver, rather than a routine, standardized network communication.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all patents-in-suit. Inducement is alleged based on Cox providing the accused products to customers with instructions and support, intending for them to be used in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶73, 100). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products are especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner and have no substantial non-infringing uses when operated as intended to receive Cox's services (e.g., Compl. ¶75, 102).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for most of the patents based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from a communication Entropic sent to Cox on August 9, 2022 (e.g., Compl. ¶70, 97). The complaint also alleges Cox gained knowledge of certain patents by analyzing a lawsuit Entropic filed against Charter Communications (Compl. ¶29-31). For the ’275 and ’438 patents, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge acquired upon service of infringement contentions on November 3, 2023 (Compl. ¶257, 290).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of architectural interpretation: Can the functionally partitioned "cable modem engine" and "data networking engine" claimed in the ’775 patent be found within the accused products' highly integrated, single-device architecture, or does the claim language require a more distinct physical or processing separation?
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: Does the evidence show that routine network management and diagnostic signals used in Cox's network perform the specific, multi-step functions required by claims in patents like the ’690 patent (a receiver-specified probe) and the ’682 patent (SNR-based service group assignment), or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
  • A key issue for damages will be knowledge and willfulness: Given the allegations of pre-suit notice via direct communication and indirect notice via related industry litigation, the case will likely involve a detailed examination of when Cox knew or should have known about each asserted patent and whether its continued use of the accused technology constitutes willful infringement.