DCT

2:25-cv-07969

Entropic Communications LLC v. Comcast Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-07969, C.D. Cal., 08/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have regular and established places of business in the district, including retail stores, and have committed acts of infringement by selling and providing accused products and services within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Xfinity" branded cable television services, cable modems, and set-top boxes infringe ten U.S. patents related to cable network management, signal processing, and data transmission technologies.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to technologies for optimizing the delivery of data and video over hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) cable networks, a foundational infrastructure for the U.S. cable industry.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior pending action between the parties concerning the same patents (Case No. 23-cv-1050), filed to preserve Plaintiff's rights amid jurisdictional questions in the earlier case. A central issue presented is the effect of a Vendor Support Agreement (VSA) between Defendant and MaxLinear, Inc. (Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest), which Defendant has allegedly argued includes a covenant-not-to-sue. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents through prior litigation against Charter Communications, pre-suit licensing communications, and its employment of a named inventor on two of the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-09-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,223,775 Priority Date
2008-12-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,284,690 Priority Date
2009-04-17 U.S. Patent Nos. 9,210,362, 11,381,866, 11,399,206, & 11,785,275 Priority Date
2011-09-08 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,792,008 & 9,825,826 Priority Date
2012-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,223,775 Issued
2012-07-23 U.S. Patent Nos. 10,135,682 & 9,866,438 Priority Date
2012-10-09 U.S. Patent No. 8,284,690 Issued
2014-07-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,792,008 Issued
2015-12-08 U.S. Patent No. 9,210,362 Issued
2017-11-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,825,826 Issued
2018-01-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,866,438 Issued
2018-11-20 U.S. Patent No. 10,135,682 Issued
2020-08-01 Vendor Support Agreement (VSA) effective date
2022-04-27 Entropic files first suit against Charter Communications
2022-07-05 U.S. Patent No. 11,381,866 Issued
2022-07-26 U.S. Patent No. 11,399,206 Issued
2022-08-09 Entropic sends pre-suit communication to Comcast
2023-02-10 Entropic files second suit against Charter Communications
2023-10-10 U.S. Patent No. 11,785,275 Issued
2025-08-23 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

  • Issued: July 17, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of integrating a growing number of data networking and VoIP services into a gateway cable modem in a flexible and cost-effective manner, distinct from basic modem functionality ( Compl. ¶214; ’775 Patent, col. 1:11-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a functionally partitioned architecture. It separates the device into a "cable modem engine" that performs all core DOCSIS and VoIP functions and a distinct "data networking engine" that handles all data and home networking functions, with the two engines being "completely partitioned" from each other (Compl. ¶214; ’775 Patent, Abstract, col. 2:1-17). This partitioning is intended to allow for independent software development and field upgrades for the value-added networking services without affecting the core modem operations (’775 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
  • Technical Importance: This architectural separation aimed to provide cable operators and equipment manufacturers greater flexibility in deploying and updating advanced services like IP routing, firewalls, and VPNs on gateway devices (’775 Patent, col. 2:30-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 18 and dependent claim 19 (Compl. ¶220).
  • Key elements of independent claim 18 include:
    • A data networking engine implemented in a first circuit, programmed to perform home networking functions.
    • A cable modem engine implemented in a second circuit separate from the first, programmed to perform cable modem functions.
    • The cable modem engine includes a DOCSIS MAC processor and a DOCSIS controller.
    • The DOCSIS MAC processor is configured to process downstream packets and forward them directly to the data networking engine without the involvement of the DOCSIS controller.

U.S. Patent No. 8,284,690 - Receiver Determined Probe

  • Issued: October 9, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need to characterize a communication channel between nodes in a network, noting that predefined probes reduce the flexibility of the characterization process (’690 Patent, col. 2:42-60).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a receiving node can request that a transmitting node send a specific "probe transmission." The receiving node's request specifies a plurality of parameters for the probe, such as its modulation profile and payload content, allowing the receiving node to dictate the form of the probe it will receive for channel assessment (Compl. ¶245; ’690 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This "receiver determined" probe enhances flexibility in network diagnostics, allowing a node to tailor a test signal to investigate specific channel conditions or to reach "hidden nodes" (’690 Patent, col. 2:19-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 7 and dependent claim 8 (Compl. ¶251).
  • Key elements of independent claim 7 (a method claim) include:
    • A first node transmitting a probe request to a second node.
    • The request specifies a first plurality of probe parameters, including a form for the probe and a 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.

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 set-top box or gateway, that digitizes a wideband signal spanning an entire television spectrum. A channelizer then selects a first portion of the signal to be sent to a signal monitor for analysis (e.g., checking signal quality) and a second portion to be sent to a data processor for content recovery, allowing for concurrent network monitoring and content delivery (Compl. ¶275).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-6, 9, and 10 are asserted (Compl. ¶281).
  • Accused Features: Comcast's Accused Cable Modem and Set Top Products that perform full band digital tuning and signal monitoring are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶284, ¶293).

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 receive multiple non-contiguous television channels. The system down-converts, digitizes, and then selects the desired channels from a wide spectrum, outputting them to a demodulator as a digital data stream (Compl. ¶304). This technology is often referred to as "full band capture."
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 11 and 12 are asserted (Compl. ¶310).
  • Accused Features: Comcast's Accused Set Top Products that digitize and select desired television channels are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶313).

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

  • Issued: November 21, 2017
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the '008 Patent and further describes a receiver in a hybrid fiber-coaxial network. The system digitizes a received signal, and a channelizer separates it into a portion for analysis by a monitoring circuit and another for information recovery. The monitoring circuit then controls the transmission of network management messages back to the headend based on its analysis (Compl. ¶333).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 9 are asserted (Compl. ¶339).
  • Accused Features: The signal monitoring functions within Comcast's Accused Cable Modem Products and Accused Set Top Products are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶342).

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 performed by a Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS). The CMTS determines a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metric for various cable modems, assigns them to service groups based on these metrics, generates a composite SNR metric for each group, and then selects communication parameters for the group based on that composite metric (Compl. ¶362).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-5 and 9 are asserted (Compl. ¶368).
  • Accused Features: Comcast's Accused Services, which utilize CMTS and/or converged cable access platforms to manage communication with cable modems, are alleged to infringe, particularly through its Proactive Network Maintenance ("PNM") system (Compl. ¶76, ¶371).

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

  • Issued: July 5, 2022
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the '362 Patent and describes a cable television device that digitizes an entire input signal containing both desired and undesired channels. It then concurrently selects a plurality of desired channels from the digitized signal for provision to the user, without selecting the undesired channels (Compl. ¶389).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 27, 28, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42, 47, 50, and 51 are asserted (Compl. ¶395).
  • Accused Features: Comcast's Accused Set Top Products that perform full-band capture to digitize and select television channels are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶398).

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

  • Issued: July 26, 2022
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is also related to the '362 and '866 patents. It describes a method of receiving an input signal from a cable network, digitizing the entire signal, selecting desired channels while excluding undesired channels, and providing the desired channels for use (Compl. ¶418).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 13, 14, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 44, 47, and 48 are asserted (Compl. ¶424).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Services provided via Comcast's Accused Cable Modem and Set Top Products that digitize and select channels are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶427).

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 in the '362 patent family and describes a wideband receiver that digitizes an input signal, selects desired channels, and outputs them for demodulation (Compl. ¶443).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are asserted (Compl. ¶449).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Services provided through Comcast's Accused Set Top Products are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶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 is related to the '682 patent and describes a mechanism for determining communication parameters between a CMTS and cable modems (Compl. ¶468).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1-5 and 9 are asserted (Compl. ¶474).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Services, which utilize CMTS or converged cable access platforms, are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶477).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are broadly defined as "Accused Cable Modem Products," "Accused Set Top Products" ("STBs"), and "Accused Services" provided by Comcast under its "Comcast" and "Xfinity" brands (Compl. ¶¶6, 193).
  • Specific product examples cited include the Technicolor CGM4140 cable modem and the Arris AX013ANM set-top box (Compl. ¶193, ¶313, ¶398).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products and services provide cable television and internet services to Comcast's customers (Compl. ¶193).
  • The complaint alleges these products incorporate specific technologies that are central to the infringement allegations, including "full band capture" for processing television channels, "Proactive Network Maintenance" (PNM) for remote spectrum monitoring, and "Profile Management Application" (PMA) for network optimization (Compl. ¶¶74-77).
  • An image of the circuit board for an Arris DCX3600 set-top box, allegedly used by both Comcast and Charter, is provided to show common branding and technology (Compl. p. 17).
  • The complaint alleges that Comcast and Charter, another major cable operator, collaborate on and use substantially similar technologies and common suppliers for these products (Compl. ¶¶74, 82-83).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts but states that they were provided to Comcast in a prior action and incorporates them by reference (Compl. ¶211, ¶242). The following charts summarize the infringement allegations based on the complaint's narrative descriptions.

'775 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a data networking engine implemented in a first circuit...programmed with software that...causes the data networking engine to perform home networking functions The Accused Cable Modem Products perform data and home networking functions. ¶214 col. 2:9-17
a cable modem engine implemented in a second circuit that...is separate from the first circuit The accused modems are described as having a partitioned architecture. ¶214 col. 2:1-5
the cable modem engine including a DOCSIS PHY layer, a DOCSIS MAC processor, and a DOCSIS controller The Accused Cable Modem Products perform cable modem functions consistent with the DOCSIS standard. ¶223 col. 4:55-60
the DOCSIS MAC processor configured to...forward the processed packets directly to the data networking engine without the involvement of the DOCSIS controller The complaint alleges infringement by the Accused Cable Modem Products, which necessarily process and route downstream data packets. ¶223 col. 3:9-16
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the claim term "functionally partitioned." The analysis will question whether the integrated system-on-a-chip (SoC) architecture of modern cable modems embodies the "separate" and "partitioned" engine structure required by the claim, or if the functions are too integrated to meet this limitation.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused modems' data path for downstream packets operates "without the involvement of the DOCSIS controller" as claimed. The defense may argue that the main processor (analogous to the claimed "controller") is involved in managing all data flow, even if specialized hardware assists.

'690 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first node transmitting a probe request to a second node Comcast's network nodes (e.g., cable modems) communicate with other nodes (e.g., the CMTS) to perform network diagnostics. ¶245, ¶254 col. 2:1-4
the probe request specifying a first plurality of probe parameters for a physical layer probe, the first plurality of probe parameters comprising a form for the probe including a modulation profile for the probe The complaint alleges that Comcast's network performs bidirectional communication where a receiving node can specify parameters for a probe transmission. ¶245 col. 2:5-18
the first node receiving the probe from the second node The requesting node in Comcast's network receives the diagnostic probe transmission. ¶245 col. 1:21-25
wherein the probe is generated in accordance with the first plurality of parameters and in accordance with a second plurality of parameters determined by the second node The probe sent by the transmitting node is generated according to the parameters specified in the request. ¶245 col. 1:11-20
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will likely focus on the scope of "transmitting a probe request." The question is whether automated network maintenance communications initiated by a cable modem or CMTS qualify as a "request" from a "receiving node" that dictates the "form" of the probe, as contemplated by the patent.
    • Technical Questions: Evidence will be required to determine what level of parameter specification occurs in the accused system. The analysis will question whether the accused system allows for the flexible, receiver-defined probe generation described in the patent, or if it uses a more limited set of standardized, pre-defined probe types.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: These terms are the foundation of the '775 Patent's infringement theory. The case will turn on whether the accused cable modems, which typically use highly integrated SoCs, can be said to possess two "separate" and "completely partitioned" engines as defined in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the physical and logical separation of functions in modern hardware may not map cleanly to the architectural description in this patent from 2003.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly uses the term "functionally partitioned," which could suggest that a logical or software-based separation is sufficient, even if the functions run on the same silicon (’775 Patent, col. 1:9-10). The specification emphasizes the goal of allowing "independent software development and field-upgrade," which points to a functional, rather than strictly physical, separation (’775 Patent, col. 2:30-34).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a "first circuit" and a "second circuit," and describes the second circuit as being "separate from the first circuit" (’775 Patent, cl. 18). This language, along with figures that depict distinct blocks for the engines (e.g., ’775 Patent, Fig. 1), could support an argument that a significant degree of physical or hardware separation is required.

  • The Term: "generating a probe transmission in response to a request from a receiving node" (’690 Patent, Claim 7)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase is critical for determining whether Comcast's network management and diagnostic systems perform the claimed method. The dispute will likely be whether the automated, often protocol-driven, interactions between a CMTS and a cable modem constitute a "request" from a "receiving node" that causes the "generation" of a specific probe.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states the invention relates to a process where "a probe transmission in response to a request from the node that will be receiving the probe" is generated. The specification's focus on enhancing flexibility for diagnostics could support a broad reading that covers any mechanism where the receiving end influences the test signal it receives (’690 Patent, col. 2:54-60).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description emphasizes that the "receiving node may generate a probe request that specifies a plurality of parameters" (’690 Patent, Abstract). This could be construed to require an active, initiating role by the receiving node in defining the probe's characteristics, which may differ from the operation of standardized network maintenance protocols used in the accused systems.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by "providing the Accused...Products to Comcast customers with specific instructions and/or assistance (including installation)" to use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶234, ¶264, ¶293). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the products "have no substantial non-infringing uses" when used to receive the Accused Services and are "especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶236-237, ¶266-267).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are extensive and based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on: (1) Comcast's 2003 and 2006 investments in Entropic Communications, Inc., Plaintiff's predecessor (Compl. ¶68); (2) Comcast's alleged awareness of Entropic's patent infringement suits against Charter Communications involving many of the same patents and technologies (Compl. ¶71-72, ¶118); (3) Comcast's employment of Patrick Tierney, a named inventor on the '008 and '826 patents (Compl. ¶98); and (4) a pre-suit communication from Entropic to Comcast on August 9, 2022 (Compl. ¶26, ¶231). Post-suit knowledge is alleged based on the filing and service of complaints and infringement contentions in the prior litigation between the parties (Compl. ¶162, ¶171, ¶175).

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

  • A primary threshold issue will be one of contractual estoppel: does the Vendor Support Agreement between Comcast and MaxLinear contain a covenant not to sue that is binding on Entropic and covers the asserted patents? The resolution of this issue, which the complaint addresses at length, could be dispositive before any technical analysis of infringement.
  • A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: for patents like the '775, can the "functionally partitioned" engine architecture, claimed with terms like "separate circuits," be construed to read on the highly integrated System-on-a-Chip (SoC) designs used in modern cable modems and set-top boxes?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational mapping: for method patents like the '682 and '690, what evidence will show that Comcast's automated network management systems (e.g., its PNM system) actually perform the specific, multi-step processes recited in the claims, such as generating composite SNR profiles or creating probes in direct response to requests from receiving nodes? This will require a detailed comparison of the claimed steps against the actual operation of Comcast's complex network infrastructure.