DCT

1:18-cv-01742

Sisvel Intl SA v. Verizon Communications Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01742, D. Del., 11/05/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as each Defendant is incorporated in the State of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology, equipment, and services, which operate in compliance with the ITU G.994.1 standard, infringe nine U.S. patents related to DSL modem activation and handshaking protocols.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to the foundational "handshake" procedures that allow different DSL modems to establish a connection, a critical function for interoperability in the broadband internet market.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it made Defendant aware of the asserted patents and infringement at least as early as August 20, 2017, by providing a draft complaint. The complaint also includes a statement that the asserted patents are necessary to practice the ITU G.994.1 standard and that Plaintiff agrees to license them on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-04-01 Priority Date for ’772, ’867, ’802, ’326, and ’957 Patents
1999-01-08 Priority Date for ’442 and ’506 Patents
1999-05-21 Priority Date for ’470 and ’258 Patents
2004-02-17 U.S. Patent No. 6,694,470 Issued
2004-07-20 U.S. Patent No. 6,765,957 Issued
2004-07-27 U.S. Patent No. 6,768,772 Issued
2005-08-23 U.S. Patent No. 6,934,326 Issued
2005-10-04 U.S. Patent No. 6,952,442 Issued
2006-01-17 U.S. Patent No. 6,987,802 Issued
2006-02-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,999,506 Issued
2006-05-23 U.S. Patent No. 7,051,258 Issued
2009-03-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,508,867 Issued
2017-08-20 Plaintiff allegedly provided Defendant with a draft complaint and notice of infringement.
2018-11-05 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,768,772 - "Activation of Multiple XDSL Modems with Implicit Channel Probe"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of activating and establishing a communication link between different types of xDSL modems, which may have varying capabilities and operate over communication channels with unknown and diverse characteristics (e.g., presence of filters, line quality) (’772 Patent, col. 2:14-21). Prior startup and initialization methods were often incompatible with each other, hindering interoperability (’772 Patent, col. 2:27-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method and apparatus for modems to negotiate a common communication standard. This is achieved through a handshake procedure where the modems exchange information about their capabilities using predetermined signals, probe the communication channel implicitly during this exchange, and select an appropriate communication mode to establish a link (’772 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:29-50). The process allows for the selection of a single common standard from multiple potential standards that a modem might support (’772 Patent, col. 6:30-36).
  • Technical Importance: This negotiation process was significant for enabling interoperability between xDSL equipment from different manufacturers over the public telephone network, which was a critical step for the widespread deployment of DSL broadband services (’772 Patent, col. 2:50-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 16 and 24 (Compl. ¶19).
  • Claim 16 (Method):
    • Transmitting a first predetermined signal to a second communication device to designate a specific mode.
    • Receiving a second predetermined signal from the second communication device.
    • Receiving one of an acknowledge (ACK) signal and a negative acknowledge (NAK) signal in response to the first predetermined signal.
  • Claim 24 (Apparatus):
    • A transmitter that transmits a first predetermined signal to a second communication device to designate a specific mode.
    • A receiver that receives a second predetermined signal from the second communication device.
    • A receiver that receives one of an ACK signal and a NAK signal in response to the first predetermined signal.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims as the case progresses (Compl. ¶15).

U.S. Patent No. 7,508,867 - "Activation of Multiple XDSL Modems with Implicit Channel Probe"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’772 Patent, this patent addresses the same fundamental problem: enabling different xDSL modems to reliably establish a communication link over a channel with unknown characteristics (’867 Patent, col. 2:14-21). The background highlights the need for communication devices to "know" the configuration of filters and other line conditions before initiating a high-speed communication method (’867 Patent, col. 2:14-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an apparatus with a transmitter, receiver, and controller that execute a handshake protocol. The apparatus transmits and receives predetermined signals to exchange capability information and designate a specific communication mode, thereby selecting a common standard for the session (’867 Patent, Abstract). The "implicit channel probe" aspect involves analyzing the exchanged data itself to assess channel characteristics without a separate, explicit probing step (’867 Patent, col. 8:12-16).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a standardized and robust method for modem initialization, which is foundational to the interoperability required by international telecommunication standards like those from the ITU-T (’867 Patent, col. 3:30-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 10 and 19 (Compl. ¶34).
  • Claim 10 (Apparatus):
    • A transmitter that transmits a first predetermined signal to a second communication device designating a specific mode.
    • A receiver that receives a second predetermined signal from the second communication device.
    • A controller that designates the specific mode.
    • The receiver receives one of an ACK and NAK signal in response.
  • Claim 19 (Method):
    • Transmitting a first predetermined signal from a first communication device to a second communication device to designate a specific mode.
    • Receiving a second predetermined signal at the first communication device from the second.
    • Receiving one of an ACK and NAK signal at the first communication device in response.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims as the case progresses (Compl. ¶15).

U.S. Patent No. 6,952,442 - "Activation of Multiple XDSL Modems with Half Duplex and Full Duplex Procedures"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes methods and systems for establishing a communication session between terminals that may have different duplex capabilities (half or full duplex) (’442 Patent, Abstract). The invention provides procedures for terminals to detect the duplex capability of the other terminal and terminate the startup session if a compatible mode cannot be established (’442 Patent, col. 8:14-22).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 20 and 33 are asserted (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are DSL equipment and services that operate in compliance with the ITU G.994.1 standard (Compl. ¶¶19, 45).

U.S. Patent No. 6,987,802 - "Activation of Multiple XDSL Modems with Implicit Channel Probe"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’772 and ’867 patents, discloses a method for initiating xDSL services by using specific carrier frequencies for upstream and downstream negotiation channels (’802 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:51-64). The invention provides criteria for selecting these carrier frequencies to be compatible with various existing DSL services and to avoid interference (’802 Patent, col. 18:8-14).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 8 and 15 are asserted (Compl. ¶56).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are DSL equipment and services that operate in compliance with the ITU G.994.1 standard (Compl. ¶¶19, 56).

U.S. Patent No. 6,934,326 - "Activation of Multiple XDSL Modems with Implicit Channel Probe"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a communication apparatus that transmits negotiation data including an identification field with modulation-independent information and a standard information field with modulation-dependent information (’326 Patent, Abstract). This structured data exchange allows modems to negotiate a common communication protocol from a plurality of available options based on service parameters and channel capabilities (’326 Patent, col. 31:49-60).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 39 and 58 are asserted (Compl. ¶67).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are DSL equipment and services that operate in compliance with the ITU G.994.1 standard (Compl. ¶¶19, 67).

U.S. Patent No. 6,765,957 - "Activation of Multiple XDSL Modems with Implicit Channel Probe"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes transmitting negotiation data using a plurality of carriers simultaneously, where each carrier transmits identical data with identical timing (’957 Patent, col. 45:49-61). This method is designed to increase the likelihood of establishing a communication link over a channel with unknown frequency characteristics, as it is more likely at least one of the carriers will be successfully received (’957 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:1-4).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 14 is asserted (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are DSL equipment and services that operate in compliance with the ITU G.994.1 standard (Compl. ¶¶19, 78).

U.S. Patent No. 6,694,470 - "Retransmission Procedure and Apparatus for Handshaking Protocol"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of data errors occurring during the initial handshake procedure (’470 Patent, col. 2:62-65). Instead of restarting the entire session from the beginning after an error, the invention provides a mechanism to request retransmission of only the errored message, indicating the last correctly received message to minimize lost time and information (’470 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 6, 18, and 26 are asserted (Compl. ¶89).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are DSL equipment and services that operate in compliance with the ITU G.994.1 standard (Compl. ¶¶19, 89).

U.S. Patent No. 7,051,258 - "Retransmission Procedure and Apparatus for Handshaking Protocol"

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application for the ’470 patent, this patent also describes a method for minimizing retransmission when an errored message is received during a handshaking protocol (’258 Patent, Abstract). The invention specifies transmitting a retransmission request message that identifies the last correctly received message, allowing the communication to resume from that point rather than restarting entirely (’258 Patent, col. 4:21-27).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 9 and 17 are asserted (Compl. ¶100).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are DSL equipment and services that operate in compliance with the ITU G.994.1 standard (Compl. ¶¶19, 100).

U.S. Patent No. 6,999,506 - "Activation of Multiple XDSL Modems with Half Duplex And Full Duplex Procedures"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’442 patent, discloses methods for terminating a startup session for half or full duplex communication (’506 Patent, Abstract). It specifies procedures where, after an acknowledgment (ACK) message, one terminal transmits predetermined data and the other detects a subsequent period of silence to confirm the session termination, preventing ambiguity or hung states (’506 Patent, col. 21:3-12).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 4, 6, and 9 are asserted (Compl. ¶111).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are DSL equipment and services that operate in compliance with the ITU G.994.1 standard (Compl. ¶¶19, 111).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint broadly identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as DSL technology, equipment, and services provided by Verizon that operate in compliance with the ITU G.994.1 standard (Compl. ¶19). Specific exemplary products identified include the Actiontec GT701C ADSL modem/router and the D-Link DSL-6300V VDSL2 modem (Compl. ¶¶20-22).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The relevant functionality of the accused products is their ability to perform the "start-up procedure" or "handshake" required by the ITU G.994.1 standard to establish a broadband internet connection over a telephone line (Compl. ¶¶20, 22). The complaint alleges that this standard is "widely implemented" and an "integral part" of the startup procedures for various DSL technologies such as ADSL and VDSL2 (Compl. ¶¶14, 20, 22). This functionality is essential for ensuring that customer premises equipment (modems, routers) can interoperate with the network equipment of the service provider (Verizon) to provide DSL service (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts in its body; instead, it refers to claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 10-18) that were not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶¶23, 34, 45, etc.). Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

The core of Plaintiff's infringement allegation is that the Asserted Patents are essential to practicing the ITU G.994.1 standard (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges that any DSL technology certified as compliant with this standard "necessarily meet[s] the claim limitations of each of the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents" (Compl. ¶15). The infringement argument proceeds in two steps: first, it asserts that Verizon's products and services, such as the Actiontec GT701C and D-Link DSL-6300V modems, are designed and advertised to comply with DSL standards (e.g., ADSL, VDSL2) for which the ITU G.994.1 handshake is an "integral part of the start-up procedure" (Compl. ¶¶20, 22). Second, by virtue of this necessary compliance with the standard, the products are alleged to directly infringe the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶19).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central legal question will be whether demonstrating compliance with a technical standard is sufficient to prove infringement of every element of a patent claim as a matter of law. The analysis may question whether the specific language of the standard's requirements maps directly and completely onto the specific limitations recited in the asserted claims.
    • Technical Questions: The case may raise the factual question of whether the accused products, in their actual operation, perform the steps or contain the components exactly as required by the claims. A potential point of contention is whether there are non-infringing ways to comply with the ITU G.994.1 standard, or if the standard allows for optional implementations that might fall outside the scope of the claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "predetermined signal" (appears in asserted independent claims of the '772 and '867 Patents)
  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the claimed handshaking process. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the specific signals exchanged during the ITU G.994.1 startup procedure fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement argument hinges on the signals defined by the standard being equivalent to the "predetermined signal" recited in the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the signals in functional terms related to initiating a startup procedure, responding, and conveying information, without limiting them to a single, specific waveform or data pattern (’772 Patent, col. 1:26-34). This could support a construction that covers any signal agreed upon beforehand to perform these functions, such as those defined in a public standard.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures provide specific examples of transaction sequences and signals, such as "R-TONES-REQ" and "C-TONES" (’772 Patent, FIG. 3; col. 14:26-40). Language describing these specific embodiments could be used to argue that "predetermined signal" should be construed more narrowly to mean signals with particular characteristics disclosed in the patent, rather than any signal defined by an external standard.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants, with specific intent, aid and abet infringement by advertising and distributing the Accused Instrumentalities and providing instruction materials, training, and services regarding their use (Compl. ¶¶26-27, 37-38). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that Defendants offer to sell and sell DSL equipment that is a material component for practicing the patented methods, is especially made or adapted for infringement, and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶28, 39).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that each Defendant was made aware of the patents and their infringement "at least as early as August 20, 2017, which is when Sisvel provided Verizon with a draft Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶25, 29, 36, 40, etc.).

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

  • A core issue will be one of legal and factual mapping: Can Plaintiff prove that compliance with the ITU G.994.1 standard, as implemented in the accused products, satisfies every limitation of the asserted claims? This will require the court to first construe the claims and then compare them element-by-element to the technical requirements of the standard and the functionality of the accused devices.
  • A second key question will be one of damages and FRAND obligations: Given Plaintiff’s assertion that the patents are standard-essential and its stated commitment to FRAND licensing, a central part of the dispute will likely revolve around the determination of a reasonable royalty, should infringement be found. This analysis will be separate from the technical infringement case but will be critical to the ultimate financial outcome.
  • An evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and intent: Regarding willfulness and indirect infringement, the case may turn on what knowledge and intent can be inferred from the alleged pre-suit notice provided in August 2017. The court will need to assess whether providing a draft complaint is sufficient to establish the knowledge and specific intent required for enhanced damages and indirect infringement liability.