DCT

3:20-cv-06469

Dali Wireless Inc v. Corning Optica

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:20-cv-06469, N.D. Cal., 09/20/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a North Carolina company and is therefore deemed to reside in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SpiderCloud Enterprise Radio Access Network (E-RAN) infringes three patents related to the dynamic optimization of wireless signal distribution and frequency reuse in Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS).
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for intelligently managing radio resources in complex wireless networks, such as in-building cellular systems, to improve signal coverage, capacity, and quality of service by automatically adapting to changing traffic loads.
  • Key Procedural History: This action is based on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges an extensive pre-litigation history between the parties, including discussions regarding a potential strategic partnership and acquisition, during which Defendant allegedly conducted due diligence on Plaintiff’s patent portfolio. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of all three patents-in-suit before the claims were formally asserted.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-05-18 U.S. Patent No. 9,197,358 Priority Date
2012-07-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,433,261 Priority Date
2012-07-31 U.S. Patent No. 10,506,454 Priority Date
2015-11-24 U.S. Patent No. 9,197,358 Issue Date
2016-10-14 Complaint alleges Corning's in-house counsel learned of the '358 Patent
2017-07-01 Corning acquires SpiderCloud Wireless
2019-10-01 U.S. Patent No. 10,433,261 Issue Date
2019-12-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,506,454 Issue Date
2020-04-08 Complaint alleges Corning's in-house counsel learned of the '261 Patent
2020-04-15 Complaint alleges Corning's in-house counsel learned of the '454 Patent
2021-09-20 Second Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,433,261 - "Self-optimizing Distributed Antenna System Using Soft Frequency Reuse"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,433,261, issued October 1, 2019 (the "’261 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the common issue of unbalanced traffic distributions in cellular networks, which can decrease the number of satisfied users and lead to inefficient performance. Manually adjusting network parameters is often suboptimal as traffic conditions are dynamic. (’261 Patent, col. 1:56-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) to self-optimize. The system sets a power differential between a reference carrier and other carriers, measures a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) such as the "number of satisfied users," and then iteratively adjusts the power differential to maximize that KPI, thereby dynamically balancing network throughput. (’261 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-34).
  • Technical Importance: This automated optimization allows a wireless network to adapt to real-time traffic variations, aiming to improve Quality of Service (QoS) for users, particularly at the cell edge, without requiring manual intervention. (’261 Patent, col. 2:8-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
  • The essential elements of claim 1, a method, are:
    • a) setting a transmission power level for the DRU;
    • b) determining a key performance indicator related to a number of satisfied users at the transmission power;
    • c) iteratively adjusting a transmission power level for the DRU to increase the key performance indicator related to the number of satisfied users; and
    • d) setting the transmission power level for the DRU at an iterated power level. (Compl. ¶25).
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," which may suggest a reservation of the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶22).

U.S. Patent No. 9,197,358 - "Method and System for Soft Frequency Reuse in a Distributed Antenna System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,197,358, issued November 24, 2015 (the "’358 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for improved methods of distributing communication frequencies in wireless systems like DAS to enhance quality of service and data throughput, particularly by managing interference between adjacent cells. (’358 Patent, col. 1:38-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a soft frequency reuse (SFR) method where adjacent communication units (e.g., antennas) manage overlapping coverage areas, or "geographic footprints." A first unit uses a specific frequency band in its central footprint and a different band in a larger, surrounding footprint. An adjacent second unit reuses the first unit's central frequency band in its own central footprint but uses a different frequency band at its periphery to mitigate interference where the cells meet. (’358 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This technique allows for aggressive frequency reuse in the high-signal central areas of cells while using different frequencies at the cell edges to reduce inter-cell interference, thereby improving overall system capacity and performance for users at cell boundaries. (’358 Patent, col. 1:41-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶77).
  • The essential elements of claim 7, a method, include:
    • Providing a set of communications units.
    • A first unit transmitting/receiving a first set of frequencies in a first geographic footprint and a second, different set of frequencies in a second, larger surrounding footprint.
    • A second unit transmitting/receiving a third set of frequencies (including frequencies from the first set) in a third geographic footprint.
    • The second unit also transmitting/receiving a fourth set of frequencies in a fourth, larger footprint surrounding the third. (Compl. ¶79).
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," which may suggest a reservation of the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶77).

U.S. Patent No. 10,506,454 - "Optimization of Traffic Load in a Distributed Antenna System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,506,454, issued December 10, 2019 (the "’454 Patent").

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a system to address dynamic traffic loads in a DAS. The claimed solution includes a traffic monitoring unit that determines Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Quality of Service (QoS) for network traffic. Based on these metrics, the system can reconfigure a plurality of network "sectors" by reallocating at least one Digital Remote Unit (DRU) from one sector to another to optimize performance. (’454 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶99).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that Corning's SpiderCloud E-RAN system infringes, with the Services Node functioning as the claimed Digital Access Unit (DAU) and traffic monitoring unit, and the Radio Nodes functioning as the DRUs. The infringement theory focuses on the system's ability to monitor network congestion and reconfigure sectors (e.g., by reducing power in a congested cell while powering up another) to manage traffic load. (Compl. ¶¶105-108).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is Defendant's SpiderCloud Enterprise Radio Access Network (“E-RAN”) System, which includes the SpiderCloud Services Node and various Radio Nodes (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the E-RAN system as comprising a rack-unit-sized "Services Node" that manages multiple "Radio Nodes," which function as small cell access points (Compl. p. 6). The system's core functionality is orchestrated by a "self-organizing network (SON)" process, which automates network configuration and optimization. The complaint highlights a "Periodic Optimization and Self-Maintenance" feature where the Services Node "periodically adjusts the transmit power levels in order to achieve uniform coverage," using "periodic signal quality measurements made by user devices" to fine-tune the network (Compl. p. 7). The complaint also describes the system's use of a "centrally coordinated dynamic fractional frequency reuse" scheme to manage inter-cell interference (Compl. ¶83). The table of "Radio Node Family" models in the complaint shows various available radio nodes with different band capabilities (Compl. p. 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'261 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a) setting a transmission power level for the DRU; The Services node sets and "periodically adjusts the transmit power levels" of the Radio Nodes to achieve uniform coverage. ¶28 col. 2:21-24
b) determining a key performance indicator related to a number of satisfied users at the transmission power; The system uses "periodic signal quality measurements made by user devices" to fine-tune the network, which the complaint alleges are KPIs used to ensure users achieve a targeted service bitrate. ¶29 col. 2:25-27
c) iteratively adjusting a transmission power level for the DRU to increase the key performance indicator related to the number of satisfied users; and The complaint alleges that multiple references to "periodically" adjusting power levels based on user device measurements indicate that the adjustments are iterative in nature. The complaint provides a screenshot of Corning's literature describing this periodic optimization (Compl. p. 7). ¶30 col. 2:28-31
d) setting the transmission power level for the DRU at an iterated power level. Because the system "periodically adjusts" the transmit power based on measurements, the complaint alleges the power is necessarily "set" at the resulting iterated level. ¶31 col. 2:32-34
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system's "periodic signal quality measurements made by user devices" (Compl. ¶29) meets the claim limitation of "determining a key performance indicator related to a number of satisfied users." A defendant could argue that general signal quality is a different and broader metric than a specific count or percentage of users achieving a target bitrate.
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory equates the accused product's "periodic" adjustments with the claim's requirement for "iteratively adjusting" the power level. This raises the question of whether the accused system's process is truly iterative (i.e., where each adjustment is based on the result of the prior one) or simply a periodic recalculation based on new data, which may not meet the claim's procedural requirement.

'358 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
[A] providing a set of communications units; The SpiderCloud system provides a "set of communication units" by connecting multiple Radio Nodes to a Services Node. ¶82 col. 2:40-42
[B] transmitting and receiving, from a first communications unit... [C] a first set of frequencies characterized by a first frequency band and a first geographic footprint; The complaint alleges a first Radio Node transmits and receives a first set of frequencies within its "radio coverage area," which it defines as the first geographic footprint, specifically the "cell interior." This theory relies heavily on a figure from Corning's own '205 patent, reproduced in the complaint, to illustrate the concept (Compl. p. 17). ¶¶83, 85 col. 2:45-51
[D] a second set of frequencies... larger than and at least partially surrounding the first geographic footprint; The system's "dynamic fractional frequency reuse" scheme allegedly uses a different, second set of frequencies for the "outer areas" or "cell edge," which constitutes a second, larger geographic footprint surrounding the cell interior. ¶¶86, 87 col. 2:51-56
[E] transmitting, and receiving, from a second communications unit... [F] a third set of frequencies including one or more frequencies in the first frequency band and a third geographical footprint; An adjacent (second) Radio Node allegedly reuses the same frequencies as the first unit's interior ("the first frequency band") within its own interior ("a third geographical footprint"). ¶¶88, 90 col. 2:57-62
[G] a fourth set of frequencies... larger than and at least partially surrounding the third geographical footprint. The second Radio Node allegedly uses a different, third frequency band for its cell edge, creating a fourth geographic footprint that is larger than and surrounds its interior. ¶¶91, 92 col. 2:62-67
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies on descriptions of "dynamic fractional frequency reuse" from Defendant's own patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,510,205). A primary question will be whether the accused E-RAN product actually practices the methods described in the '205 patent in a manner that maps onto every element of the asserted claim of the ’358 Patent.
    • Technical Questions: The case may turn on whether the accused system's "cell interior" and "cell edge" concepts (Compl. ¶86) correspond to the claimed "first geographic footprint" and "second geographic footprint larger than and at least partially surrounding the first." The precise technical definition and relationship between these coverage areas will be a key point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’261 Patent

  • The Term: "key performance indicator related to a number of satisfied users" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The infringement case for the ’261 Patent hinges on whether the accused system's metric—"periodic signal quality measurements made by user devices" (Compl. ¶29)—falls within the scope of this claim term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the accused functionality meets this central limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses optimizing the network to provide a "high quality of service (QoS)," which is a broad concept that could encompass various metrics, including general signal quality measurements. (’261 Patent, col. 1:40-41).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly and specifically refers to the "number of satisfied users" and defines them as "the users that can achieve a targeted service bitrate." (’261 Patent, col. 2:25-27; Abstract). This suggests the KPI may need to be a direct measure of users meeting a specific data rate threshold, not just a general signal quality metric.

For the ’358 Patent

  • The Term: "geographic footprint" (Claim 7)
  • Context and Importance: Claim 7 is structurally defined by the relationships between four distinct "geographic footprints." The viability of the infringement claim depends on mapping the accused system's "cell interior" and "cell edge" coverage zones onto this claimed structure of nested and surrounding footprints.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition for "geographic footprint," which may support an interpretation that it simply means any "radio coverage area," as the complaint alleges by citing Defendant's own patent. (Compl. ¶85).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's context is "soft frequency reuse," and the claim language requires a specific spatial relationship (e.g., a "second geographic footprint larger than and at least partially surrounding the first"). This suggests the term is not arbitrary but refers to technically distinct and concentric coverage zones created by different frequency sets and power levels, akin to the "cell interior" and "cell edge" concepts. (’358 Patent, col. 2:45-56).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes standard allegations of direct and indirect infringement for all patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶22, 77, 99). However, it does not plead specific facts to support a theory of induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendant instructs its customers to operate the accused system in an infringing manner.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is "particularly brazen, and therefore willful" (Compl. ¶35). The basis for this allegation is extensive pre-suit knowledge, derived from a detailed history of business dealings between the parties that allegedly included partnership discussions, acquisition talks, and Defendant's "extensive due diligence" on Plaintiff's patent portfolio (Compl. ¶¶41-55). The complaint also provides specific dates on which it alleges Defendant's in-house counsel became aware of each of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶37-39).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional mapping: can the accused E-RAN system’s use of "periodic signal quality measurements" be proven to function as the "key performance indicator related to a number of satisfied users," as required by the '261 Patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the metrics?
  • A second central question will be one of operational equivalence: does the accused system's alleged "dynamic fractional frequency reuse" scheme, which the complaint largely defines by referencing Defendant's own patent, actually operate in a way that creates the specific nested structure of four distinct "geographic footprints" required by claim 7 of the '358 Patent?
  • Finally, the detailed allegations of pre-suit interactions raise a significant question regarding willfulness: what was the extent of Defendant's knowledge of Plaintiff's technology and patent portfolio from the prior business dealings, and could this knowledge establish the egregious conduct required for an enhancement of damages?