DCT

1:14-cv-00954

TQ Delta LLC v. ADTRAN Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:14-cv-00954, D. Del., 07/17/2014
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation in the state and its regular course of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) customer premise equipment and central office equipment infringe thirty-two patents related to technologies for multicarrier communications, which Plaintiff asserts are essential to practicing various ITU-T DSL standards.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology, a key method for providing broadband internet access to homes and businesses over existing copper telephone infrastructure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details nearly a year of pre-suit licensing negotiations between the parties, beginning in July 2013. These alleged interactions included a formal letter, a WebEx presentation of exemplary claim charts by Plaintiff, and the execution of a Mutual Standstill & Confidentiality Agreement. Plaintiff's detailed account of these events provides a basis for its allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-01-26 Priority Date for U.S. Pat. No. 6,445,730
1999-04-26 Defendant allegedly gained knowledge of ITU IPR warnings
1999-11-09 Priority Date for U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,090,008, 8,073,041, 7,292,627, 7,471,721, 8,218,610, 8,355,427
2002-09-03 U.S. Pat. No. 6445730 Issued
2007-11-06 U.S. Pat. No. 7292627 Issued
2008-11-18 U.S. Pat. No. 7,453,881 Issued
2008-12-30 U.S. Pat. No. 7471721 Issued
2010-10-05 U.S. Pat. No. 7,809,028 Issued
2011-07-12 U.S. Pat. No. 7,978,706 Issued
2011-07-12 U.S. Pat. No. 7,979,778 Issued
2011-07-12 U.S. Pat. No. 7,978,753 Issued
2011-12-06 U.S. Pat. No. 8073041 Issued
2012-01-03 U.S. Pat. No. 8090008 Issued
2012-07-10 U.S. Pat. No. 8218610 Issued
2013-01-15 U.S. Pat. No. 8355427 Issued
2013-04-16 U.S. Pat. No. 8,422,511 Issued
2013-05-07 U.S. Pat. No. 8,437,382 Issued
2013-06-11 U.S. Pat. No. 8,462,835 Issued
2013-07-15 Plaintiff sends first licensing negotiation letter to Defendant
2013-11-08 Parties execute a Mutual Standstill & Confidentiality Agreement
2013-11-26 U.S. Pat. No. 8,594,162 Issued
2013-12-16 Parties engage in WebEx meeting with claim chart presentation
2013-12-17 U.S. Pat. No. 8,611,404 Issued
2014-01-07 U.S. Pat. No. 8,625,660 Issued
2014-07-17 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,090,008 - “System and Method for Scrambling the Phase of the Carriers in a Multicarrier Communications System,” Issued Jan. 3, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In multicarrier communication systems like DSL, the transmission signal is a combination of many individual carrier signals. The patent background explains that if the phases of these carriers align, they can create signals with a high peak-to-average power ratio (PAR) (’627 Patent, col. 1:56-2:6). High PAR can lead to signal distortion ("clipping"), increased power consumption, and require more expensive, linear hardware components ('627 Patent, col. 2:3-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to reduce PAR by "scrambling" the phase of each carrier signal before data is modulated onto it (’008 Patent, Abstract). This is achieved by computing a phase shift for each carrier based on a value that is independent of the data bits being transmitted (e.g., a pseudo-random number or the carrier's index number) and combining this shift with the carrier's original phase characteristic ('627 Patent, col. 5:27-6:47). This randomization prevents the carrier phases from aligning constructively, thereby lowering the overall signal's peak power.
  • Technical Importance: By reducing the peak-to-average power ratio, this technique allows for more efficient power usage and the use of less complex, more cost-effective components in DSL transceivers, which is critical for mass-market broadband deployment ('627 Patent, col. 2:1-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more claims without specifying which are asserted (Compl. ¶44). Independent claim 1 of the ’008 Patent is representative and includes the following essential elements:
    • A method for scrambling phase characteristics of a plurality of carrier signals in a first multicarrier transceiver.
    • Associating each carrier signal with a value determined independently of any input bit value carried by that signal, where the value is determined using a pseudo-random number generator.
    • Computing a phase shift for each carrier signal based on its associated value.
    • Combining the computed phase shift with the phase characteristic of that carrier signal to substantially scramble the phase characteristics.
    • Using multiple carrier signals corresponding to the scrambled signals to modulate the same bit value.

U.S. Patent No. 8,073,041 - “System and Method for Descrambling the Phase of the Carriers in a Multicarrier Communications System,” Issued Dec. 6, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent addresses the receiver-side challenge corresponding to the '008 Patent's invention: how to correctly recover data from a signal where the carrier phases have been intentionally scrambled (’041 Patent, Abstract). Without a corresponding descrambling process, the modulated data would be unintelligible.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes the complementary method for a receiver to descramble the carrier phases ('041 Patent, Abstract). The receiver must use the same value (e.g., the same pseudo-random number from the same seed) that the transmitter used for scrambling to compute the corresponding phase shift for each carrier ('627 Patent, col. 6:49-67). It then applies this phase shift to the received carrier signals to restore their original phase characteristics before demodulating the data, ensuring accurate data recovery.
  • Technical Importance: This descrambling method is the necessary counterpart to the scrambling technique, making it possible to gain the PAR-reduction benefits at the transmitter while ensuring data integrity at the receiver ('041 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more claims without specifying which are asserted (Compl. ¶51). Independent claim 1 of the ’041 Patent is representative and includes the following essential elements:
    • A method for descrambling phase characteristics of a plurality of carrier signals in a first multicarrier transceiver that receives a bit stream from a second transceiver.
    • Each carrier signal is associated with a value determined independently of any bit value carried by that signal, the value determined by a pseudo-random number generator.
    • A phase shift for each carrier signal is based on the associated value.
    • The combining of a phase for each carrier signal with the phase characteristic of that respective carrier signal to substantially scramble the phase characteristics.
    • Using multiple carrier signals corresponding to the scrambled signals to demodulate a same bit value of the received bit stream.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,292,627

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,292,627, “System and Method for Scrambling the Phase of the Carriers in a Multicarrier Communications System,” Issued Nov. 6, 2007 (Compl. ¶56).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the '008 and '041 patents, describes a system and method for scrambling carrier signal phases to reduce the peak-to-average power ratio (PAR) of a transmission signal. The scrambling value is determined independently of the input data bits ('627 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more claims of the ’627 Patent without further specification (Compl. ¶58).
  • Accused Features: DSL CO Products that operate in accordance with the ITU-T VDSL2 (G.993.2) standard (Compl. ¶57).

Note: The complaint asserts infringement of 32 patents in total, largely grouped into technological families with similar infringement allegations based on compliance with various DSL standards.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies two broad categories of accused products: "DSL CPE Products" (Customer Premise Equipment) and "DSL CO Products" (Central Office Equipment) (Compl. ¶11). These categories include, without limitation, modems, gateways, routers, integrated access devices, DSLAMs (Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexers), MSANs (Multi-Service Access Nodes), and line cards (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products are designed and sold to operate in accordance with various internationally recognized DSL standards, including ITU-T VDSL2 (G.993.2), ITU-T G.bond (G.998.1, G.998.2), ITU-T ADSL2 (G.992.3), and ITU-T ADSL2+ (G.992.5) (Compl. ¶¶10-11, 43, 85, 113). The core of the infringement allegation is that compliance with these standards necessarily involves practicing the patented inventions. Defendant allegedly provides these products to telephone and broadband carriers for deployment in their networks (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts or a detailed, element-by-element analysis of infringement. The central theory of infringement, repeated for each asserted patent, is that Defendant’s products infringe by virtue of their compliance with specific, publicly-available DSL standards promulgated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 50, 57). Plaintiff alleges that these patents are essential to practicing the standards and that Defendant's products, by operating in an intended, standard-compliant manner, necessarily infringe.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary question for the court will be one of standards-essentiality: does compliance with the cited DSL standards (e.g., VDSL2 G.993.2) require practicing every element of the asserted claims? The complaint alleges this connection but does not provide the technical evidence to substantiate it, leaving open the question of whether a device can be standard-compliant yet non-infringing.
    • Technical Questions: An evidentiary question will be one of actual operation: what is the specific technical implementation within Defendant's products? The complaint relies on the DSL standards as a proxy for the products' functionality, but a defense may focus on demonstrating that the products' actual method of operation, while standard-compliant, differs from the specific methods recited in the patent claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a value...determined independently of any input bit value" (from Claim 1 of the '008 Patent family).

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, distinguishing it from data-dependent scrambling methods. The patentability and infringement analyses will depend on what qualifies as an "independent" value. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case hinges on whether the method of generating phase information prescribed by the VDSL2 standard falls within this definition.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of potential sources for this value, including "a random number generator, a carrier number, a DMT symbol count, a superframe count, and a hyperframe count" ('627 Patent, col. 6:55-61). This list suggests the term is meant to be interpreted broadly to cover various data-independent sources.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term is limited by the context of the embodiments shown or that "independently" requires a complete lack of any relationship, direct or indirect, to the data stream, a standard which the accused products might not meet.

  • The Term: "substantially scramble" (from Claim 1 of the '008 Patent family).

    • Context and Importance: This is a term of degree that will be critical to determining the scope of infringement. The dispute will likely center on how much phase randomization is required to be "substantial."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's objective is to reduce PAR ('627 Patent, col. 2:1-6). A broader reading would suggest that any phase scrambling that achieves a meaningful reduction in PAR, as opposed to leaving it effectively random, would meet this limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the resulting signal as having "a Gaussian probability distribution" ('627 Patent, col. 5:47-54). A narrower interpretation might argue that "substantially scramble" requires the resulting phase characteristics to achieve a specific, statistically verifiable level of randomness approaching a Gaussian distribution.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant sells its DSL products to customers (carriers) with the intent that they be used in an infringing manner, providing instructions, data sheets, and support that encourage operation in accordance with the infringing DSL standards (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 45, 51, 52). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the products are not staple articles of commerce and are especially made for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 46, 53).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations to support willfulness. It alleges Defendant had actual, pre-suit knowledge of the patents and their infringement from at least July 15, 2013, based on a year-long licensing negotiation effort that included letters and a WebEx meeting where Plaintiff presented claim charts (Compl. ¶¶ 16-28). It further alleges knowledge based on Defendant's participation in the ITU standards body and the public availability of Plaintiff's declarations of standard-essential patents (Compl. ¶¶ 31-38). In the alternative, the complaint pleads willful blindness (Compl. ¶39).

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

  • A core issue will be one of standards-essentiality: can Plaintiff prove that compliance with the relevant DSL standards, such as VDSL2 (G.993.2), necessarily requires infringement of the asserted patent claims? The outcome will likely depend on a technical comparison between the standard's requirements and the specific limitations of the claims, as the complaint itself does not detail the accused products' specific internal operations.
  • A key factual issue will be one of pre-suit knowledge and intent: what was the substance of the year-long licensing negotiations between the parties? The complaint's detailed recitation of Defendant's alleged unresponsiveness and delay in negotiations (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 23, 25, 28) creates a significant predicate for a finding of willful infringement, making the parties' pre-suit conduct a central focus of the dispute.
  • A fundamental legal and technical question will be one of claim construction: how will the court define key terms of degree like "substantially scramble"? The definition of such terms will be critical in determining whether the methods prescribed by the DSL standards fall within the scope of the patent claims.