Hisense USA Corp v. Cogent Insights Licensing Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hisense USA Corporation (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Cogent Insights Licensing Inc. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC; Perkins Coie LLP
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00414, N.D. Ga., 12/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is a foreign entity not resident in the United States, and Plaintiff resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its products compliant with the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard do not infringe Defendant's patent related to wireless network optimization.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for managing interference and allocating resources in wireless networks, a critical function for modern high-density Wi-Fi environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this action was precipitated by a Notice of Infringement letter sent by Defendant to Plaintiff on December 8, 2025, which included a detailed claim chart. The complaint also notes that Defendant filed infringement suits asserting the same patent against other defendants on December 18, 2025.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-10-04	U.S. Patent No. 9,794,797 Priority Date
2017-10-17	U.S. Patent No. 9,794,797 Issued
2025-12-08	Cogent sends Notice of Infringement letter to Hisense
2025-12-18	Cogent files infringement suits against other defendants
2025-12-29	Hisense files Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,794,797 - *Multifactorial Optimization System and Method*

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,794,797, "Multifactorial Optimization System and Method," issued October 17, 2017 (the ’797 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of resource allocation and interference in communications networks, particularly as networks approach capacity, leading to packet loss and failure (’797 Patent, col. 1:57-col. 2:2). In wireless networks, independent agents (nodes) operating in a "commons" can have conflicting requirements and overlapping resources, requiring a system for optimization (’797 Patent, col. 16:20-25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes applying principles from market economics and game theory to allow wireless nodes to self-organize (’797 Patent, col. 16:29-34). Nodes in the network engage in an "automated negotiation" to manage interference, selecting between different directional antenna patterns (states) to optimize communications for the network as a whole (’797 Patent, col. 5:40-50, Claim 1). The system uses game-theoretic decision-making, where each node acts to maximize its own value function, leading to a collectively efficient outcome (’797 Patent, col. 16:20-34).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to decentralize network management, allowing ad-hoc networks to optimize themselves without a central controller by creating a micro-economy where network resources are arbitrated among nodes (’797 Patent, col. 16:45-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent Claim 1 as being asserted by Defendant (Compl. ¶23).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A wireless network node comprising an antenna system and an automated controller.
  • The antenna system has a directional radiation pattern with an alterable directional vector having at least a first and second state with different spatial characteristics.
  • The automated controller is configured to conduct an "automated negotiation" with a remote device.
  • This negotiation "employs game theoretic decision-making to self-organize the wireless network."
  • The purpose of the negotiation is to select one of the antenna states based on potential interference in each state.
  • The controller then defines the directional vector to assume the selected state and controls communication using that pattern.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but seeks a declaration of non-infringement for "any asserted claim" of the patent (Compl. ¶A).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Hisense 110 UX Series Championship Edition TV" is specifically identified, along with other Hisense products that are enabled to comply with the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard (Compl. ¶3-4).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement theory is based on the accused products' compliance with the Wi-Fi 6 standard (Compl. ¶3, ¶19).
• The specific technical features of the Wi-Fi 6 standard accused by Defendant are "spatial reuse" and "beamforming" (Compl. ¶20). Beamforming is a technique to focus a Wi-Fi signal in a specific direction, while spatial reuse allows multiple devices in a dense environment to transmit on the same channel simultaneously.
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' commercial importance beyond identifying a specific television model.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint states that Defendant provided a claim chart mapping Claim 1 to the IEEE 802.11ax standard, but this chart is not included as an exhibit (Compl. ¶19). The following table summarizes the infringement theory as described in the complaint's narrative.

'797 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
an antenna system... having a directional radiation pattern with an alterable directional vector having at least a first state and a second state which differ in at least the alterable directional vector and corresponding spatial characteristics	The complaint alleges that Defendant maps this element to the "beamforming" capabilities inherent in products compliant with the IEEE 802.11ax standard, which allows for the dynamic steering of wireless signals (Compl. ¶20).	¶20	col. 28:56-62
an automated controller, configured to: (i) conduct an automated negotiation with a remote wireless communication device, which employs game theoretic decision-making to self-organize the wireless network... to select one of the first state and the second state in dependence on the automated negotiation	The complaint alleges that Defendant maps this element to the "spatial reuse" features of the IEEE 802.11ax standard, which manages simultaneous transmissions to optimize network performance (Compl. ¶20).	¶20, ¶24	col. 29:10-21
(ii) define the alterable directional vector of the antenna system to selectively assume the directional radiation pattern having selected one of the first state and the second state; and (iii) control a communication through the communication channel with the alterable directional vector in the assumed directional radiation pattern having the selected one of the first state and the second state.	The complaint alleges Defendant's theory suggests that by implementing the Wi-Fi 6 standard's "beamforming" and "spatial reuse" features, the accused products necessarily perform the claimed functions of selecting and using an optimized directional pattern (Compl. ¶20).	¶20	col. 29:52-col. 30:2

• Identified Points of Contention: The complaint's primary basis for its non-infringement assertion centers on the specific requirements for the decision-making process.
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the IEEE 802.11ax standard's methods for managing interference, such as spatial reuse, fall within the scope of the claim term "automated negotiation which employs game theoretic decision-making." Hisense's denial explicitly focuses on this limitation (Compl. ¶24).
  • Technical Questions: The dispute may turn on the technical evidence presented regarding how spatial reuse and beamforming are actually implemented in the Wi-Fi 6 standard and the accused products. The question for the court will be whether this implementation meets the specific, multi-step process recited in Claim 1, particularly the "negotiation" and "game theoretic" aspects, or if it operates on a different technical principle.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "game theoretic decision-making to self-organize the wireless network"
• Context and Importance: This term is the crux of the dispute as framed by the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶24). Its construction will determine whether standardized, protocol-based coordination mechanisms like those in Wi-Fi 6 can be considered equivalent to the specific type of economic and strategic decision-making described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses game theory as a way to analyze the interaction of "independent decision makers, each seeking to fulfill their own objectives" (’797 Patent, col. 32:39-42). One could argue this broadly describes any multi-agent system where nodes adjust behavior based on network conditions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed context on applying economic models, auctions, and market principles where agents "locally optimize its state to achieve the greatest gains and incur the lowest net costs" (’797 Patent, col. 16:45-48). This suggests a more specific process involving value functions, bidding, and optimization of an economic surplus, which may not be present in the Wi-Fi 6 standard.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for both contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶22). It asserts that there can be no indirect infringement because there is no underlying direct infringement and because Hisense lacks the specific intent required for inducement (Compl. ¶26-27).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not mention any allegations of willful infringement.

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

This case appears to hinge on the interpretation and application of highly specific claim language to a complex industry standard. The central questions for the court are:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the IEEE 802.11ax standard's technical protocol for coordinating simultaneous transmissions ("spatial reuse") constitute the patent's requirement for an "automated negotiation" that "employs game theoretic decision-making"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: What is the specific mechanism by which Wi-Fi 6 devices manage interference and select transmission patterns, and is that mechanism technically and legally equivalent to the economic- and auction-theory-based optimization process explicitly described in the ’797 Patent specification?