DCT

1:16-cv-00715

Intl License Exchange Of America LLC v. Cincinnati Bell Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:16-cv-00715, D. Del., 08/12/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant conducts business in the district, the alleged acts of infringement occurred in the district, and Defendant has incorporated at least eight subsidiaries in Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s networking products and services, including wireless routers and enterprise networking offerings, infringe three patents related to multicast access control, virtual local area network (VLAN) frame formatting, and virtual private network (VPN) resource allocation.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern fundamental methods for managing security, addressing, and resource allocation in modern computer networks, which are critical for service providers delivering internet, video, and private networking services.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patents-in-suit. The '999 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,111,876.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1996-03-12 ’999 Patent Priority Date
2000-11-29 ’461 Patent Priority Date
2002-03-18 ’167 Patent Priority Date
2005-11-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,970,461 Issued
2009-01-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,478,167 Issued
2009-11-24 U.S. Patent No. RE40,999 Issued
2016-08-12 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,970,461 - "Access Control Enhancements for Delivery of Video and Other Service," issued November 29, 2005.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a security vulnerability in shared medium access networks, such as Passive Optical Networks (PONs). In such networks, when one subscribed user requests a multicast stream (e.g., a pay-per-view channel), the data is delivered to the network segment shared by all users, potentially allowing non-subscribers on the same segment to access content for which they have not paid (’461 Patent, col. 2:38-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes embedding an access control or "vetting" function directly into the customer premises equipment, referred to as an Optical Network Unit (ONU). The ONU maintains a "Permitted Channels list" for the user (’461 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 6:28-32). When the user's device (e.g., a set-top box) sends a request to join a multicast group using the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP), the ONU intercepts it. The ONU’s "IGMP Vetting function" checks the request against the permitted list before forwarding it to the network headend, thereby preventing unauthorized content requests at the network edge (’461 Patent, col. 6:28-35).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for service providers to enforce subscription policies at the customer endpoint, mitigating revenue loss from unauthorized access to multicast services without requiring computationally intensive, line-rate encryption at the network headend (’461 Patent, col.2:45-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶16).
  • Claim 11 requires:
    • A method of providing a secure multicast service over a shared medium access network, the method comprising:
    • using an IGMP vetting function in customer premises equipment.

U.S. Patent No. RE40,999 - "VLAN Frame Format," issued November 24, 2009.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In a network with multiple Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs), when data frames are sent across a shared communications medium (a "trunk") that connects different network switches, the frame's original VLAN association can be lost. This ambiguity makes it difficult for the receiving switch to determine which VLAN the frame belongs to, hindering the ability to properly forward traffic and enforce network policies (’999 Patent, col. 4:38-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent proposes modifying the standard data frame structure to explicitly carry VLAN information. The solution involves inserting a new field, the "virtual network identifier field," into the frame to hold the VLAN ID. A preceding "second type field" (VTYPE) is also inserted to signal that the frame is a tagged frame containing this VLAN information, distinguishing it from untagged frames (’999 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:31-40). This allows network devices to unambiguously identify a frame's VLAN membership as it traverses a shared backbone.
  • Technical Importance: This invention describes a foundational mechanism for VLAN tagging, a technology that became essential for building scalable, segmented, and secure enterprise networks and is now standardized in protocols like IEEE 802.1Q (’999 Patent, col. 3:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 7, and 11, and dependent claim 12 (Compl. ¶33).
  • Claim 1, a method claim, includes these essential elements:
    • Receiving a data frame having a first type field and a data field.
    • Inserting a second type field preceding the first type field, with its value indicating the presence of a virtual network identifier field.
    • Inserting the virtual network identifier field between the second type field and the first type field.
    • Assigning a value to the virtual network identifier field corresponding to the virtual network.
    • Transmitting the modified data frame over the shared communications medium.
  • Claim 7 is a similar method claim, but it references a "length field" instead of a "first type field," corresponding to IEEE 802.3 frames rather than Ethernet II frames.
  • Claim 11 is a method claim for a network device transmitting a tagged frame, reciting the steps of transmitting a preamble, address fields, a first type field indicating a tag is present, the virtual network identifier field, a second type field for the protocol type, and a data field.

U.S. Patent No. 7,478,167 - "Resource Allocation Using An Auto-Discovery Mechanism For Provider-Provisioned Layer-2 and Layer-3 Virtual Private Networks," issued January 13, 2009.

Patent Identification

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,478,167, "Resource Allocation Using An Auto-Discovery Mechanism For Provider-Provisioned Layer-2 and Layer-3 Virtual Private Networks," issued January 13, 2009 (Compl. ¶45).

Technology Synopsis

  • The patent addresses the operational complexity and scalability limitations of manually configuring Virtual Private Network (VPN) tunnels between a service provider's edge (PE) devices (’167 Patent, col. 2:35-52). The patented solution is a method for PE devices to use an "auto-discovery" mechanism, such as an extension to the BGP protocol, to automatically advertise their VPN capabilities and tunnel-based parameters (e.g., Quality of Service profiles). This allows for the automated negotiation and establishment of VPN tunnels, improving scalability and flexibility (’167 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).

Accused Features

  • The complaint accuses Cincinnati Bell's MPLS IP VPN Services (MPLS Edge) that are alleged to support RFC 4110 of infringement (Compl. ¶52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies three sets of accused instrumentalities:
    1. Accused Instrumentalities I (for the ’461 Patent): At least the Westell UltraLine Series 3 wireless routers used in Cincinnati Bell's shared networks (Compl. ¶16).
    2. Accused Instrumentalities II (for the ’999 Patent): At least Cincinnati Bell's Enterprise Ethernet Services that support the IEEE 802.1Q standard (Compl. ¶33).
    3. Accused Instrumentalities III (for the ’167 Patent): At least the Cincinnati Bell MPLS IP VPN Services (MPLS Edge) that support RFC 4110 (Compl. ¶52).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Westell routers are used to provide "a secure multicast service" over a shared network by "using an IGMP vetting function" (Compl. ¶16-17).
  • The Enterprise Ethernet Services are alleged to "format a data frame in VLAN network devices" in a manner that supports the IEEE 802.1Q standard, which defines a format for VLAN-tagged frames (Compl. ¶33, ¶35).
  • The MPLS IP VPN Services are alleged to establish VPN tunnels "based on VPN capability discovery information" using an "auto-discovery protocol" (Compl. ¶52-53).
  • The complaint alleges that these products and services are sold, offered for sale, and used across the United States, but does not provide specific details on their commercial importance or market positioning (Compl. ¶3, ¶19, ¶42, ¶55). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’461 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed element-by-element mapping for its infringement allegations. The theory appears to be that the accused routers, by implementing IGMP-related features described in various technical standards, necessarily perform the claimed "IGMP vetting function."

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
using an IGMP vetting function in customer premises equipment The complaint alleges that Cincinnati Bell's use of Westell UltraLine Series 3 wireless routers in its shared networks constitutes an improved method of providing secure multicast service by using an IGMP vetting function. ¶16, ¶17, ¶18 col. 6:28-32
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: The primary technical question is evidentiary. The complaint alleges the use of an "IGMP vetting function" but supports this largely with citations to general product datasheets and RFCs for IGMP (Compl. ¶18). This raises the question: what evidence demonstrates that the accused routers perform the specific function of "vetting" a channel request against a "predetermined list of permitted channels," as described in the patent (’461 Patent, col. 6:28-32), rather than a more generic IGMP processing or snooping function?

’999 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's Enterprise Ethernet Services, by complying with the IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tagging standard, infringe the method claims of the ’999 patent.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a) receiving the data frame from the communications medium, where the data frame includes a first type field and a data field; The accused services receive standard Ethernet frames (Compl. ¶33, ¶35). ¶34, ¶35 col. 13:14-15
b) inserting a second type field at a location within the data frame preceding the first type field... The services, by implementing the IEEE 802.1Q standard, allegedly insert a Tag Protocol Identifier (TPID) that functions as this "second type field" (Compl. ¶35). ¶34, ¶35 col. 8:31-36
c) inserting the virtual network identifier field at a location between the second type field and the first type field; The services allegedly insert the VLAN tag information after the TPID and before the original EtherType/Length field, per the 802.1Q standard (Compl. ¶35). ¶34, ¶35 col. 8:36-40
d) assigning a first value to the virtual network identifier field, the first value corresponding to the virtual network; and The services allegedly assign a specific VLAN ID to the frame's tag (Compl. ¶35). ¶34, ¶35 col. 9:4-6
e) transmitting the data frame over the shared communications medium. The services allegedly transmit the newly tagged frame over the network backbone (Compl. ¶33). ¶34, ¶35 col. 11:53-56
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: A potential dispute concerns the relationship between the patent's claims and the later-developed IEEE 802.1Q standard. This raises the question of claim scope versus industry standard: can the patent's claims, which have a 1996 priority date, be construed to read on the specific implementation of VLAN tagging as defined by the IEEE 802.1Q standard, which the accused services allegedly practice?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "IGMP vetting function" (’461 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation of asserted claim 11. Its construction will determine the scope of the required functionality. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will be key to distinguishing the claimed invention from conventional IGMP snooping or proxying, which may not be infringing.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the invention uses an "IGMP vetting function in customer premises equipment" without further limitation in claim 11 itself, which could support a broader reading of any function that processes IGMP messages for security purposes (’461 Patent, col. 10:12-13).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "IGMP Vetting function (37)" as operating in conjunction with a "Permitted Channels list (39)" to check if a "requesting user is eligible to receive the requested channel" (’461 Patent, col. 6:28-32). This may support a narrower construction requiring an explicit check against a pre-defined authorization list, not just general IGMP processing.

Term: "second type field" (’999 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for mapping claim 1 to the accused IEEE 802.1Q-compliant services. The infringement case may depend on whether the 802.1Q Tag Protocol Identifier (TPID) meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue that a TPID is not a "type field" in the same sense as a traditional Ethernet type field.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines the function of this field as having "a value... indicating the data frame include a virtual network identifier field" (’999 Patent, Claim 1, col. 11:32-35). This functional description aligns with the purpose of the 802.1Q TPID, which is to identify the frame as a tagged frame.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent refers to the "first type field" in the context of a standard Ethernet frame, which indicates the "protocol type of the next upper layer protocol header" (’999 Patent, col. 8:3-6). A party could argue that to be a "type field," a field must serve this protocol-demultiplexing function, which the 802.1Q TPID does not.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement of the ’461 and ’167 patents by "providing instruction materials, training, and services" that allegedly encourage customers and partners to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶22, ¶58).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The basis for willfulness is Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents and infringement "since at least the date Defendant received notice," which includes the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶22, ¶58).

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

  1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue for the ’461 and ’167 patents will be whether the complaint provides sufficient factual detail to plausibly allege infringement. A key question for the court will be whether citing to product manuals and technical standards, without mapping specific functionalities to claim elements, is sufficient to state a claim.
  2. Claim Scope vs. Industry Standard: For the ’999 patent, the case will likely center on a question of definitional scope: can the term "second type field", as described in a patent with a 1996 priority date, be construed to read on the Tag Protocol Identifier (TPID) as implemented in the widely adopted IEEE 802.1Q standard, which the accused services allegedly follow?
  3. Functional Specificity: A core evidentiary question for the ’461 patent will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused router’s "IGMP" functionality perform the specific "vetting" against a "Permitted Channels list" as detailed in the patent’s specification, or does it perform a more generic, non-infringing network management function?