DCT

2:25-cv-07969

Entropic Communications LLC v. Comcast Corp

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-07969, C.D. Cal., 11/25/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Comcast maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including Xfinity retail stores, and has committed acts of infringement by selling and providing accused products and services to customers 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 eight patents related to cable network architecture, signal processing, and remote network monitoring.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to the architecture and operation of devices used in modern hybrid fiber-coaxial networks, which are fundamental to the delivery of high-speed internet and digital television services by cable operators.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes a prior pending action between the parties in the same district concerning the same patents (Case No. 23-cv-1050). The current suit was filed to preserve Plaintiff's rights following the expiration of a covenant not to sue that is central to the earlier case. The complaint also extensively discusses a Vendor Support Agreement (VSA) between Defendant and Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest, arguing that its terms do not bar the present suit. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents based on earlier lawsuits filed by Plaintiff against other cable and satellite operators, including Charter, DISH, and DirecTV, as well as direct pre-suit communications.

I. Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-09-30 '775 Patent Priority Date
2006-12-31 Comcast's latest investment in Entropic Inc.
2008-12-15 '690 Patent Priority Date
2009-04-17 Priority Date for '362, '866, '206, and '275 Patents
2011-09-08 Priority Date for '008 and '826 Patents
2012-07-17 '775 Patent Issue 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
2020-08-01 Vendor Support Agreement (VSA) effective date
2022-04-27 Entropic files first suit against Charter Communications
2022-07-05 '866 Patent Issue Date
2022-07-26 '206 Patent Issue Date
2022-08-09 Entropic sends pre-suit communication to Comcast
2023-02-10 Entropic files second suit against Charter Communications
2023-02-16 Service of original complaint in prior -1050 case
2023-09-15 Infringement contentions served in prior -1050 case
2023-10-10 '275 Patent Issue Date
2023-11-03 Infringement contentions for '275 Patent served
2025-08-21 Alleged earliest termination date of the VSA
2025-11-25 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

I. The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of integrating a growing number of data networking and VoIP functions into traditional cable modems in a way that is flexible and cost-effective, particularly allowing for independent software development and field upgrades for different services (Compl. ¶143; ’775 Patent, col. 1:11-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "functionally partitioned" architecture where a dedicated "cable modem engine" handles core DOCSIS (Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification) and VoIP functions, while a separate "data networking engine" manages home networking tasks like routing and firewalls (’775 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This separation is intended to decouple the development and maintenance of these two functional areas (’775 Patent, col. 1:25-29).
  • Technical Importance: This architectural separation was designed to give cable operators and equipment vendors greater flexibility to independently provision, maintain, and upgrade revenue-generating gateway services apart from the basic broadband access services (’775 Patent, col. 1:35-41).

II. Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 18 and 19 (Compl. ¶149).
  • Claim 18, a system claim, requires essential elements including:
    • 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 circuit, programmed to perform cable modem functions.
    • The cable modem engine being configured to enable software upgrades independent of the data networking engine.
    • A data bus connecting the two engines.
    • The functions of the two engines being "completely partitioned."
    • A specific data path where the DOCSIS MAC processor forwards processed downstream packets directly to the data networking engine, without the involvement of the DOCSIS controller, to boost throughput.

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

I. The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inflexibility of using predefined "probes" (test signals) for network diagnostics, which limits the ability to characterize communication channels effectively (Compl. ¶173; ’690 Patent, col. 1:49-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method where a receiving node on a network can request a probe from a transmitting node and specify the probe's technical parameters. This allows the receiving node to define the "form" of the diagnostic signal it wants to receive, including its modulation, payload content, and power, thereby tailoring the test to its specific needs (’690 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: This "receiver determined" approach enhances the flexibility and efficiency of network diagnostics, enabling more targeted troubleshooting and channel assessment by the device that is actually analyzing the signal quality (’690 Patent, col. 2:1-9).

II. Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 7 and 8 (Compl. ¶179).
  • Claim 7, a method claim, requires a "probe request" that is generated by a second node and requests a probe that "assists in diagnosing a network problem."
  • Claim 8, a method claim, requires that the "probe request is generated by a network operator and uploaded to the second node."

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system that receives a signal containing a plurality of channels, digitizes the signal, and reports certain signal characteristics back to the signal's source (Compl. ¶202). This technology is applicable to remote network health monitoring.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1-6, 9, and 10 (Compl. ¶208).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality includes Comcast's Proactive Network Maintenance (“PNM”) system, which is alleged to perform remote spectrum monitoring using the Accused Cable Modem and Set Top Products (Compl. ¶¶76, 211).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a wideband receiver system that can down-convert a wide spectrum of frequencies, digitize them, and select desired television channels for output as a digital data stream (Compl. ¶231). This relates to "full band capture" technology, which allows a device to tune to many channels simultaneously.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 11 and 12 (Compl. ¶237).
  • Accused Features: The allegations target Comcast's use of "full band capture-enabled cable modems and STBs" to provide its services (Compl. ¶¶77, 240).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’008 Patent, this patent describes a system that receives, digitizes, and reports signal characteristics of a multi-channel signal to the source of the signal for monitoring purposes (Compl. ¶260).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 9 (Compl. ¶266).
  • Accused Features: The allegations are directed at Comcast's PNM system for remote spectrum monitoring as implemented in its Accused Cable Modem and Set Top Products (Compl. ¶¶76, 269).

VI. 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 that digitized signal (Compl. ¶289). This technology is a component of "full band capture" capabilities in modern set-top boxes.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 27, 28, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42, 47, 50, and 51 (Compl. ¶295).
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegations target Comcast's "full band capture-enabled" Set Top Products used to deliver television services (Compl. ¶¶77, 298).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method of receiving an input signal from a cable network, digitizing the entire input signal, and selecting multiple desired channels from it without selecting undesired channels (Compl. ¶318). This is another patent related to "full band capture" technology.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 13, 14, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 44, 47, and 48 (Compl. ¶324).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Comcast's "full band capture-enabled" cable modems and set-top boxes that digitize and select television channels (Compl. ¶¶77, 327).

VIII. 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 from the digitized signal, and outputs them for demodulation (Compl. ¶343). This invention also pertains to "full band capture" technology.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20 (Compl. ¶349).
  • Accused Features: The allegations are directed at Comcast’s Accused Set Top Products that perform wideband receiving and channel selection as part of the Accused Services (Compl. ¶¶77, 352).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

I. Product Identification

The complaint identifies three categories of accused instrumentalities: "Accused Cable Modem Products" (e.g., Technicolor CGM4140), "Accused Set Top Products" (e.g., Arris AX013ANM, Arris MX011ANM/XG1-A), and the "Accused Services" (Comcast/Xfinity-branded cable television and internet services) provided via those products (Compl. ¶¶1, 6, 82, 122, 152).

II. Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are cable modems and set-top boxes (STBs) that Comcast deploys to customer premises to deliver its Xfinity internet and video services (Compl. ¶¶122, 147). The complaint alleges these devices incorporate specific technologies, including "full band capture" for tuning multiple channels simultaneously and functionalities for "Proactive Network Maintenance" (PNM) that enable remote spectrum monitoring (Compl. ¶¶76-77). The complaint provides an image of the circuit board from an Arris DCX3600 set-top box, which is allegedly used by both Comcast and Charter, showing branding for both 'DCX3600' and 'XG1' (Compl. p. 16, ¶82). These products and services are provided to millions of customers nationwide (Compl. ¶123).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts served in a prior litigation, but those exhibits are not provided. The infringement theory for each lead patent is summarized below based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

I. '775 Patent Infringement Theory

The complaint alleges that Comcast’s Accused Cable Modem Products directly infringe claims 18 and 19 by embodying the patented architecture of a "partitioned cable modem" (Compl. ¶¶143, 149). The infringement theory posits that when these products are deployed and operated by Comcast, they perform both "cable modem functions and data and home networking functions" in a functionally partitioned manner controlled by Comcast (Compl. ¶¶143, 150, 152).

II. '690 Patent Infringement Theory

The complaint alleges that Comcast directly infringes claims 7 and 8 by practicing the patented method when operating its Accused Services and Accused Cable Modem Products (Compl. ¶¶179, 182). The theory is that Comcast's network operations, such as performing "bidirectional communication with cable modems," constitute the claimed process of generating "probe transmissions in response to a request from a receiving node" for network diagnostic purposes (Compl. ¶¶173, 182).

III. Identified Points of Contention

  • '775 Patent: The infringement analysis for the ’775 Patent may focus on questions of architectural scope. Claim 18 requires a "first circuit" and a "second circuit" that are "separate" and "completely partitioned." A central question will be whether the accused products, which may be based on highly integrated System-on-Chip (SoC) designs, meet these structural limitations. The complaint's own visual evidence of a single circuit board for an accused STB may be used to question whether physically "separate" circuits exist as claimed (Compl. p. 16, ¶82). Further, a key technical question is what evidence the complaint provides that the accused products forward data packets directly from the MAC processor to the networking engine while bypassing the DOCSIS controller, as specifically required by the claim.
  • '690 Patent: A primary issue for the ’690 Patent may be one of functional equivalence. The analysis will likely raise the question of whether routine network management communications under the DOCSIS standard, which Comcast allegedly performs, meet the claim requirements of a "probe request" generated by a receiving node for the purpose of "diagnosing a network problem." The dispute may center on whether Comcast’s system performs the specific, receiver-initiated diagnostic process described in the patent, or a more conventional, predefined network polling function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

I. The Term: "completely partitioned" (from ’775 Patent, Claim 18)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement analysis of the ’775 Patent. Its definition will determine whether a modern, integrated cable modem architecture can be seen as infringing a claim that appears to recite a physically divided structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background discusses the need for "functional partitioning" among "computational agents," which could suggest a logical or software-based separation rather than a strict physical one ('775 Patent, col. 1:25-29).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language explicitly recites a "data networking engine implemented in a first circuit" and a "cable modem engine implemented in a second circuit, the second circuit being separate from the first circuit," which suggests a physical separation between two distinct hardware components (’775 Patent, col. 5:11-19).

II. The Term: "probe request" (from ’690 Patent, Claim 7)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to whether standard network communications can be considered infringing. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's contribution appears to be the "receiver determined" nature of the probe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, requiring only a "probe request specifying a first plurality of probe parameters for a physical layer probe" (’690 Patent, col. 14:1-4). This could be argued to encompass a variety of network messages that solicit a response for channel assessment.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title, abstract, and detailed description repeatedly emphasize the concept of a "receiver determined probe," where the node that will be receiving the probe generates the request specifying the probe’s parameters (’690 Patent, Abstract). This suggests the term may be construed to require that the request originates from the analyzing device, not a central network controller sending a generic query.

VI. Other Allegations

I. Indirect Infringement

For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges inducement based on Comcast providing accused products to customers with instructions and assistance for their use in an infringing manner as part of the Accused Services (Compl. ¶¶162, 191). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused products are especially made or adapted for infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing uses when operated as intended within Comcast's system (Compl. ¶¶163-164, 192-193).

II. Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged to arise from Comcast’s 2006 investment in Plaintiff's predecessor, Plaintiff’s prominent lawsuits against competitors like Charter, and a direct written notice sent to Comcast on August 9, 2022 (Compl. ¶¶26, 72-76, 97-98, 158-159). Post-suit willfulness is alleged based on Comcast’s continued infringement after being served with the complaint and infringement contentions in the prior litigation beginning in February 2023 (Compl. ¶¶101-117).

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

  • A threshold issue will be one of contractual obligation: Is Entropic, as a successor-in-interest, bound by the covenant not to sue contained within the Vendor Support Agreement between its predecessor, MaxLinear, and Comcast, and if so, what is the scope and effect of that covenant on this litigation?
  • A central technical dispute will be one of architectural scope: Can the '775 patent's claim language requiring "separate" and "completely partitioned" circuits be construed to read on modern, highly integrated System-on-Chip (SoC) hardware used in the accused cable modems, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed architecture and the accused devices?
  • A key evidentiary question across multiple patents will be one of functional equivalence: Does Comcast's implementation of standard DOCSIS network management and "full band capture" functionalities perform the specific, multi-step methods required by the asserted claims (e.g., a "receiver determined probe"), or do the accused systems operate in a technically distinct, non-infringing manner?