DCT

1:15-cv-00615

TQ Delta LLC v. Time Warner Cable Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:15-cv-00615, D. Del., 09/09/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendants are incorporated in Delaware and transact substantial business in the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s services and hardware for in-home networking, which operate under the Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) standards, infringe eight patents related to multicarrier communications technology.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to techniques for improving the efficiency and reliability of high-speed data transmission in multicarrier systems, such as reducing signal distortion and power consumption, and enabling robust diagnostics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details pre-suit licensing negotiations, alleging that Plaintiff first contacted Defendant regarding its patent portfolio on December 19, 2014, and later identified several of the patents-in-suit on April 29, 2015, which may form the basis for its willful infringement claims. Several of the asserted patents have subsequently had all asserted claims cancelled in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings initiated after the filing of this complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-01-26 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,611,404 and 9,094,268 Priority Date
1999-11-09 U.S. Patent Nos. 6,961,369, 8,718,158, and 9,014,243 Priority Date
2000-01-07 U.S. Patent Nos. 7,835,430, 8,238,412, and 8,432,956 Priority Date
2005-11-01 U.S. Patent No. 6,961,369 Issued
2010-11-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,835,430 Issued
2012-08-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,238,412 Issued
2013-04-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956 Issued
2013-12-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404 Issued
2014-05-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,718,158 Issued
2014-12-19 Plaintiff TQ Delta sends first licensing letter to Defendant
2015-01-22 Defendant Time Warner Cable responds to Plaintiff's letter
2015-04-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,014,243 Issued
2015-04-29 Plaintiff TQ Delta identifies specific patents to Defendant via e-mail
2015-07-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,094,268 Issued
2015-09-09 Complaint Filing Date

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, such as those using Discrete Multitone Modulation (DMT), non-random phases of the carrier signals can lead to a high peak-to-average power ratio (PAR). This high PAR can cause signal distortion ("clipping") and require components that consume more power. (’369 Patent, col. 2:11-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "phase scrambler" that adds a calculated phase shift to each carrier signal. This phase shift is computed based on a value (e.g., from a pseudo-random number generator) that is independent of the actual data bits being transmitted on that carrier. This process effectively randomizes the phase characteristics of the combined signal, reducing the PAR without altering the data content. (’369 Patent, col. 2:27-44; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: Reducing PAR is a fundamental technique for improving the efficiency, cost, and reliability of high-speed data transmission systems like DSL, which rely on multicarrier modulation. (’369 Patent, col. 2:5-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶35). Independent claim 1 is representative:
  • A method for randomizing the phase characteristics of carriers in a multicarrier system, 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, part of the same family as the ’369 Patent, addresses the same technical problem of high PAR in multicarrier systems, which can result in signal clipping and inefficient power usage. (’158 Patent, col. 2:20-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is again centered on a phase scrambling technique. The claims describe a method where a value, determined by a pseudo-random number generator and independent of the data bits, is associated with each carrier signal. A phase shift is then calculated from this value and applied to the carrier, thereby randomizing the signal's phase properties to reduce PAR. (’158 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-45).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a method to enhance the performance and efficiency of multicarrier modulation, a foundational technology for modern broadband communications. (’158 Patent, col. 2:5-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶43). Independent claim 1 is representative:
  • A method for scrambling phase characteristics, comprising:
    • associating a carrier signal with a value determined by a pseudo-random number generator, where the value is independent of any data bits carried by the signal;
    • determining a phase shift for the carrier signal based on that value;
    • modulating at least one data bit onto that carrier signal; and
    • modulating at least one data bit onto a second carrier signal.

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 addresses the same PAR problem as the ’369 and ’158 patents. The claimed solution combines two techniques: a bit scrambler that randomizes the sequence of input data bits, and a phase scrambler that applies a data-independent phase shift to the carriers, to further ensure the transmitted signal has a low PAR. (’243 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶51).

Accused Features

MoCA Products operating in accordance with MoCA 1.0, 1.1, and/or 2.0 standards (Compl. ¶50).

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 describes a robust "diagnostic link mode" for communication between transceivers, intended for situations where a normal connection cannot be established. The invention allows for the exchange of specific diagnostic data, such as idle channel noise information, to facilitate remote troubleshooting. (’430 Patent, Abstract). At the time of this report, all claims of this patent have been canceled pursuant to IPR proceedings.

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶59).

Accused Features

MoCA Products operating in accordance with the MoCA 2.0 Standard (Compl. ¶58).

U.S. Patent No. 8,238,412 - "Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Power Level per Subchannel Information," issued August 7, 2012

Technology Synopsis

This patent is related to the ’430 Patent and also discloses a robust diagnostic communication mode. The specific diagnostic information claimed is "power level per subchannel information," which helps in analyzing line conditions and transceiver performance. (’412 Patent, Abstract). At the time of this report, all claims of this patent have been canceled pursuant to IPR proceedings.

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶67).

Accused Features

MoCA Products operating in accordance with the MoCA 2.0 Standard (Compl. ¶66).

U.S. Patent No. 8,432,956 - "Multicarrier Modulation Messaging for Power Level per Subchannel Information," issued April 30, 2013

Technology Synopsis

As a continuation of the ’412 patent family, this patent also covers a diagnostic link mode for reliably exchanging test information, specifically focusing on messaging for power level per subchannel. (’956 Patent, Abstract). At the time of this report, all claims of this patent have been canceled pursuant to IPR proceedings.

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶75).

Accused Features

MoCA Products operating in accordance with the MoCA 2.0 Standard (Compl. ¶74).

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 patent addresses power consumption in "always-on" transceivers. It describes a system with a low-power "sleep mode" and a "rapid-on" capability, which allows the device to quickly resume full operation by storing and restoring its state parameters, avoiding a time-consuming full re-initialization. (’404 Patent, Abstract). At the time of this report, many asserted claims of this patent have been canceled pursuant to IPR proceedings.

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶83).

Accused Features

MoCA Products operating in accordance with the MoCA 2.0 Standard (Compl. ¶82).

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 is from the same family as the ’404 patent. It likewise claims a multicarrier system with a low-power sleep mode and the ability to rapidly return to full functionality without re-initialization, which is critical for user experience and power efficiency in modern communication devices. (’268 Patent, Abstract). At the time of this report, many asserted claims of this patent have been canceled pursuant to IPR proceedings.

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶91).

Accused Features

MoCA Products operating in accordance with the MoCA 2.0 Standard (Compl. ¶90).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are collectively identified as Defendant’s "MoCA Products" (Compl. ¶15). This category includes services such as Time Warner's digital cable, TV Online, Whole-House HD-DVR, and Internet services, as well as the associated hardware provided to customers, including set-top boxes, gateways, routers, and modems (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products and services operate in accordance with one or more of the MoCA 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 standards (Compl. ¶15). The function of this technology is to create a high-performance multimedia network within a consumer's home using existing coaxial cable infrastructure (Compl. ¶36). The complaint posits that MoCA is a "worldwide standard" adopted by major cable, satellite, and IPTV operators to deliver services and generate substantial revenue (Compl. ¶12). It further alleges that Defendant was a contributor to the development of the MoCA standards (Compl. ¶14).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts or a detailed technical mapping of the accused products to the patent claims. The infringement theory is predicated on the allegation that the accused MoCA Products operate in accordance with the MoCA standards, and that compliance with these standards necessarily results in infringement of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶34, 42). The complaint cites external webpages with marketing statements as evidence that Defendant's products utilize MoCA technology (Compl. ¶¶36, 44).

Narrative Infringement Theory (’369 and ’158 Patents)

The central allegation is that any system compliant with the MoCA 1.0, 1.1, and/or 2.0 standards must employ phase scrambling techniques similar to those claimed in the patents to manage the high peak-to-average power ratio inherent in high-speed multicarrier modulation over coaxial cable (Compl. ¶¶34, 42). By manufacturing, using, and selling products that adhere to these standards, Defendant is alleged to directly infringe the patents. The specific technical implementation of phase scrambling in the MoCA standards is not detailed in the complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question: A central issue will be whether the specific methods of phase scrambling, diagnostic messaging, and power management defined in the MoCA 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 standards fall within the scope of the asserted patent claims. The complaint does not provide the technical documentation or analysis to resolve this question.
  • Scope Questions: It may be disputed whether patents originally developed for Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology, which operates over twisted-pair telephone wires, can be read to cover the MoCA standards, which operate over coaxial cable. While both use multicarrier modulation, differences in the physical medium, network architecture, and protocol specifics could be points of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "pseudo-random numbers" (from Claim 1 of the ’369 Patent)

Context and Importance

The claim requires generating a phase shift by using a value from an "array of pseudo-random numbers." The definition of this term is critical, as it determines what kind of numerical sequence qualifies. Infringement may depend on whether the sequence generation method used in the MoCA standards meets this definition.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes deriving the values from various sources, including not just a "pseudo-random number generator (pseudo-RNG)," but also a DMT carrier number or a DMT symbol count, suggesting that any deterministic, non-data-dependent sequence could be considered "pseudo-random" in this context (’369 Patent, col. 5:56-64).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit use of the term "pseudo-random number generator" and the examples provided could be used to argue for a more limited construction, requiring a sequence that meets formal criteria for pseudo-randomness, potentially excluding simpler, more predictable sequences like an incrementing counter (’369 Patent, col. 5:60-61).

The Term: "determined independently of any bit of the plurality of data bits carried by the carrier signal" (from Claim 1 of the ’158 Patent)

Context and Importance

This phrase captures the core concept of applying a phase shift that is not derived from the data being transmitted. The dispute will likely turn on whether the phase modification technique in the accused products is truly "independent" of the data stream.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's teaching that the value can be based on system parameters like a symbol counter or carrier number supports a reading that "independent" means the value is not calculated from the substantive content of the data bits for that specific symbol transmission (’158 Patent, col. 6:35-44).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that if the system state influencing the phase shift is itself affected by prior data patterns or other data-dependent operations, it is not strictly "independent." The focus on distinct sources like a pseudo-RNG might be used to argue that the value must originate from a process completely separated from data-handling logic (’158 Patent, col. 5:58-65).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides its customers with instructions, support, and product literature for the MoCA Products, thereby intending to encourage acts of direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶35, 43, 51). It also alleges contributory infringement on the grounds that the MoCA Products are material to practicing the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially adapted for an infringing use (Compl. ¶¶38, 46, 54).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness allegations are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The complaint provides a timeline of communications, including a December 19, 2014 letter and an April 29, 2015 email that allegedly identified specific patents-in-suit to the Defendant (Compl. ¶¶24-29). The complaint further alleges that Defendant was willfully blind to the existence and infringement of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶30).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can the Plaintiff produce technical evidence from the MoCA standards or analysis of the accused products to prove that they practice the specific methods of phase scrambling, diagnostic messaging, and power management required by the patent claims? The complaint's reliance on high-level marketing materials suggests this will be a key battleground.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim construction and scope: Can claims drafted in the context of DSL technology be construed to cover implementations in the distinct technological environment of MoCA over coaxial cable? The court's interpretation of terms like "pseudo-random numbers" and "independently" will be pivotal.
  • A significant question for damages will be willfulness: Do the detailed pre-suit communications alleged in the complaint establish that the Defendant had actual knowledge of the patents, potentially exposing it to claims for enhanced damages for any post-notice infringement?