DCT

1:15-cv-00614

TQ Delta LLC v. DISH Network Corp

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:15-cv-00614, D. Del., 05/16/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendants transact substantial business in the state, a portion of the alleged infringements occurred there, and Defendants derive substantial revenue from goods and services provided in Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services that operate in accordance with the Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) standards infringe eight patents related to high-speed multicarrier communications technologies.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to methods for improving the performance, efficiency, and diagnostic capabilities of multicarrier communication systems, such as those used for high-speed data networking within a home over existing coaxial television cables.
  • Key Procedural History: This filing is a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants gained actual knowledge of the asserted patents at least as of the service of the original or subsequent complaints, which may form a basis for allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-01-26 Priority Date for ’404 and ’268 Patents
1999-11-09 Priority Date for ’369, ’158, and ’243 Patents
2000-01-07 Priority Date for ’430, ’412, and ’956 Patents
2004-01-01 EchoStar becomes a member of the Multimedia Over Coax Alliance (approx. date)
2005-11-01 U.S. Patent No. 6,961,369 Issues
2010-11-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,835,430 Issues
2012-08-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,238,412 Issues
2013-04-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956 Issues
2013-12-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404 Issues
2014-05-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158 Issues
2015-04-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243 Issues
2015-07-10 Plaintiff accesses Defendant's online product information
2015-07-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,094,268 Issues
2015-09-02 Plaintiff accesses Defendant's online product information
2016-05-16 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,961,369 - "System and Method for Scrambling the Phase of the Carriers in a Multicarrier Communications System," issued November 1, 2005

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In multicarrier communication systems like Discrete Multitone Modulation (DMT), if the phase characteristics of the multiple data-carrying signals are not sufficiently random, their combined signal can have a high peak-to-average power ratio (PAR). High PAR can lead to signal distortion (clipping) and increased power consumption. (Compl. Ex. 1, ’369 Patent, col. 2:11-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to "scramble" the phase of each carrier signal to ensure randomness and reduce PAR. It achieves this by computing a phase shift for each carrier based on a value—such as a pseudo-random number or the carrier's own index number—that is independent of the data bits being transmitted on that carrier. This calculated phase shift is then added to the data-modulated phase of the carrier before transmission. (’369 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-41; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: Reducing PAR is a fundamental goal in multicarrier system design, as it directly improves power efficiency and signal fidelity, enabling more reliable high-speed data transmission. (’369 Patent, col. 2:5-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, alleging infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30). Independent claim 1 is representative:

  • A method of randomizing phase characteristics of QAM-modulated carrier signals comprising:
    • generating an array of pseudo-random numbers;
    • determining a phase shift for each carrier signal by multiplying a value from the array by a constant; and
    • adding the determined phase shift to the phase characteristic of each carrier signal.

U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158 - "System and Method for Scrambling the Phase of the Carriers in a Multicarrier Communications System," issued May 6, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent, a continuation of the same family as the ’369 patent, addresses the same technical problem of high PAR in multicarrier systems caused by non-random phase characteristics of carrier signals. (’158 Patent, col. 2:15-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system and method where a transceiver scrambles carrier phases by associating each carrier with a value determined independently of the data (e.g., from a pseudo-random number generator) and using that value to determine a phase shift. This technique is applied before modulating data bits onto the carriers to produce a transmission signal with a reduced PAR. (’158 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-45).
  • Technical Importance: The method provides a way to improve the performance of communication systems by mitigating signal distortion and reducing power needs, which is critical for devices operating under power or thermal constraints. (’158 Patent, col. 2:5-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶38). Independent claim 1 is representative:

  • A method in a multicarrier communication system comprising:
    • transmitting a plurality of data bits from a first transceiver to a second;
    • associating a carrier signal with a value determined independently of the data bits by a pseudo-random number generator;
    • determining a phase shift for the carrier signal based on that value; and
    • modulating at least one data bit on the carrier signal and on a second carrier signal.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243, "System and Method for Scrambling Using a Bit Scrambler and a Phase Scrambler," issued April 21, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also from the ’369 patent family, describes a system that combines two techniques to reduce PAR. It uses a "bit scrambler" to randomize the input data stream before modulation, and a "phase scrambler" to randomize the phase of the carriers after modulation, providing an enhanced method for ensuring the final transmitted signal has a low PAR. (Compl. Ex. 3, ’243 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶46).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' MoCA Products that operate in accordance with MoCA 1.0, 1.1, and/or 2.0 standards (Compl. ¶45).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,835,430

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,835,430, "Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Frequency Domain Received Idle Channel Noise Information," issued November 16, 2010.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the need for transceivers to exchange diagnostic and test information robustly, even when a normal high-speed connection cannot be established. It discloses a "diagnostic link mode" that allows modems to communicate key performance data, such as idle channel noise information, to aid in troubleshooting line faults. (Compl. Ex. 4, ’430 Patent, Abstract). A review of the provided patent document reveals a subsequent Inter Partes Review Certificate stating that claims 1-6 of this patent have been cancelled.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶54).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' MoCA Products that operate in accordance with the MoCA 2.0 Standard (Compl. ¶53).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,238,412

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,238,412, "Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Power Level per Subchannel Information," issued August 7, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing from the ’430 patent family, this invention concerns a diagnostic link mode for robustly communicating test information between modems. The focus is on messaging related to the power level for each subchannel, which is critical diagnostic data for assessing line quality and performance. (Compl. Ex. 5, ’412 Patent, Abstract). A review of the provided patent document reveals a subsequent Inter Partes Review Certificate stating that claims 1-21 of this patent have been cancelled.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶62).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' MoCA Products that operate in accordance with the MoCA 2.0 Standard (Compl. ¶61).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956, "Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Power Level per Subchannel Information," issued April 30, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is also from the ’430 family and relates to using a robust diagnostic link mode to exchange test and diagnostic information, such as power level per subchannel, between transceivers. (Compl. Ex. 6, ’956 Patent, Abstract). A review of the provided patent document reveals a subsequent Inter Partes Review Certificate stating that claims 1-10 of this patent have been cancelled.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶70).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' MoCA Products that operate in accordance with the MoCA 2.0 Standard (Compl. ¶69).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404, "Multicarrier Transmission System With Low Power Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability," issued December 17, 2013.
  • Technology Synopsis: This invention addresses the power consumption of "always-on" transceivers. It describes a "sleep mode" that reduces power consumption during idle periods and a "rapid-on" capability that allows the transceiver to quickly restore full operation by storing and retrieving its state, avoiding a full, time-consuming re-initialization sequence. (Compl. Ex. 7, ’404 Patent, Abstract). A review of the provided patent documents reveals subsequent Inter Partes Review Certificates indicating that claims 1-5, 7-9, and 12-20 have been cancelled.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' MoCA Products that operate in accordance with the MoCA 2.0 Standard (Compl. ¶77).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,094,268

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,094,268, "Multicarrier Transmission System With Low Power Sleep Mode and Rapid-On Capability," issued July 28, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’404 patent, also describes a system for managing power in multicarrier transceivers. It details a low-power sleep mode for periods of inactivity and a method for rapid wake-up that restores full transmission capabilities without a lengthy re-initialization. (Compl. Ex. 8, ’268 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶86).
  • Accused Features: Defendants' MoCA Products that operate in accordance with the MoCA 2.0 Standard (Compl. ¶85).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' systems, articles, methods, and services that operate according to the MoCA 1.0, 1.1, and/or 2.0 standards. Specific examples include DISH's digital satellite TV services, the Hopper® Whole-Home DVR service (including the Joey™ service), DISH's Internet service, and associated set-top boxes, gateways, routers, and modems (collectively, "MoCA Products") (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

The MoCA Products are alleged to use the MoCA technology standard to create a high-speed network for media distribution within a customer's home, utilizing existing coaxial cabling (Compl. ¶12). This functionality allows a central device, such as the Hopper DVR, to distribute HD video signals and other data to client devices, like the Joey, throughout the home (Compl. ¶31, citing a DISH press release). The complaint frames MoCA as a "worldwide standard for high performance and high reliability in the connected home" used by pay TV operators to deliver services and generate revenue (Compl. ¶¶15, 23).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide an exhibit with claim charts, instead referring to a non-included "Exhibit 9" (Compl. ¶29). The infringement theory is that the accused MoCA Products operate in accordance with the MoCA standards, and that compliance with those standards necessarily results in infringement of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶29, 37). The following tables summarize the infringement allegations for the lead patents based on this theory.

6,961,369 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
In multicarrier modulation...a method of randomizing the phase characteristics...comprising: The MoCA Products operate according to MoCA standards, which use multicarrier modulation over coaxial cable. ¶29 col. 1:26-34
generating an array of pseudo-random numbers; The MoCA Products, by complying with the MoCA standards, are alleged to perform a phase scrambling technique that requires generating values for scrambling. ¶29 col. 5:55-64
determining a phase shift for each carrier signal by multiplying a value from the array... The MoCA Products, by complying with the MoCA standards, are alleged to compute a phase shift for carriers based on such values as part of their standard operation. ¶29 col. 6:40-46
adding the determined phase shift for each carrier signal to the phase characteristic of each carrier signal. The MoCA Products, by complying with the MoCA standards, are alleged to combine the computed phase shift with the data-modulated phase before transmission. ¶29 col. 6:47-54

8,718,158 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method...comprising: transmitting the plurality of data bits from the first transceiver to the second transceiver; The MoCA Products (e.g., Hopper to Joey) transmit data between devices in a multicarrier system. ¶37 col. 3:24-33
associating a carrier signal with a value determined independently of any bit...by a pseudo-random number generator; The MoCA Products, in practicing the MoCA standards, allegedly associate each carrier with a scrambling value independent of the data being transmitted. ¶37 col. 5:57-63
determining a phase shift for the carrier signal at least based on the value associated with the carrier signal; The MoCA Products, by following the MoCA standards, allegedly compute a phase shift for each carrier based on the associated scrambling value. ¶37 col. 6:42-46
modulating at least one bit of the plurality of data bits on the carrier signal... The MoCA Products modulate data onto the phase-scrambled carriers for transmission over the in-home coaxial network. ¶37 col. 4:11-15

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A primary question is whether the technical specifications of the MoCA 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 standards actually mandate the use of every step recited in the asserted claims. The complaint alleges that compliance equals infringement but does not provide the standards or a technical breakdown showing a feature-by-claim-element mapping.
  • Scope Questions: The infringement case for the '369 and '158 patents may turn on whether the method of generating scrambling values in the MoCA standards falls within the scope of terms like "pseudo-random number generator." The complaint does not provide evidence on the specific algorithms the accused products use, creating a potential dispute over whether the accused functionality meets this claim limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "pseudo-random number generator" (U.S. Patent No. 6,961,369, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the phase scrambling patents (’369, ’158, ’243). The infringement allegation rests on the accused MoCA products performing a phase scrambling function. The definition of how the scrambling values are generated—whether it qualifies as "pseudo-random"—will be critical. If the MoCA standard specifies a sequence generator that does not meet the legal construction of this term, Defendants may argue non-infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, stating the values can be derived from "one or more predefined parameters, such as a pseudo-random number generator (pseudo-RNG), a DMT carrier number, a DMT symbol count, a DMT superframe count, a DMT hyperframe count, and the like" (’369 Patent, col. 5:60-64). This list of alternatives may support an interpretation that the term is not limited to a specific class of algorithms but encompasses various methods of generating values for scrambling.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of the term. A party could argue that in the context of the art, "pseudo-random" implies specific statistical properties that must be met, potentially narrowing the term to exclude simpler, more deterministic sequence generators. The specification's primary embodiment discusses deriving a value "from a pseudo-RNG" and transmitting it, which may suggest a more formal generator is contemplated (’369 Patent, col. 6:29-31).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all eight patents. The inducement allegations are based on Defendants providing MoCA Products to customers with instructions, product literature, and support services that allegedly encourage use of the products in their normal, infringing mode of operation (e.g., Compl. ¶¶30, 32). The contributory infringement allegations are based on the assertion that the MoCA Products are especially made to operate according to the infringing MoCA standards and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶33).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the asserted patents, which the complaint claims existed at least as of the service of the original complaint in the action (Compl. ¶¶26, 30, 38).

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

  • A central issue will be one of standards-essentiality: Does compliance with the MoCA 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 standards necessarily require practicing every limitation of the asserted patent claims? The resolution of the case will likely depend on a detailed technical comparison of the standards' mandatory requirements against the specific language of the claims.
  • A dispositive threshold question will be the viability of the asserted patent portfolio: A review of the provided patent documents reveals that numerous claims, and in some cases all claims, of six of the eight asserted patents were cancelled in subsequent Inter Partes Review proceedings. A key issue for the court will be to determine if any asserted claims survived these challenges, which could significantly narrow or eliminate a majority of the infringement counts.
  • An evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: The complaint relies heavily on marketing statements that the accused products comply with the MoCA standards. The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can provide sufficient technical evidence to prove that the accused products, as they actually operate, perform the specific functions required by the claim limitations.