DCT

2:25-cv-02998

CommWorks Solutions LLC v. Broadcom Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02998, C.D. Cal., 04/07/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's alleged regular and established place of business, including a primary R&D center, within the Central District of California, and the commission of infringing acts within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s System-on-Chip (SoC) products for Passive Optical Networks (PON), Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS), and Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) infringe five U.S. patents related to network quality of service management, time-based wireless device provisioning, and priority traffic detection.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to the management of data traffic, security, and quality of service in both wired broadband and wireless networking environments, which are foundational to modern internet and local network performance.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was notified of its potential infringement of the asserted patents via a notice letter dated March 5, 2021, a fact relevant to the claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-12-17 U.S. Patent RE44,904 Priority Date
2000-05-19 U.S. Patent 6,832,249 Priority Date
2001-05-18 U.S. Patent 6,832,249 Application Filing
2004-10-08 U.S. Patent 7,177,285 Application Filing
2004-12-14 U.S. Patent 6,832,249 Issue Date
2007-02-09 U.S. Patent 7,463,596 Application Filing
2007-02-13 U.S. Patent 7,177,285 Issue Date
2008-11-25 U.S. Patent 7,911,979 Application Filing
2008-12-09 U.S. Patent 7,463,596 Issue Date
2011-03-22 U.S. Patent 7,911,979 Issue Date
2014-05-20 U.S. Patent RE44,904 Reissue Date
2021-03-05 Notice Letter Sent to Defendant
2025-04-07 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,832,249 - "Globally Accessible Computer Network-Based Broadband Communication System With User-Controllable Quality of Information Delivery and Flow Priority," issued December 14, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the public Internet as being "plagued with user problems such as congestion... and latency," rendering it unable to reliably deliver high-quality, deterministic applications due to a lack of effective quality of service (QoS) control mechanisms (’249 Patent, col. 1:31-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system that monitors a multi-layered network, such as one based on the Open System Interconnection (OSI) model, to detect a "quality of service event" at a particular layer (designated as Layer N). In response, a network controller dynamically alters the network's configuration or "provisioning" at a lower layer (a layer less than N) to resolve the issue, thereby enabling cross-layer QoS management ('249 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for actively managing network performance across different protocol layers to guarantee application quality, a significant departure from the "best-effort" delivery model common at the time ('249 Patent, col. 2:32-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 38 (a system claim) and 46 (a computer-readable storage device claim) (Compl. ¶29).
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 38:
    • A multi-layered network with a plurality of OSI reference model layers.
    • A network monitor adapted to monitor an OSI layer, determine that a quality of service event has occurred, and determine the event occurred at layer N.
    • A network controller adapted to respond to the event by changing network provisioning at a layer less than N.

U.S. Patent No. 7,177,285 - "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," issued February 13, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent and complaint note that prior methods for provisioning new wireless devices onto a secure network were "impractical" and often required users to be "technically proficient," particularly for devices lacking a user interface suitable for entering security credentials or device identifiers (Compl. ¶45; ’285 Patent, col. 3:13-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a time-based method where a network access point tracks an "operating parameter" of a wireless device, such as the device being powered on or beginning to transmit a signal. A user then activates a provisioning "time interval" on the access point (e.g., by pressing a button). If the device's tracked parameter occurred within this defined window, the access point automatically initiates the provisioning process ('285 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This method was described as a "major technological advance" because it simplified the secure setup of wireless devices for non-technical users by automating the process based on a simple, timed sequence of user actions ('285 Patent, col. 3:37-41; Compl. ¶46).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a process claim) and 22 (a system claim) (Compl. ¶47-48).
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • Tracking an operating parameter of a wireless device, where the parameter comprises an onset of a signal transmission.
    • Initiating provisioning of the device if the tracked operating parameter occurs within a time interval.
  • The complaint explicitly reserves the right to assert numerous dependent claims (Compl. p. 13, fn. 1).

U.S. Patent No. 7,463,596 - "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," issued December 9, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint indicates this patent relates to the same technological field as the '285 patent, addressing the impracticality of conventional wireless provisioning. The solution involves a time-based system where a device is associated with a network if an operating parameter, such as power-on or signal onset, occurs within a user-initiated time interval (Compl. ¶63-64, ¶66).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claims 1 and 16 (Compl. ¶65-66).
  • Accused Features: Broadcom chips, SoCs, and devices that support Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) functionality, for example the BCM94708RDB (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 7,911,979 - "Time Based Access Provisioning System And Process," issued March 22, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is also described as relating to time-based wireless provisioning. It addresses cumbersome setup procedures by disclosing a system with provisioning logic that tracks a device's operating parameter (power-on or signal transmission onset) and initiates provisioning if that event occurs within a designated time interval (Compl. ¶81-82, ¶84).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claims 1, 14, and 19 (Compl. ¶83-84).
  • Accused Features: Broadcom chips, SoCs, and devices that support Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) functionality, for example the BCM94708RDB (Compl. ¶75).

U.S. Patent No. RE44,904 - "Method For Contention Free Traffic Detection," reissued May 20, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges this patent solves the problem of inefficient priority traffic handling in conventional access points, which required complex and slow processing. The patented method involves extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a data frame and comparing it to a search pattern, allowing for lightweight and fast identification of high-priority traffic without needing knowledge of upper-layer protocols (Compl. ¶99-100).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶101-102).
  • Accused Features: Broadcom chips, devices, and software that support Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) and 802.11-2007+ functionality, for example the BCM4392 (Compl. ¶93).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies three main categories of accused products:
    1. Broadcom Systems-on-Chips (SoCs) that implement ITU-T G.984 and G.9807.1 standards for Optical Line Terminal (OLT) equipment used in (X)G(S)-PON broadband networks (e.g., BCM68650) (Compl. ¶18, ¶23).
    2. Broadcom chips, SoCs, and devices that support Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) functionality (e.g., BCM94708RDB) (Compl. ¶18, ¶39).
    3. Broadcom chips, devices, and software that support Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) and 802.11-2007+ functionality (e.g., BCM4392) (Compl. ¶18, ¶93).

Functionality and Market Context

  • These products are integrated circuits that provide the core functionality for modern networking hardware. The OLT SoCs are used in fiber-optic broadband infrastructure (Compl. ¶23). The WPS and WMM-enabled chips are central to Wi-Fi routers, access points, and client devices, providing simplified secure setup and traffic prioritization capabilities, respectively (Compl. ¶39, ¶93). The complaint does not contain specific allegations regarding the products' market share or commercial success. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent 6,832,249 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 38) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a multi-layered network having a plurality of Open System Interconnection (OSI) reference model layers functioning therein; Defendant provides a system for network communications comprising a multi-layered network with OSI reference model layers. ¶30 col. 2:50-54
a network monitor coupled to the multi-layered network, wherein the network monitor is adapted to: monitor at least one OSI reference model layer...; The system includes a network monitor that is adapted to monitor at least one OSI reference model layer. ¶30 col. 6:29-33
determine that a quality of service event has occurred in the multi-layered network; The system determines that a quality of service event has occurred in the network. ¶30 col. 11:1-3
determine that the quality of service event occurred at layer N in the OSI reference model; The system determines that the quality of service event occurred at a specific layer N in the OSI reference model. ¶30 col. 11:54-58
a network controller...adapted to: respond to the quality of service event...by changing the network provisioning at a layer less than N. The system includes a network controller adapted to respond to the event by changing network provisioning at a layer below layer N. ¶30 col. 11:10-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Does Broadcom's OLT SoC, which is a component, meet the definition of the claimed "system," or is the "system" only formed when the SoC is integrated into a final product by Broadcom's customers? The complaint alleges Broadcom "provid[es]" the infringing system (Compl. ¶30).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by repeating the claim language but does not specify what technical feature of the accused PON SoCs constitutes a "quality of service event" or how those SoCs "chang[e] the network provisioning at a layer less than N" in response. The evidence for this specific cross-layer interaction will be a central point of dispute.

U.S. Patent 7,177,285 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
tracking an operating parameter of the wireless device within a service area, The accused products perform a process that tracks an operating parameter of a wireless device. ¶48 col. 3:50-54
wherein the operating parameter of the wireless device comprises an onset of a signal transmission of the wireless device; The tracked operating parameter is alleged to be the onset of the wireless device's signal transmission. ¶48 col. 5:26-28
and initiating provisioning of the wireless device if the tracked operating parameter occurs within a time interval. The process initiates provisioning if the tracked parameter is detected within a specific time interval, consistent with WPS functionality. ¶48 col. 6:4-11
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A key question is whether the operational steps of the industry-standard Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) protocol, as implemented by the accused products, constitute "tracking an operating parameter" as defined by the patent. What evidence demonstrates that WPS functionality relies on monitoring the "onset of a signal transmission," as opposed to other user-initiated triggers like a PIN entry or a button press on the client device?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’249 Patent:

    • The Term: "quality of service event"
    • Context and Importance: This term is the trigger for the entire claimed system and method. Its breadth will be critical to the scope of infringement, as it defines what conditions constitute an infringing act.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, including "error seconds, unavailable seconds, packet loss rate, transmission time (latency), jitter... [and] bandwidth throughput" ('249 Patent, col. 9:11-13). It also contemplates a proactive signal from an application about to send time-sensitive data, which could support a broad definition covering both reactive and proactive triggers (Compl. ¶45; '249 Patent, col. 11:6-11).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be limited to an unforeseen degradation of network performance, pointing to the patent's background, which focuses on solving problems where the Internet is "plagued with... congestion" and latency ('249 Patent, col. 1:31-32).

  • For the ’285 Patent:

    • The Term: "operating parameter"
    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to whether the WPS functionality of the accused products infringes. The dispute will likely focus on what device activities fall within its scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims and specification provide examples such as "power on" and "onset of a signal transmission" ('285 Patent, claim 1; col. 3:50-54). This language may support an interpretation that includes any detectable device state change that can be correlated in time with a provisioning attempt.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Practitioners may focus on the patent's emphasis on solving provisioning problems for devices that "lacked a user interface" ('285 Patent, col. 3:13-17). This could support an argument that "operating parameter" is limited to intrinsic device states (like powering on) and does not extend to explicit user inputs (like PIN entry or a button push on the client device), which are common features of the WPS standard.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Broadcom provides its customers with products and instructions that lead to direct infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶31, ¶49). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products contain "special features" specifically designed for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce (e.g., Compl. ¶32, ¶50).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the '249, '285, ’596, and ’979 patents. The allegations are predicated on pre-suit knowledge stemming from a March 5, 2021 notice letter, as well as an alleged "policy or practice" of willful blindness to the patent rights of others (Compl. ¶33-35, ¶51-53, ¶69-71, ¶87-89).

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

  • A core issue for the ’249 patent will be one of direct vs. indirect liability: can CommWorks demonstrate that Broadcom's OLT SoCs, as components, meet all the limitations of the claimed "system," or will the infringement case depend entirely on proving that Broadcom induced or contributed to the infringement of its customers who assemble the final network systems?
  • A key evidentiary question for the '285, '596, and '979 patents will be one of technical and functional mapping: do the specific, standardized steps of the Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) protocol, as implemented in the accused products, align with the claimed process of tracking a device's intrinsic "operating parameter," or is there a fundamental mismatch between the user-driven WPS protocol and the device-state-driven process described in the patents?
  • A central question of evidentiary proof for the '249 patent will be demonstrating the claimed cross-layer interaction: what specific evidence shows that the accused PON products detect a "quality of service event" at a higher OSI layer and, in direct response, execute a "chang[e] in network provisioning" at a lower OSI layer, as the claims require?