DCT
2:25-cv-11402
Entropic Communications LLC v. Comcast Corp
Key Events
Complaint
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 (Pennsylvania / Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: K&L Gates LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-11402, C.D. Cal., 11/26/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendants operate regular and established places of business in the district, including branded retail stores, and have located infringing Cable Modem Termination Systems within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cable network systems and services infringe patents related to methods for dynamically managing communication parameters in hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) networks to improve efficiency and capacity.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of optimizing data transmission speeds in cable networks where end-user modems experience varying signal quality, a critical factor for network operators seeking to maximize bandwidth.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior pending action between the same parties in the same district (Case No. 23-cv-1050) concerning the same patents, noting that a covenant-not-to-sue that was at issue in the prior case has now expired. The complaint also alleges Defendant had notice of the patents-in-suit through Plaintiff’s litigation against Charter Communications and through direct communications. The complaint further notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute inter partes review proceedings against the ’682 Patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-07-23 | Earliest Priority Date for ’682 and ’438 Patents |
| 2018-01-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,866,438 Issues |
| 2018-11-20 | U.S. Patent No. 10,135,682 Issues |
| 2022-04-27 | Entropic files suit against Charter, asserting the ’682 Patent |
| 2022-08-09 | Entropic sends communication to Comcast regarding its patent portfolio |
| 2023-02-16 | Comcast accepts service of original complaint in prior litigation (Case No. 23-cv-01050) |
| 2023-05-23 | MaxLinear (Entropic predecessor) sends notice of early termination for a Vendor Support Agreement |
| 2023-06-05 | Comcast served with First Amended Complaint in prior litigation |
| 2023-09-15 | Entropic serves ’682 Patent infringement contentions on Comcast in prior litigation |
| 2023-11-03 | Entropic serves ’438 Patent infringement contentions on Comcast in prior litigation |
| 2025-08-22 | Alleged latest termination date of the Vendor Support Agreement |
| 2025-11-26 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,135,682 - "Method and System for Service Group Management in a Cable Network"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "lowest common denominator" problem in hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) cable networks, where the performance of all cable modems on a segment is limited by the modem with the worst signal quality (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, or SNR) (Compl. ¶¶123-125, 146). Prior art solutions that used fixed, pre-set "logical channels" were inflexible and could not adapt to changing network conditions (Compl. ¶¶126-129).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method performed by a Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) to dynamically optimize network performance. The CMTS measures an "SNR-related metric" for each cable modem, assigns modems with similar metrics into "service groups," and then generates a "composite SNR-related metric" for each group based on the "worst-case SNR profile" within that group. Based on this composite metric, the CMTS selects and applies optimal physical layer communication parameters (e.g., modulation order) for all modems in the group, allowing modems in high-quality groups to communicate at higher speeds (’682 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶133). The general structure of the HFC network where this invention operates is depicted in Figure 1 of the patent (Compl. p. 20, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This dynamic grouping allows cable operators to increase overall network capacity and deliver faster speeds to customers without undertaking costly physical infrastructure upgrades (Compl. ¶145).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-5 and 9, with independent claim 1 being central (Compl. ¶158).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- Determining, by a CMTS, a corresponding SNR-related metric for each cable modem.
- Assigning each cable modem to one of a plurality of service groups based on its corresponding SNR-related metric.
- Generating, for each service group, a composite SNR-related metric based at least in part on a worst-case SNR profile of the metrics corresponding to that group.
- Selecting one or more physical layer communication parameters for the group based on the composite SNR-related metric.
- Communicating with the modems in the group using the selected parameter(s).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but asserts claims 2-5 and 9.
U.S. Patent No. 9,866,438 - "Method and System for Service Group Management in a Cable Network"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’438 Patent, a parent to the ’682 Patent, addresses the same technical problem of inefficiently managing network resources in HFC networks where different modems experience varied and changing channel conditions (Compl. ¶¶109, 123).
- The Patented Solution: The ’438 Patent discloses the same core solution: a CMTS that determines performance metrics for modems, assigns them to service groups based on those metrics, generates a group-level composite metric from a worst-case profile, and selects communication parameters based on that composite metric (’438 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶171). The patent's detailed description explains the various components of an HFC network, such as amplifiers and splitters, that contribute to the signal quality variations the invention aims to manage (’438 Patent, col. 3:20-48).
- Technical Importance: The method enables more efficient use of existing network infrastructure, allowing for higher data throughput by tailoring communication parameters to the actual conditions experienced by groups of users (Compl. ¶¶136-138).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-5 and 9, with independent claim 1 being central (Compl. ¶174).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are substantively identical to those of the ’682 Patent’s claim 1, requiring the steps of determining SNR metrics, assigning modems to service groups, generating a composite metric from a worst-case profile, selecting parameters based on that metric, and communicating with a portion of the modems in the group using those parameters.
- The complaint asserts claims 2-5 and 9.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Comcast's "Xfinity" branded cable television, internet, and phone services and associated HFC network equipment, including its Cable Modem Termination Systems (CMTS) and customer-premises cable modems (Compl. ¶¶6, 21, 110-111).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Comcast's network utilizes a "Profile Management Application" ("PMA") system to manage network communications (Compl. ¶83). This PMA system allegedly "generates and transacts D3.1 downstream (DS) profiles" in a manner that practices the claimed methods (Compl. ¶¶103, 106). The complaint provides a diagram of an example HFC network, showing the relationship between a CMTS, fiber nodes, splitters, and end-user cable modems (Compl. p. 20, Fig. 1). Citing publications by a Comcast engineer, the complaint alleges that Comcast's PMA implementation has yielded significant network "capacity improvements of more than 30%" and is considered "essential" to network operations (Compl. ¶¶142, 144).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 10,135,682 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining, by a cable modem termination system (CMTS), for each cable modem served by said CMTS, a corresponding signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) related metric; | Comcast's CMTS, as part of its PMA system, determines performance metrics for connected cable modems. | ¶¶103, 155 | col. 8:1-5 |
| assigning, by said CMTS, each cable modem among a plurality of service groups based on a respective corresponding SNR-related metric; | The PMA system assigns cable modems into groups based on their respective performance metrics. | ¶¶103, 155 | col. 8:6-9 |
| generating, by said CMTS for each one of said plurality of service groups, a composite SNR-related metric based at least in part on a worst-case SNR profile... | The PMA system generates a D3.1 downstream profile for each group based on the performance of the modems within it, allegedly corresponding to a worst-case profile. | ¶¶103, 133, 155 | col. 8:10-15 |
| selecting, by said CMTS, one or more physical layer communication parameter to be used for communicating with said one of said plurality of service groups based on said composite SNR-related metric; | The PMA system selects communication parameters (e.g., modulation order) for each group based on the generated D3.1 profile. | ¶¶103, 155 | col. 8:16-20 |
| communicating, by said CMTS, with one or more cable modems corresponding to said one of said plurality of service groups using said selected one or more physical layer communication parameter. | Comcast's CMTS communicates with the cable modems in each group using the selected communication parameters. | ¶¶103, 155 | col. 8:21-24 |
U.S. Patent No. 9,866,438 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining, by a cable modem termination system (CMTS), for a plurality of cable modems served by said CMTS, a corresponding plurality of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) related metrics; | Comcast's CMTS, as part of its PMA system, determines performance metrics for connected cable modems. | ¶¶106, 171 | col. 8:1-5 |
| assigning, by said CMTS, said plurality of cable modems among a plurality of service groups based on said plurality of SNR-related metrics; | The PMA system assigns cable modems into groups based on their respective performance metrics. | ¶¶106, 171 | col. 8:6-9 |
| generating, by said CMTS for each one of said plurality of service groups, a composite SNR-related metric based at least in part on a worst-case SNR profile... | The PMA system generates a D3.1 downstream profile for each group based on the performance of the modems within it, allegedly corresponding to a worst-case profile. | ¶¶106, 171 | col. 8:10-14 |
| selecting, by said CMTS, physical layer communication parameters to be used for communicating with said one of said plurality of service groups based on said composite SNR-related metric; | The PMA system selects communication parameters for each group based on the generated D3.1 profile. | ¶¶106, 171 | col. 8:15-19 |
| communicating, by said CMTS, with a portion of said plurality of cable modems... using said selected physical layer communication parameters. | Comcast's CMTS communicates with the cable modems in each group using the selected communication parameters. | ¶¶106, 171 | col. 8:20-23 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "service group" requires a grouping based on physical network topology, as shown in certain patent figures, or if it can be read more broadly to cover the logical groupings allegedly performed by Comcast's PMA software.
- Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether Comcast's "D3.1 downstream (DS) profiles" are technically equivalent to the claimed "composite SNR-related metric based at least in part on a worst-case SNR profile." The evidence presented in the complaint relies on high-level descriptions of Comcast's PMA system, raising the question of how precisely that system's operation maps to the specific steps recited in the claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "service groups"
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the asserted claims, as the invention is premised on assigning modems to these groups. The viability of the infringement case depends on whether Comcast's alleged method of organizing modems via its PMA system constitutes the formation of "service groups" as claimed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not impose structural or topological limitations, requiring only that assignment to a group be "based on a respective corresponding SNR-related metric" (’682 Patent, col. 8:6-9). This functional language may support a construction that is not tied to physical network layout.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's exemplary embodiments in Figures 4A and 4B depict service groups formed based on physical location, such as the number of "coupling elements" between the modem and the CMTS or which "trunk amplifiers are downstream of the CMs" (’682 Patent, col. 6:45-65). This may support an argument that the term is implicitly limited by these topological examples.
The Term: "composite SNR-related metric based at least in part on a worst-case SNR profile"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core technical mechanism for optimizing communication parameters. The infringement case hinges on whether the "D3.1 downstream profiles" allegedly generated by Comcast's system meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on whether "generating" this metric requires a specific calculation or if selecting a pre-existing profile that satisfies the worst-case modem's needs is sufficient.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "based at least in part on" is typically construed broadly. The specification states that parameters for a group "may be determined based on the worst case SNR for that subcarrier among the CMs in that particular service group," suggesting a functional relationship rather than a specific algorithm (’682 Patent, col. 5:42-46).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification includes Figure 2B, which explicitly depicts a "composite worst-case SNR profile" (line 222) as a distinct data representation (’682 Patent, Fig. 2B). This could support an argument that the claim requires the explicit creation of such a composite profile, rather than simply selecting a set of parameters appropriate for the worst-performing modem in a group.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes passing reference to indirect infringement but does not plead specific facts to support claims of inducement or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Comcast instructs third parties on how to perform the claimed methods (Compl. ¶¶158, 174). The primary focus of the factual allegations is direct infringement by Comcast.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit from multiple sources. These include alleged awareness of a suit Plaintiff filed against Charter Communications on the ’682 Patent in April 2022; a direct communication from Plaintiff in August 2022; and service of the complaint and detailed infringement contentions in a prior litigation beginning in February 2023 (Compl. ¶¶81, 93, 101, 160-163). Plaintiff alleges that despite this knowledge, Comcast continued its infringing activities (Compl. ¶108).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical mapping: Does the operational logic of Comcast's accused Profile Management Application (PMA) system perform the specific sequence of steps recited in the claims? The case will likely depend on evidence demonstrating whether the generation of "D3.1 downstream profiles" is equivalent to the claimed step of "generating a composite SNR-related metric based at least in part on a worst-case SNR profile."
- A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "service group," which is illustrated in the specification with examples tied to physical network topology, be construed broadly enough to read on the logical, performance-based groupings allegedly created by Comcast’s software?
- An underlying factual dispute may concern the impact of the prior VSA: While Plaintiff argues the now-expired Vendor Support Agreement with its predecessor-in-interest does not bar this suit, the history of the parties' contractual relationship may be raised to contest the allegations of willfulness.