DCT

9:25-cv-80704

Brightsky LLC v. Plover Bay Tech Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 9:25-cv-80704, S.D. Fla., 06/04/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Defendant JV Connectivity because it is a Florida corporation with a principal place of business in the district. Venue is alleged to be proper as to Defendants Peplink and Plover Bay because they are foreign corporations.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ POTS Adapter products infringe a patent related to technology for interfacing legacy analog telephone systems with modern cellular networks.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the market need created by telecommunication companies phasing out Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS), enabling continued use of existing analog equipment over modern Voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) cellular networks.
  • Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-01-01 Plaintiff Simplifi has employed approximately 30 people "since 2019"
2021-09-02 Earliest Priority Date for ’173 Patent
2024-04-30 U.S. Patent No. 11,974,173 Issues
2025-06-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,974,173 - "Wired Telephone to VoLTE Adapter"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,974,173, "Wired Telephone to VoLTE Adapter," issued April 30, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that public utility telephone companies are discontinuing the provision of traditional Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS), which leaves the extensive infrastructure of installed copper wires and connected devices (e.g., security panels, elevator phones) unable to make communications outside the facility (’173 Patent, col. 1:12-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an adapter that serves as a bridge between the legacy internal POTS infrastructure and a modern LTE cellular network. As illustrated in Figure 1, the device provides a standard telephone jack (e.g., an RJ-11 jack) on one side and interfaces with an LTE modem on the other, converting analog voice and control signals into a format suitable for transmission over a VoLTE cellular connection (’173 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 2:17-31). This allows legacy analog equipment to function over a digital cellular network.
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows for the continued use of installed POTS-based equipment, obviating the expense of replacing or upgrading devices such as security panels, alarm systems, and fax machines that were designed for analog telephone lines (’173 Patent, col. 3:6-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts direct and indirect infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 41).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’173 patent recites the key elements of a "radio communications device":
    • A data interface for exchanging control commands and audio data with an LTE cellular modem.
    • A telephone interface for connecting to a two-wire analog telephone device.
    • A controller configured to perform five specific functions: (1) manage voice call operations via the telephone interface; (2) exchange analog voice signals corresponding to digitally modulated signals; (3) convert signals between analog voice and a Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) data stream; (4) exchange control information with the LTE modem to manage an LTE session; and (5) exchange the PCM data stream via the LTE session.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims based on discovery (Compl. ¶39).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Peplink POTS Adaptor" (Compl. ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused POTS Product is a device designed to "Convert your hard-to-maintain Plain Old Telephone System to cost-effective VoLTE infrastructure" (Compl. ¶22). A product screenshot shows a device with a "Phone" port (identified as an RJ11 port) and connections for power and cellular antennas (Compl. p. 6).
  • Technically, the device is alleged to enable the connection of a legacy POTS line to an LTE cellular connection, allowing equipment such as alarm systems, elevators, and remote door/gate systems to operate over a modern cellular network (Compl. ¶26; Compl. Ex. 3 at 3). The complaint alleges the device contains specific internal hardware, such as a Si32184 Subscriber Line Interface Controller (SLIC) chip, to perform the conversion between analog POTS signals and the digital domain via Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) (Compl. ¶31). An internal photograph of the accused product's circuit board highlights a chip identified as the Si32184 SLIC (Compl. p. 11).
  • The complaint alleges Defendants copied the technology after the commercial success of Plaintiff's invention became known, offering a "foreign-manufactured version... at a lower price" (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’173 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A radio communications device supporting 4G/5G Long Term Evolution (LTE) cellular communications... The Accused POTS Product is described in its datasheet as a device that "enables connection of a POTS line to an LTE cellular connection." ¶26 col. 11:20-22
a data interface configured to exchange modem control commands and audio data with an LTE cellular modem; The product is alleged to provide an interface between a POTS line and an LTE cellular modem that handles both control commands and audio data. ¶27 col. 11:23-25
a telephone interface configured to provide a two-wire analog telephone interface for connection to a telephone device; The product's datasheet allegedly shows it includes an RJ11 jack to connect an analog phone device via a two-wire plug. ¶28 col. 11:26-29
a controller configured to: exchange control signals via the telephone interface to manage voice call operations with the telephone device; The product's user manual allegedly explains that it supports phone calls from a connected POTS phone, which requires exchanging control signals. ¶29 col. 11:30-33
...exchange analog voice channel signals corresponding to digitally modulated voice channel signals exchanged with the telephone device... The product is alleged to support a phone call over an LTE modem, which requires converting analog voice signals to corresponding digital signals. ¶30 col. 11:33-37
...convert signals between the analog voice channel signals and a Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) voice channel data stream; The product allegedly includes a Si32184 SLIC chip that, according to its datasheet, converts analog POTS signals to the digital domain via PCM. ¶31 col. 11:38-41
...exchange control information with the LTE cellular modem via the data interface to establish and manage an LTE cellular session; The product is alleged to provide an interface between a POTS phone and an LTE modem that handles control information to manage a connection. ¶32 col. 11:41-44
...exchange the Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) voice channel data stream via the LTE cellular session via the LTE cellular modem. The product allegedly uses a SLIC with a PCM module to convert signals and transmit them via the LTE modem. ¶33 col. 11:45-48
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The claim requires a single "controller" to perform five distinct functions. The complaint's evidence points to a system of components, including a main processor and a specialized Si32184 SLIC chip (Compl. ¶31). The case may turn on whether the term "controller" can be construed to cover such a distributed architecture, or if it must refer to a single, unitary component.
    • Technical Questions: A key question will be whether the accused product's architecture, particularly the identified Si32184 SLIC chip, actually performs the specific signal conversion and management functions as required by the claim. The complaint provides a datasheet for the Si32184 chip as evidence for the "convert signals... to a Pulse Code Modulation (PCM)" element (Compl. p. 11). The defense may question whether this off-the-shelf component, as implemented in the accused device, satisfies all the functional limitations attributed to the "controller" in the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "controller"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis, as it is the component required to perform all five of the core functional steps of the invention. The complaint’s allegations rely on the functionality of both a general processor and a specific SLIC chip to meet these limitations. Therefore, whether the "controller" can be interpreted as a distributed system of components or must be a single, integrated unit will be critical.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes a system with multiple processing components working in concert. For example, Figure 1 depicts a "Microcontroller" (122) in the adapter and a "Host MCU" (124) in the router, both of which are involved in the overall control of the system (’173 Patent, Fig. 1). The claim language itself is simply "controller", not a more specific term like "microprocessor", which may support an interpretation that covers any combination of hardware and software configured to perform the recited functions (’173 Patent, col. 2:9-16).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s block diagrams consistently show the "SLIC" (120) and the "Microcontroller" (122) as separate and distinct boxes, which could support an argument that the SLIC is merely an interface circuit and not part of the "controller" itself (’173 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 6). A party could argue that the term "controller" refers specifically to the programmable logic element (e.g., microcontroller 122) and not the entire system of components it manages.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement by Defendants through the publication of promotional literature, user manuals, and the provision of technical support that allegedly instruct and encourage end-users to operate the Accused POTS Product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶43). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the Accused POTS Product has "no substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶44).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants had knowledge of the ’173 patent "at least as of the date of service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶42). This allegation appears to be based on post-suit knowledge, potentially to support a claim for enhanced damages for any infringement that continues after the lawsuit was filed.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "controller" be construed to encompass a distributed system of components, as alleged in the complaint, or is it limited to a single, unitary processor? The resolution of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive for infringement.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: assuming a construction of "controller" favorable to the plaintiff, does the accused product's combination of hardware, including the identified Si32184 SLIC chip, and software actually perform all five of the specific functions recited in Claim 1? The case will likely require detailed expert analysis of the accused product's internal operations.
  • A third question relates to damages and intent: should infringement be found, the litigation will focus on the extent of damages and whether Defendants’ alleged conduct—particularly any continued sales post-filing—rises to the level of willfulness required for enhanced damages.