DCT

1:18-cv-01752

Sprint Communications Co LP v. CSC Holdings LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01752, D. Del., 11/06/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper on the basis that each Defendant is a Delaware entity and therefore resides in the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ broadband and packet-based telephony services infringe a portfolio of fifteen patents related to fundamental Voice-over-Packet (VoP) technology.
  • Technical Context: The asserted patents relate to foundational methods and systems for interfacing traditional circuit-switched telephone networks with modern packet-based data networks to enable voice communications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint highlights an extensive and successful litigation history for the asserted patent portfolio. This includes a 2007 jury verdict against Vonage Holdings Corp. resulting in an $80 million license, and a 2017 jury verdict of willful infringement against Time Warner Cable resulting in a $139.8 million damages award. The complaint also alleges that Defendant Suddenlink Communications had knowledge of the patent portfolio and the infringing nature of its products since at least December 2007, following a notification from Sprint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1993-01-01 Sprint alleges its engineers began developing the patented VoP technology
1994-05-05 Earliest Priority Date for ’084, ’3,561, ’052, ’932, ’429, ’064, ’6,561, ’454, ’728, ’534 Patents
1996-02-01 Named inventor Joseph Christie passes away
1996-11-22 Earliest Priority Date for ’224, ’340 Patents
1996-12-20 Earliest Priority Date for ’918 Patent
2001-10-02 U.S. Patent No. 6,298,064 Issues
2001-12-11 U.S. Patent No. 6,330,224 Issues
2002-01-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,343,084 Issues
2002-04-19 Earliest Priority Date for ’131 Patent
2002-09-17 U.S. Patent No. 6,452,932 Issues
2002-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 6,463,052 Issues
2002-10-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,473,429 Issues
2003-05-13 U.S. Patent No. 6,563,918 Issues
2003-10-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,633,561 Issues
2004-02-24 U.S. Patent No. 6,697,340 Issues
2004-02-24 Earliest Priority Date for ’463 Patent
2006-02-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,999,463 Issues
2007-01-01 Sprint obtains patent infringement verdict against Vonage's VoIP product
2007-10-23 U.S. Patent No. 7,286,561 Issues
2007-12-01 Sprint allegedly notifies Suddenlink Communications of its VoP patent portfolio
2008-01-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,324,534 Issues
2008-02-05 U.S. Patent No. 7,327,728 Issues
2009-03-17 U.S. Patent No. 7,505,454 Issues
2010-04-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,693,131 Issues
2015-12-21 Altice USA acquires Suddenlink Communications
2017-03-01 Kansas jury finds Time Warner Cable willfully infringed five patents in the portfolio
2018-11-06 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,343,084 - “Broadband Telecommunications System,” issued January 29, 2002

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the technical and economic limitations of traditional telecommunications networks that rely on circuit-switching, where a dedicated circuit is required for the duration of a call. This approach is inefficient and makes network expansion costly and complex (Compl. ¶11). The patent specification notes the inefficiency of using permanent virtual circuits (PVCs) in Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) systems, which cannot be established on a dynamic, call-by-call basis without the signaling and processing capabilities of a full ATM switch (’084 Patent, col. 1:21-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that decouples call control intelligence from the physical switching hardware. It introduces a “signaling processor” that receives traditional call setup signals (e.g., from an SS7 network) and a separate “interworking multiplexer” that handles the user communication (e.g., voice). The processor selects a virtual connection through a broadband packet network (like ATM) and sends instructions to the multiplexer. The multiplexer then converts the user’s communication from its original format (e.g., a DSO circuit) into packets (e.g., ATM cells) tagged for the selected virtual connection, enabling dynamic, call-by-call switching over an efficient broadband backbone (’084 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture allowed telecommunication providers to leverage the cost and efficiency benefits of packet-based networks for voice traffic without replacing their entire legacy infrastructure or investing in expensive, monolithic ATM switches (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶68).
  • Claim 1 is a method for handling calls, comprising the essential elements of:
    • Operating an interworking unit.
    • Receiving messages into the interworking unit on a call-by-call basis, where the messages indicate one of a plurality of synchronous connections and a corresponding identifier.
    • Receiving user communications for the calls from the synchronous connections into the interworking unit.
    • In the interworking unit, converting the user communications into asynchronous communications that include the corresponding identifiers.
    • Transferring the asynchronous communications for subsequent routing based on the identifiers.

U.S. Patent No. 6,633,561 - “Method, System and Apparatus for Telecommunications Control,” issued October 14, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of routing communications that originate in or are destined for a traditional narrowband network (like the PSTN) through a modern packet-based communication system. A mechanism is needed to control how and where the communication exits the packet network to reach its destination (’561 Patent, col. 1:31-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a “processing system” that acts as a centralized controller for a packet communication network. For an incoming call from a narrowband system, the processing system receives the signaling message, processes it to select a “network code” that identifies an appropriate exit point (“network element”), generates a control message containing that code, and transfers the control message to the packet system. The packet system then uses this network code to route the user communication to the correct network element for egress. The patent also claims the reverse process for outbound calls (’561 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This invention provides a method for intelligent, centralized control over traffic flowing between disparate network types, enabling seamless integration of legacy and packet-based telecommunications systems (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claims 1 and 24 (Compl. ¶73).
  • Claim 1 is a method for controlling a packet communication system for an inbound user communication, comprising:
    • Receiving a signaling message from a narrowband communication system into a processing system.
    • Processing the signaling message to select a network code that identifies a network element for egress.
    • Generating a control message indicating the network code.
    • Transferring the control message to the packet communication system.
    • Receiving the user communication in the packet communication system and using the network code to route it to the network element.
    • Transferring the user communication from the network element to provide egress.
  • Claim 24 is a method for controlling a packet communication system for an outbound user communication, comprising:
    • In a processing system, selecting a network code identifying a network element for egress to a narrowband system.
    • Generating a control message with the network code and transferring it to the packet communication system.
    • Generating a signaling message for the user communication and transferring it to the narrowband system.
    • Receiving the user communication and using the network code to route it to the network element.
    • Transferring the user communication from the network element to the narrowband system for egress.

Multi-Patent Capsules for Additional Patents-in-Suit

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,463,052: Entitled “Method, System and Apparatus for Telecommunications Control,” this patent addresses transferring a user communication to a packet system by using a processing system to select a network code based on narrowband signaling and sending an instruction with that code to a device that handles the user communication. Accused features are related to the inbound call-flow process (Compl. ¶¶79-80).
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,452,932: Titled “Method, System and Apparatus for Telecommunications Control,” this patent describes a method for handling an outbound call by using a processing system external to narrowband switches to receive a first message, select a switch, and generate a second message to control the routing of the call to that switch. Accused features involve the outbound call-flow process (Compl. ¶¶84-85).
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,473,429: Titled “Broadband Telecommunications System,” this patent covers a method where a processing system selects an identifier, sends it in a message to an interworking unit, which then converts a user communication received from a synchronous DS0 connection into an asynchronous communication containing the identifier in a header. Accused features relate to the inbound call-flow process (Compl. ¶¶89-90).
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,298,064: Titled “Broadband Telecommunications System,” this patent describes a method where a processing system receives set-up signaling, selects a DS0 connection, and sends a message to an interworking unit, which converts an asynchronous communication into a user communication and transfers it to the selected DS0 connection. Accused features involve the outbound call-flow process (Compl. ¶¶94-95).
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,330,224: Entitled “System and Method for Providing Enhanced Services for a Telecommunication Call,” this patent addresses providing enhanced services (like voicemail) by using a processing system to select a service and a service node, and then instructing an interworking unit to convert and transmit the user communication to that service node. Accused features relate to calls forwarded to voicemail (Compl. ¶¶99-100).
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,697,340: Titled “System and Method for Providing Enhanced Services for a Telecommunication Call,” this patent describes a system where a signaling processor processes SS7 signaling to generate routing identifiers, and a service platform system uses those identifiers to interact with a caller and provide a service. Accused features relate to providing enhanced services like voicemail (Compl. ¶¶104-105).
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,286,561: Entitled “Method System and Apparatus for Telecommunications Control,” this patent covers a method where a processing system processes SS7 or Q.931 signaling to select packet routing information and instructs a communication system to convert a user communication into a packet format that includes this routing information. Accused features involve the inbound call-flow process (Compl. ¶¶109-110).
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,505,454: Titled “Method, System and Apparatus for Telecommunications Control,” this patent describes a method where a communication control processor receives signaling from customer premises equipment, selects an address for a network element, and transfers signaling to both the network element and a narrowband network to establish an outbound call. Accused features involve the outbound call-flow process (Compl. ¶¶114-115).
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,327,728: Titled “Broadband Telecommunications System,” this patent covers a method where a signaling processor selects routing information on a call-by-call basis and sends control messages to a communication unit, which then converts user communications into a format having headers that include the selected routing information. Accused features relate to the inbound call-flow process (Compl. ¶¶119-120).
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,324,534: Titled “Broadband Telecommunications System Interface,” this patent describes a method where a bearer interface processes DTMF signals to determine a called number, sends a message to a processing system which selects an identifier, and in response, converts user communications into a packet format that includes the identifier for routing. Accused features involve the outbound call-flow process (Compl. ¶¶124-125).
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,693,131: Titled “Telecommunications System to Provide Analog Telephony Communications Over a Packet Connection,” this patent details a comprehensive system including a residential hub and a service node with a call manager and voice mux to manage the conversion and routing of telephony signaling and user communications between PSTN and packet formats. Accused features relate to the overall outbound call system architecture (Compl. ¶¶129-130).
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,563,918: Titled “Telecommunications System Architecture for Connecting a Call,” this patent describes a system with distinct control and call processor components that use data tables to process signaling and control an interworking unit that converts and transfers user communications between different formats. Accused features relate to the overall system architecture and data table management (Compl. ¶¶134-135).
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,999,463: Titled “Number Portability In A Communications System,” this patent covers a method where a call signaling processor processes a called number to perform a number portability query, receives a route number in response, selects an identifier based on that route number, and instructs a communication system to add the identifier to a header for routing. Accused features relate to the handling of outbound calls to ported numbers (Compl. ¶¶139-140).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products and services are collectively referred to as the “Altice Branded Voice Services,” which include, among others, Suddenlink Home Phone, Suddenlink Business Class Phone, and Optimum Voice (Compl. ¶39, ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these services provide VoIP telephony, enabling users to place and receive calls between packet-based networks and the traditional Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) (Compl. ¶43).
  • The accused system is alleged to operate using network elements including a Call Management Server (CMS) or softswitch, which handles call control and setup; a Media Gateway (MG), which interworks voice traffic between time-based PSTN formats (e.g., TDM) and packet-based formats (e.g., RTP); and a Multimedia Terminal Adapter (MTA) at the customer premises (Compl. ¶¶43, 45).
  • For calls originating from the PSTN, the CMS allegedly receives SS7 signaling, processes it to identify the called VoIP subscriber and the appropriate MG, and sends control messages to the MG and the subscriber's MTA to establish a session for transmitting voice packets (Compl. ¶¶44-47). For calls originating from a VoIP subscriber, the CMS allegedly processes dialed digits, selects a PSTN trunk and associated MG, and generates SS7 signaling to route the call to the PSTN (Compl. ¶¶58-62).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,343,084 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
operating an interworking unit to handle a plurality of calls Altice operates Media Gateways (MGs) to handle calls between the PSTN and its packet network. ¶45, ¶69 col. 2:19-25
receiving messages into the interworking unit on a call-by-call basis, where the messages indicate one of a plurality of synchronous connections and a corresponding one of a plurality of identifiers For inbound calls, the Altice CMS sends a CRCX (create connection) message to the MG, which identifies the MG and instructs it to create a session. The OPC and CIC in the prior SS7 IAM message identify the synchronous PSTN connection. ¶45-46 col. 4:32-41
receiving user communications for the calls from the synchronous connections indicated in the messages into the interworking unit The MG receives bearer audio (voice) from the PSTN over a DS0 synchronous connection corresponding to the OPC and CIC values from the SS7 message. ¶49 col. 4:56-62
in the interworking unit, in response to the messages, converting the user communications from the synchronous connections into asynchronous communications including the corresponding identifiers The MG packetizes the bearer audio from the DS0 connection into asynchronous RTP voice packets. The packets implicitly correspond to the session established by the CRCX message. ¶50-51 col. 4:62-67
transferring the asynchronous communications for subsequent routing based on the identifiers The MG sends the RTP voice packets over Altice's IP network to the called party’s MTA, with the destination identified by the MTA's IP address. ¶51 col. 5:1-4

U.S. Patent No. 6,633,561 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving a signaling message for the user communication from a narrowband communication system into a processing system The Altice CMS receives an SS7 Initial Address Message (IAM) from the PSTN for an inbound call. ¶44, ¶74 col. 2:14-16
in the processing system, processing the signaling message to select a network code that identified a network element to provide egress from the packet communication system for the user communication The CMS processes the SS7 IAM to select the called party's MTA, identifying it by its IP address, which serves as the egress point from the packet network. ¶45, ¶74 col. 2:17-21
generating a control message indicating the network code The CMS generates and sends CRCX (create connection) messages to the MTA, which include the IP address and port information for the MG. ¶47, ¶74 col. 2:22-23
transferring the control message from the processing system to the packet communication system The CMS sends the CRCX message containing the selected network information over the packet network to the MTA. ¶47, ¶74 col. 2:24-26
receiving the user communication in the packet communication system and using the network code to route the user communication through the packet communication system to the network element RTP voice packets from the MG are received and routed through Altice's IP network to the destination IP address of the selected MTA. ¶51, ¶74 col. 2:27-31
transferring the user communication from the network element to provide egress from the packet communication system The MTA receives the RTP packets, converts the digital audio back to analog format, and provides it to the subscriber's analog telephone. ¶52, ¶74 col. 2:32-34

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be one of technological evolution. The asserted patents were filed in the 1990s and are grounded in the context of ATM technology. The analysis will question whether claim terms like “asynchronous communication” (’084 Patent) and “interworking unit” (’084 Patent), which are described in the patent specification with reference to ATM cells and ATM multiplexers, can be construed to cover the accused RTP packets and Media Gateways used in modern VoIP systems.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory depends on mapping the functions of distinct network components (CMS, MG, MTA) to the elements of the claims. A point of contention may be whether these physically and logically separate components collectively meet the claim limitations of a single “interworking unit” (’084 Patent) or “processing system” (’561 Patent), or if there is a mismatch in how the claimed and accused systems are architected and operate. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the Altice MG, by itself, performs all steps of the '084 method claim, including receiving the initial control message and converting communications "in response" to it?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’084 Patent, Claim 1

  • The Term: "asynchronous communication"
  • Context and Importance: This term's scope is critical. The complaint alleges that RTP voice packets are “asynchronous communications.” Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s specification heavily emphasizes Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) technology. The case may turn on whether the term is given its plain meaning (not synchronous) or is limited to the specific ATM context disclosed in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit "asynchronous communication" to ATM. The term is general and could be argued to encompass any communication that is not tied to a specific time-division clock, such as packet-based protocols like RTP.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background section explicitly discusses the development of ATM technology (’084 Patent, col. 1:21-23). The detailed description of the invention and its embodiments consistently refers to converting user information into “ATM cells” (’084 Patent, col. 4:62-64). This consistent focus on ATM may be argued to limit the scope of "asynchronous communication" to that specific technology.

’3,561 Patent, Claim 1

  • The Term: "processing system"
  • Context and Importance: The complaint alleges Altice’s “CMS” is the “processing system.” However, a footnote in the complaint acknowledges that the functions could be performed by a combination of a Media Gateway Controller (MGC), Signaling Gateway (SG), and Call Agent (CA) (Compl. ¶44, fn. 4). The definition of "processing system" is therefore central to determining whether Altice’s potentially distributed architecture infringes a claim reciting a single system element.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 describes the "processing system" in functional terms—what it does (receives signaling, processes it, generates a message), not necessarily what it is physically. This may support an interpretation where multiple, coordinated components can collectively constitute the claimed "system."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures (e.g., ’561 Patent, Fig. 1) depict the “Call/Connection Manager” (CCM), which embodies the processing system, as a single logical block. This may support an argument that the claimed "processing system" requires a level of integration not present in a distributed architecture of separate gateways and controllers.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain counts for indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or (c).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint bases this allegation on Defendants' knowledge of the patents and their infringement, allegedly dating back to at least a December 2007 notification letter from Sprint to Suddenlink (Compl. ¶40). The complaint further supports this claim by citing the extensive, public litigation history of the portfolio, including jury verdicts against similarly situated companies like Vonage and Time Warner Cable, which allegedly made it objectively likely that Defendants' conduct was infringing (Compl. ¶41).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the 1990s ATM context, such as “asynchronous communication,” be construed broadly enough to read on the modern VoIP protocols, such as RTP, used in the accused services? The outcome of this claim construction battle will likely be determinative for many of the asserted patents.
  • A central factual question will be one of architectural mapping: does the accused system, which distributes call control functions across potentially separate components like a Call Management Server, Media Gateway Controller, and Signaling Gateway, practice the methods claimed in the patents, which often recite a single, integrated “processing system” or “interworking unit” performing a sequence of steps?
  • A key issue for damages will be willfulness: given the extensive and successful public enforcement history of this patent portfolio and the specific allegation of a pre-suit notice letter, the question of whether any infringement by Defendants was willful will be a primary focus, carrying the potential for treble damages.