CommPlex Systems LLC v. Summit Broadband Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CommPlex Systems LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Summit Broadband Inc. (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Beusse Sanks, PLLC; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:25-cv-01868, M.D. Fla., 09/26/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant maintains an established place of business within the Middle District of Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to systems for increasing the efficiency of digital data transmission using multiple orthogonal frequencies.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves advanced digital modulation techniques, such as Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM), which are foundational to modern high-speed wireless and wired communication standards.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-10-30	U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900 Priority Date
2011-01-04	U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900 Issued
2025-09-26	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900 - "Communication system for sending and receiving digital data"

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, issued January 4, 2011 (the "’900 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes challenges with conventional Frequency Shift Keying (FSK) modulation techniques, including inaccurate determination of center frequencies and signal distortion, which can limit data transmission rates and reliability over narrow bandwidths (Compl. Ex. 1, ’900 Patent, col. 1:56-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communication system that uses multiple orthogonal carrier frequencies to transmit data, referred to as a "Multiple Orthogonal locked frequencies Narrow Band Frequency Shift Keying (Mary-NBFSK) system" (’900 Patent, col. 4:9-11). Instead of transmitting a single frequency to represent a single bit (0 or 1), the system transmits a specific combination of frequencies selected from a larger set of available orthogonal frequencies to represent a larger block of data (e.g., using two out of 32 available frequencies to represent a 10-bit combination) (’900 Patent, col. 6:53-60, Fig. 7). This method is designed to increase the "code density and data rate per Hz of bandwidth" (’900 Patent, col. 3:13-14). The receiver uses digital signal processing, such as a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), to identify the transmitted frequencies and decode the corresponding data (’900 Patent, col. 8:15-24).
• Technical Importance: This approach of using combinations of orthogonal frequencies to encode data is a method for achieving higher spectral efficiency, a critical goal in the design of modern communication systems where bandwidth is a limited resource (’900 Patent, col. 3:4-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific claims of the ’900 Patent that are being asserted, stating only that Defendant infringes "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11). For the purpose of analysis, independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core technology.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A communication system for sending and receiving data, comprising a transmitter and a receiver.
  • A general binary coded Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme provided between the transmitter and receiver to increase code density and data rate per Hz of bandwidth.
  • A plurality of narrow band carrier frequencies that are orthogonal and transmitted in a binary code to represent data.
  • The narrow band carrier frequencies include a narrow band separation between orthogonal carriers of the order of 0.1 MHz.
  • The system provides a bandwidth of the order of 3.2 MHz for 32 carriers.
  • The bandwidth allows transmission at least 6 Mbps in a 2 of 32 Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing scheme.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused products. It alleges that claim charts comparing the asserted claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" are included in an Exhibit 2, but this exhibit was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶16). Summit Broadband Inc. is identified as a broadband communications provider, suggesting the accused instrumentalities could relate to network infrastructure, customer premises equipment, or data transmission services.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain substantive infringement allegations or claim charts in its body, instead incorporating them by reference to an external "Exhibit 2" that was not included in the provided materials (Compl. ¶17). As a result, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

Assuming the infringement theory targets technology analogous to that described in claim 1 of the ’900 Patent, the analysis would likely focus on the following areas.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the Defendant's system, which may be based on standard protocols (e.g., DOCSIS for cable broadband), can be properly characterized as practicing the specific "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme" described and claimed in the patent. Another question is whether the term "binary code" as used in the patent reads on the complex modulation schemes (e.g., QAM) used in modern broadband systems.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused instrumentalities meet the specific numerical limitations recited in the claims, such as carrier separation "of the order of 0.1 MHz," a total bandwidth "of the order of 3.2 MHz for 32 carriers," and a data rate of "at least 6 Mbps" under those conditions. The lack of specificity in the complaint regarding the accused products precludes any further analysis of a technical match.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Because the complaint does not specify the asserted claims, this analysis focuses on terms from representative independent claim 1 that are likely to be central to the dispute.

"Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core technology of the claimed system. The determination of whether the Defendant's products employ such a "scheme" will be dispositive for infringement. Practitioners may focus on whether this term is limited to the patent's specific "Mary-NBFSK" embodiment or covers a broader class of OFDM-based technologies.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language uses the general term "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing," a well-known industry term. Plaintiff may argue this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, encompassing a wide range of systems that use orthogonal carriers.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the invention in the context of a "Multiple Orthogonal locked frequencies Narrow Band Frequency Shift Keying (Mary-NBFSK) system" (’900 Patent, col. 4:9-11). Defendant may argue that the claim term should be construed as being limited to this specific implementation described in the patent.

"of the order of"

• Context and Importance: This term qualifies the numerical limitations for carrier separation ("of the order of 0.1 MHz") and bandwidth ("of the order of 3.2 MHz"). Its construction is critical because it determines how much deviation from the specified values is permissible for a product to fall within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff will likely argue that this term means "approximately" or "around," signaling that the patentee did not intend to be held to the exact numerical values that follow. The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition for the term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the term is indefinite for failing to inform one of skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. Alternatively, Defendant may argue the term should be narrowly construed based on the specific examples and figures in the patent, if any provide context for the permissible range.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products to customers and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to operate the products in a manner that infringes the ’900 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of its infringement (Compl. ¶13). This allegation appears to form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

• Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue is whether the complaint, which identifies neither the specific products accused of infringement nor the asserted patent claims within its text, provides sufficient notice to the Defendant under the federal pleading standards, or if its reliance on an external, unprovided exhibit renders it deficient.
• Definitional Scope: The case will likely turn on claim construction, particularly the scope of the term "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme" and the degree of numerical flexibility permitted by the phrase "of the order of." The outcomes of these constructions will substantially narrow or broaden the scope of the patent.
• Technical Evidence: A central evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused systems, once fully identified through discovery, practice the specific combination of technical features required by the asserted claims, including the numerical limitations on bandwidth, carrier separation, and data throughput.