Entropic Communications LLC v. Comcast Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Entropic Communications, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC (collectively, "Comcast") (Pennsylvania/Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: K&L Gates LLP
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-1049, C.D. Cal., 08/22/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Comcast maintains regular and established places of business, including retail stores, and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Xfinity" branded cable television services and associated equipment, including cable modems and set-top boxes, infringe ten U.S. patents related to cable network technology, data transmission, signal processing, and network management.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for improving the efficiency, performance, and maintenance of modern coaxial cable networks that deliver broadband internet and television services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a long history of Defendant’s knowledge of the patents-in-suit, citing Defendant's early investments in Plaintiff's predecessor, Plaintiff's prior patent litigation against other major cable operators (Charter, DISH, DirecTV) on some of the same patents, Defendant's hiring of a named inventor on two of the patents, and pre-suit licensing communications initiated by Plaintiff in August 2022. The complaint also discusses a Vendor Support Agreement (VSA) between Defendant and Plaintiff's predecessor, MaxLinear, Inc., arguing that it does not preclude the present action.

Case Timeline

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"

Issued July 17, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of integrating expanding home networking and Voice over IP (VoIP) functionalities into a cable modem without compromising performance or flexibility. A monolithic architecture makes it difficult to develop, provision, and upgrade different services (e.g., core modem functions versus home networking features) independently. (’775 Patent, col. 1:20-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a functionally partitioned architecture that separates the gateway modem into two distinct parts: a "cable modem engine" (CME) and a "data networking engine" (DNE). ('775 Patent, Abstract). The CME is dedicated to core cable modem operations (e.g., DOCSIS protocol, VoIP), while the DNE handles all home networking tasks (e.g., routing, firewall). ('775 Patent, col. 2:1-9; Fig. 2). This separation allows for independent software development and field upgrades for each engine.
• Technical Importance: This architectural split enabled greater flexibility for cable operators and manufacturers, allowing the standardized, slow-changing cable modem functions to be decoupled from the rapidly evolving, value-added services of home networking. (Compl. ¶214).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 18 and dependent claim 19 (Compl. ¶220).
• Independent Claim 18 requires:
  • A "data networking engine" in a first circuit to perform home networking functions.
  • A "cable modem engine" in a second circuit, "separate from the first circuit", to perform cable modem functions.
  • The cable modem engine includes a "DOCSIS controller" and a "DOCSIS MAC processor".
  • The "DOCSIS MAC processor" is configured to process downstream packets and "forward the processed packets directly to the data networking engine without the involvement of the DOCSIS controller".
  • A "data bus" connecting the two engines.

U.S. Patent No. 8,284,690 - "Receiver determined probe"

Issued October 9, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Characterizing a communication channel often requires sending "probe" signals. Traditional methods use predefined probes, which limits flexibility because the receiving node cannot customize the probe to diagnose specific issues or gather particular information it needs. (’690 Patent, col. 1:46-64).
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method where a receiving node initiates the process by sending a "probe request" to a transmitting node. This request specifies various parameters for the probe, such as its modulation profile, payload content, and transmit power. The transmitting node then generates and sends a probe back to the receiver according to these custom specifications, giving the receiver control over the channel assessment process. ('690 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This "receiver-determined" approach provides enhanced flexibility for network diagnostics, enabling more targeted and efficient characterization of channel conditions, which is critical for optimizing performance in dynamic network environments. (Compl. ¶245).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 7 and dependent claim 8 (Compl. ¶251).
• Independent Claim 7 is a method claim requiring the steps of:
  • At a first node, "receiving... a probe request" specifying a first plurality of parameters and a second node.
  • "determining a second plurality of parameters".
  • "generating the probe" in accordance with both the first and second pluralities of parameters, where the probe's form is dictated by the first plurality.
  • "transmitting the probe" from the first node to the second node.

U.S. Patent No. 8,792,008 - "Method and Apparatus for Spectrum Monitoring"

Issued July 29, 2014

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system, such as a customer premises gateway, that receives, digitizes, and analyzes a wideband signal spanning multiple television channels. It can report characteristics of the signal (e.g., for spectrum monitoring) back to the signal source for network maintenance purposes. (’008 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶275).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claims 1-6, 9, and 10 are asserted (Compl. ¶281).
• Accused Features: Comcast's implementation of remote spectrum monitoring functionality in its Proactive Network Maintenance (“PNM”) system is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶76).

U.S. Patent No. 9,210,362 - "Wideband Tuner Architecture"

Issued December 8, 2015

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a wideband receiver system that can down-convert a broad spectrum of frequencies containing both desired and undesired television channels, digitize them, and then select only the desired channels to output as a digital data stream for demodulation. This is often referred to as "full band capture." (’362 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶304).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claims 11 and 12 are asserted (Compl. ¶310).
• Accused Features: Comcast's use of full band capture-enabled cable modems and set-top boxes (STBs) is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶77).

U.S. Patent No. 9,825,826 - "Method and Apparatus for Spectrum Monitoring"

Issued November 21, 2017

• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a receiver that can digitize a received signal, select a portion of it for analysis by a monitoring circuit, and control the transmission of network management messages back to a headend based on the analysis. This allows for remote network diagnostics. (’826 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶333).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 9 are asserted (Compl. ¶339).
• Accused Features: Comcast's Proactive Network Maintenance (“PNM”) system, which performs remote spectrum monitoring, is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶76).

U.S. Patent No. 10,135,682 - "Method and System for Service Group Management in a Cable Network"

Issued November 20, 2018

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for a Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) to optimize network performance. It involves determining signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metrics for various cable modems, assigning them to different "service groups" based on those metrics, and then selecting specific physical layer communication parameters for each group. (’682 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶362).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claims 1-5 and 9 are asserted (Compl. ¶368).
• Accused Features: Comcast’s Profile Management Application (“PMA”) technology, which allegedly manages communication profiles based on signal quality, is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶75).

U.S. Patent No. 11,381,866 - "Cable Television Device"

Issued July 5, 2022

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the '362 patent, describes a cable television device that digitizes an entire input signal and concurrently selects a plurality of desired channels from the digitized signal without selecting undesired channels. This technology enables efficient channel tuning in devices with multiple tuners. (’866 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶389).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claims 27, 28, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42, 47, 50, and 51 are asserted (Compl. ¶395).
• Accused Features: Comcast's usage of full band capture-enabled cable modems and STBs is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶77).

U.S. Patent No. 11,399,206 - "Method for Receiving a Television Signal"

Issued July 26, 2022

• Technology Synopsis: Also related to the '362 and '866 patents, this patent covers a method for receiving a signal from a cable network, digitizing the entire input signal, selecting multiple desired channels, and providing them for use. It focuses on the method of implementing full band capture technology. (’206 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶418).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claims 13, 14, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 44, 47, and 48 are asserted (Compl. ¶424).
• Accused Features: Comcast's usage of full band capture-enabled cable modems and STBs is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶77).

U.S. Patent No. 11,785,275 - "System and Method for Receiving a Television Signal"

Issued October 10, 2023

• Technology Synopsis: This patent is also part of the full band capture patent family ('362, '866, '206). It describes a wideband receiver system that digitizes an input signal, selects desired channels from the digitized signal, and outputs them for demodulation. (Compl. ¶443).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are asserted (Compl. ¶449).
• Accused Features: Comcast’s full band capture-enabled cable modems and STBs are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶¶ 77, 449, 452).

U.S. Patent No. 9,866,438 - "Method and System for Service Group Management in a Cable Network"

Issued January 9, 2018

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the '682 patent, describes a system for managing service groups in a cable network. A CMTS determines SNR-related metrics for cable modems, assigns them to service groups, and configures communication parameters based on those groupings to optimize performance. ('438 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶468).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claims 1-5 and 9 are asserted (Compl. ¶474).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Comcast's systems that determine communication parameters between a CMTS and cable modems, such as its PMA system, of infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 75, 477).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "Comcast" and "Xfinity" branded cable television and internet services ("Accused Services") and the equipment used to provide them, including "Accused Cable Modem Products" and "Accused Set Top Products" (STBs) (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 193). Specific products named include the Technicolor TC8717, CGM4140, and CGM4331 cable modems, and various Arris, Pace, and Samsung STBs such as the Arris AX013ANM (Compl. ¶¶ 193, 223, 284, 313, 342). The complaint also accuses Comcast's underlying network management systems, including its Proactive Network Maintenance (“PNM”) and Profile Management Application (“PMA”) systems (Compl. ¶¶ 75-76).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused products and services provide broadband internet and television content to millions of residential and business customers across the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 191, 194). The infringement allegations center on key technical functionalities, including: the internal architecture of modems and STBs for processing data, the use of "full band capture" technology for efficiently tuning to multiple channels, remote spectrum monitoring for network diagnostics (PNM), and dynamic management of communication parameters for different modems on the network (PMA) (Compl. ¶¶ 75-77, 214). The image of an Arris DCX3600 circuit board is provided as evidence that Comcast uses hardware that is functionally identical to that used by other industry players accused of infringing the same patents (Compl. p. 16, ¶83).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,223,775 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the terms "data networking engine" and "cable modem engine" require physically separate chips or processors, as depicted in the patent's embodiments ('775 Patent, Fig. 1), or if they can read on logically partitioned functions within a single, highly integrated System-on-a-Chip (SoC) as may be used in modern cable modems.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused cable modems actually implement the specific data path required by the claim, where downstream packets are forwarded "directly to the data networking engine without the involvement of the DOCSIS controller." The complaint alleges infringement of the claim but does not provide specific evidence on this internal architectural point.

8,284,690 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The dispute may focus on the definition of a "probe request". The question will be whether routine DOCSIS network management communications (e.g., polling or ranging requests from a CMTS) qualify as the specific type of "probe request" claimed, which must dictate the "form" of the responsive transmission.
• Technical Questions: An evidentiary question may arise regarding what parameters are actually specified by the CMTS's requests and what parameters are independently determined by the cable modem. The analysis will consider whether the modem's response is truly "receiver-determined" (i.e., dictated by the CMTS) as contemplated by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’775 Patent

• The Term: "separate from the first circuit"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the required degree of partitioning between the "cable modem engine" and the "data networking engine." Its construction will determine whether the claim can cover modern, highly integrated SoCs or if it is limited to architectures with physically distinct processors or chipsets.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims focus on the functional partitioning of tasks. Plaintiff may argue that "separate" can mean logically or functionally separate, even if resident on the same piece of silicon, as long as they operate independently and can be upgraded independently, consistent with the patent's stated goals (Compl. ¶214).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and detailed description depict the two engines with distinct processors (e.g., ARM#1/ARM#2 for the CME and ARM#3 for the DNE), suggesting a physical separation ('775 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 4:50-54). Defendant may argue that "separate... circuit" requires, at a minimum, distinct processing cores or physically delineated regions on a chip.

For the ’690 Patent

• The Term: "probe request"
• Context and Importance: The novelty of the '690 patent hinges on the probe being "receiver determined." The definition of "probe request" will be central to whether standard network communications in Comcast's system constitute infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the request to specify a "plurality of parameters" that dictate the "form" of the probe ('690 Patent, cl. 7). Plaintiff may contend that any CMTS command that specifies how a modem should respond (e.g., timing, frequency, power) constitutes a "probe request".
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract and specification provide specific examples of parameters, such as "modulation profile," "payload content," and "preamble type" ('690 Patent, Abstract). Defendant may argue that a "probe request" must contain this type of detailed, form-defining information, which may not be present in routine network polling messages.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is alleged based on Comcast providing accused products to customers with instructions for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 234, 264). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products have no substantial non-infringing use when used to receive Comcast's services (Compl. ¶¶ 236, 266).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is a central theme of the complaint. Plaintiff alleges both pre- and post-suit willful infringement. The allegations of pre-suit knowledge are based on Comcast's alleged due diligence during investments in Plaintiff's predecessor in 2003 and 2006; its awareness of extensive litigation against industry peers (Charter, DISH, DirecTV) on many of the same patents; its hiring of a named inventor on two asserted patents; and direct pre-suit communications from Plaintiff beginning in August 2022 (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 68-117). Post-suit willfulness is alleged based on continued infringement after receiving notice via the original and amended complaints and served infringement contentions (Compl. ¶¶ 162-181).

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural scope: For the '775 patent, can the claim requirement for two "separate" engines be met by the logical partitioning of functions within a modern, integrated System-on-a-Chip, or does it demand a greater degree of physical separation between the components handling core modem functions and those handling home networking?
• A second central question will be one of functional characterization: For the '690 patent and related network management patents, do the automated polling and management messages used in Comcast's network constitute the specific, receiver-initiated "probe requests" and SNR-based grouping methods described in the patents, or are they standard network communications that fall outside the claims' technical scope?
• A third major issue, impacting potential damages, will be one of knowledge and intent: Given the extensive history of industry litigation, prior business relationships, and direct communications alleged in the complaint, the court will need to determine what Comcast knew about the patents-in-suit and when, and whether its continued use of the accused technology constitutes willful infringement.