Huang v. Common Networks Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Xiaohua Huang (California), Pro Se
  • Defendant: Common Networks Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
• Case Identification: 3:20-cv-03838, N.D. Cal., 06/11/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant having its main offices in San Francisco and generating revenue from infringing products within the Northern District of California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 5G networking routers and switches infringe three patents related to high-speed, low-power Content Addressable Memory (CAM) and Ternary CAM (TCAM) circuits.
• Technical Context: TCAM is a specialized high-speed memory used in networking hardware to accelerate packet forwarding, classification, and access control list lookups by performing parallel searches.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff informed Defendant of its infringement of at least one of the patents-in-suit in January 2020, five months prior to filing the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,744,653 - CAM cells and differential sense circuit for content addressable memory (CAM)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,744,653, “CAM cells and differential sense circuit for content addressable memory (CAM),” issued June 1, 2004.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes performance limitations in conventional Content Addressable Memory (CAM) designs, noting that speed can be limited by the need for a single mismatched transistor to discharge the entire capacitance of a long "match line," and that significant power is consumed by pulling down the match lines for all non-matching rows during a search operation (’653 Patent, col. 1:56 - col. 2:13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a "dummy CAM cell" and an associated "dummy line" for each row of the memory array (’653 Patent, Abstract). This architecture enables a differential sense amplifier to detect a much smaller voltage difference between the actual match line and the reference dummy line, which allows for faster match/mismatch determinations while consuming less power than discharging the line fully to ground (’653 Patent, col. 2:14-39; Fig. 1B).
  • Technical Importance: This differential sensing approach addressed a critical bottleneck in networking hardware, enabling the design of faster and more power-efficient routers and switches capable of handling higher data rates.
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 15 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites the core elements of a single CAM cell:
    • A memory cell operable to store a bit value;
    • A comparison circuit coupled to the memory cell to detect the stored bit value;
    • An output transistor coupled to a match line, configured to drive the match line based on the detected bit value; and
    • A dummy transistor coupled to a dummy line, configured to provide a drive for the dummy line based on an inverted detected bit value, where the match and dummy lines are used to detect outputs from other CAM cells.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶18).

---

U.S. Patent No. 6,999,331 - CAM CELLS AND DIFFERENTIAL SENSE CIRCUITS FOR CONTENT ADDRESSABLE MEMORY (CAM)

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,999,331, “CAM CELLS AND DIFFERENTIAL SENSE CIRCUITS FOR CONTENT ADDRESSABLE MEMORY (CAM),” issued February 14, 2006.
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’653 Patent, this patent addresses the same speed and power consumption issues in conventional CAMs, specifically in the context of Ternary CAMs (TCAMs) which can store "don't care" states in addition to 0s and 1s (’331 Patent, col. 1:11-19).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a TCAM system architecture that incorporates the differential sensing concept. It describes an array of TCAM cells with corresponding match lines and dummy lines, a dedicated column of "dummy TCAM (DTCAM) cells" to provide a reference, and a sense amplifier connected to both the match and dummy lines for each row to determine the result (’331 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:23-44).
  • Technical Importance: The invention extends the power and speed benefits of differential sensing to TCAMs, which are fundamental components for implementing advanced networking features like Access Control Lists (ACLs) and Quality of Service (QoS).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 9 (Compl. ¶24).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites the elements of a TCAM system:
    • An array of TCAM cells arranged in rows and columns;
    • A plurality of match lines and dummy lines, one of each per row;
    • A column of dummy TCAM (DTCAM) cells connected to the match and dummy line in each row;
    • A sense amplifier connected to the match line and the dummy line in each row; and
    • Current sources connected to the match and dummy lines.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶24).

---

U.S. Patent No. RE45,259 - Hit ahead hierarchical scalable priority encoding logic and circuits

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE45,259, “Hit ahead hierarchical scalable priority encoding logic and circuits,” reissued November 25, 2014.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of efficiently determining the highest-priority match in a CAM/TCAM when multiple entries match a search query. It discloses a "Hit Ahead Priority Encoding" (HAPE) method where a preliminary "hit" signal is generated at each level of a hierarchical encoder to accelerate the priority decision for the subsequent level, improving speed and scalability (’RE259 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-14).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 7 and dependent claim 13 (Compl. ¶30).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "TCAM" in the accused products infringes by implementing features such as "priority encoding" and "hierarchical priority encoding" (Compl. ¶¶11(g), 11(h), 30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "5G networking Router" and "Switches" used and sold by Defendant Common Networks, Inc. (Compl. ¶18, 24, 30). Specific products identified include an "In-Home Access Point" and a "Common Networks Outdoor Router" (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these products are used to build a network to provide 5G communication services (Compl. ¶14).
• Alleged technical features include "five 1000 Mbps Ethernet ports with PoE" and a "Cloud-controlled software-defined network" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges these products use TCAM to perform functions such as access control list (ACL) and Quality of Service (QoS) lookups (Compl. ¶¶10, 13).
• The complaint alleges that these products generate revenue for the Defendant in the United States (Compl. ¶3).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that TCAMs within networking chips used in the accused routers contain infringing features, identified through "Data sheet, reverse engineering and information obtained" (Compl. ¶11). The allegations are not presented in a formal claim chart but are summarized below.

• ’653 Patent Infringement Allegations

• ’331 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations are based on "information and belief" and list generic features of TCAMs without providing specific evidence (e.g., datasheets, reverse engineering reports, or product screenshots) linking the accused routers to the claimed circuit-level architecture. A central question will be whether the complaint provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused routers, which are described at a high system level (e.g., "Quad-core ARM processor"), actually contain the specific transistor-level structures required by the claims. For example, does the TCAM in the accused products implement differential sensing using a dedicated "dummy line" and "dummy transistor" architecture as claimed in the ’653 and ’331 patents, or does it use an alternative method?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "dummy transistor" (’653 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the core novelty of the ’653 Patent. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused devices contain a structure that meets the definition of a "dummy transistor" that is coupled to a "dummy line" and provides a reference signal for differential sensing. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegations of a "dummy TCAM cell" and "dummy line" are conclusory and do not describe the specific structure or function of the accused components.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not impose specific structural limitations on the "dummy transistor" beyond its coupling to a dummy line and its function of providing a drive based on an inverted bit value, which could suggest any transistor serving a reference-generation role might qualify.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific embodiments where the dummy transistor has a particular physical dimension relative to the output transistor (e.g., x=0.5, or half the size) and is physically located in close proximity to it, suggesting a narrower construction tied to these disclosed characteristics (’653 Patent, col. 6:21-44; Fig. 2E).

---

• The Term: "a column of dummy TCAM (DTCAM) cells" (’331 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines a specific physical architecture for the memory array. Infringement of the ’331 patent requires showing that the accused products' TCAMs are organized with an entire, distinct column of dummy cells, one for each row, to generate the reference signals. This contrasts with other possible architectures, such as a single reference generator for the entire array.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any set of reference-generating circuits, even if not physically organized into a neat column, could meet this limitation if they collectively perform the function of a "column of dummy... cells."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1B of the patent explicitly illustrates a distinct physical column (124) of "Dummy CAM cell" structures, separate from the main array (122) of CAM cells. This visual depiction strongly supports an interpretation requiring a specific physical layout of the memory array (’331 Patent, Fig. 1B).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement theory is based on Defendant's customers using the TCAM functionality of the accused routers (Compl. ¶¶13, 19). The contributory infringement theory is based on Defendant selling the routers as components of an infringing internet system (Compl. ¶¶13, 20).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the ’653 patent based on Plaintiff having "informed Common Networks Inc. on January, 2020 that it has infringed US patent No. 6744653" (Compl. ¶12). This alleges pre-suit knowledge.

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

This case appears to present three central questions for the court:

• Pleading sufficiency: A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint, filed pro se, provide more than conclusory labels for generic TCAM components? The court will need to determine if alleging the presence of a "dummy line" and "differential sense amplifier" without further factual support is sufficient to state a plausible claim for infringement of the specific circuit-level architectures claimed in the patents.
• Architectural identity: A key technical question will be one of architectural identity: Assuming the case proceeds, discovery will focus on whether the TCAMs in Defendant’s products practice the specific differential sensing architecture claimed in the ’653 and ’331 patents—namely, the use of a row-by-row dummy cell and dummy line structure—or if they employ a non-infringing alternative to achieve high-speed, low-power operation.
• Scope of priority encoding: A third question concerns the scope of priority encoding: For the ’RE259 patent, the dispute will likely turn on whether the alleged "hierarchical priority encoding" in the accused products meets the specific "Hit Ahead" limitation, which requires a multi-level process where a hit signal from a lower level is generated early to participate in the next level's priority calculation.