Ax Wireless LLC v. Ubiquiti Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AX Wireless, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Ubiquiti Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01174, N.D. Ill., 02/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's alleged regular and established place of business within the district, specifically a corporate office and research and development facility in Barrington, Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless networking products, including its U7-Pro-US Access Point, infringe five patents related to methods for improving data transmission reliability by repeating header information in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) networks.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns variable header repetition schemes in packet-based wireless systems, a technique used to balance data overhead against the need for robust signal reception in noisy environments common to Wi-Fi and other wireless standards.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,079,707 - "Receiver Method and Apparatus for Variable Header Repetition in a Wireless OFDM Network," issued September 18, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In wireless OFDM communication systems, a packet’s header contains critical information needed to decode the rest of the packet (the payload). Ensuring the header is decoded reliably, especially in noisy environments, is essential for the system to function properly Compl. ¶12 ’707 Patent, col. 1:50-57
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a receiver apparatus capable of handling two distinct packet types to enhance reliability. A first packet type transmits its header across two transmission blocks (OFDM symbols). A second, more robust packet type repeats the header information across four transmission blocks. This repetition provides diversity, increasing the likelihood of successful header decoding even if parts of the transmission are lost. Compl. ¶12 ’707 Patent, Abstract ’707 Patent, Fig. 1
• Technical Importance: This variable repetition scheme allows a network to dynamically trade-off between lower overhead (for the first packet type) and higher reliability (for the second), improving overall performance and backward compatibility Compl. ¶12 ’707 Patent, col. 2:27-32

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶23
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A wireless OFDM transceiver comprising a wireless OFDM communications receiver.
  • The receiver is operable to receive a "first packet type" with a header field comprising two different parts, demodulated from a first and second OFDM symbol.
  • The receiver is also operable to receive a "second packet type" with a header field comprising four parts, where the first and second parts are the same, and the third and fourth parts are the same, demodulated from four OFDM symbols.
  • A demodulator operable to demodulate the OFDM symbols for both packet types.

U.S. Patent No. 10,917,272 - "Non-transitory computer-readable information storage media for variable header repetition in a wireless OFDM network," issued February 9, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the ’707 Patent, the invention addresses the need for reliable header transmission and reception in OFDM networks to ensure data integrity Compl. ¶14 ’272 Patent, col. 1:55-59
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims methods (and media storing instructions for them) for both transmitting and receiving packets with variable header repetition. The claimed methods involve generating or receiving two packet types: one with a two-block header and another where the header information is sent over four blocks via repetition. This provides a method-based counterpart to the apparatus claims of the ’707 patent. Compl. ¶14 ’272 Patent, Abstract ’272 Patent, col. 2:20-32
• Technical Importance: The claimed methods provide a framework for transmitters and receivers to implement a flexible header repetition scheme, enhancing network reliability in challenging signal conditions Compl. ¶14

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claims 1 and 11 Compl. ¶29
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 (a transmission method) include: generating a first packet type with a two-part header; generating a second packet type with a four-part repeated header; and transmitting both packet types.
• The essential elements of independent claim 11 (a receiving method) include: receiving a first packet type with a two-part header; demodulating it; receiving a second packet type with a four-part repeated header; and demodulating it.

U.S. Patent No. 11,646,927 - "Header repetition in packet-based OFDM systems," issued May 9, 2023

The Invention Explained

• The patent describes a communication apparatus designed to improve transmission reliability in OFDM networks. The apparatus transmits two types of data packets: one with header information in two blocks, and a second, more robust type where each of the two blocks is repeated, distributing the header information over four blocks to better withstand noise and interference. Compl. ¶16

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claims 1-2 Compl. ¶35
• The U7-Pro-US Access Point is alleged to be a communication apparatus that practices the claimed invention Compl. ¶¶34-35

U.S. Patent No. 11,777,776 - "Header repetition in packet-based OFDM systems," issued October 3, 2023

The Invention Explained

• This patent describes a receiver apparatus that enables coexistence between different generations of devices on the same OFDM network. It supports a "basic" packet format with a single header block and an "extended" format where the header is repeated in a second block. The claimed receiver can automatically detect which format a given packet uses, ensuring backward compatibility and improved reliability. Compl. ¶18

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claims 1-6 Compl. ¶41
• The U7-Pro-US Access Point is alleged to incorporate the claimed improved receiver apparatus Compl. ¶¶40-41

U.S. Patent No. 12,063,134 - "Header repetition in packet-based OFDM systems," issued August 13, 2024

The Invention Explained

• This patent describes a transmitter apparatus that supports a "basic" format (single header block) and an "extended" format (repeated header block) to facilitate communication between devices of different generations. The claimed transmitter can send both packet formats, with the repetition in the extended format being applied only to the header and not the data payload, improving backward compatibility for receivers. Compl. ¶20

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claims 1-7 Compl. ¶47
• The U7-Pro-US Access Point is alleged to be a transmitter apparatus that practices the claimed invention Compl. ¶¶46-47

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies a general category of "Accused Products," including wireless router systems, modems, and access points, and specifically names the "U7-Pro-US Access Point" as an "Exemplary Accused Product" Compl. ¶¶3-4

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant imports, offers for sale, and sells the Accused Products in the United States Compl. ¶3 No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical functionality or market positioning of the U7-Pro-US Access Point beyond the conclusory allegations of infringement.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that claim charts demonstrating infringement are attached as exhibits, but these exhibits were not available for this analysis Compl. ¶¶24, 30, 36, 42, 48 The following summarizes the narrative infringement theory from the complaint body.

’707 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the U7-Pro-US Access Point directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’707 Patent Compl. ¶23 The narrative theory is that the accused product functions as a wireless OFDM receiver that satisfies all limitations of the claim by receiving and processing two distinct types of data packets: a first type with a two-part header and a second type where the header information is repeated over four blocks for enhanced reliability Compl. ¶¶12, 24

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: A potential dispute is whether the packet formats used by the accused product (e.g., different generations of Wi-Fi packets) fall within the specific definitions of the "first packet type" and "second packet type" as recited in the claims.
  • Technical Question: An evidentiary question for the court will be what technical mechanism within the U7-Pro-US Access Point receives and demodulates packets with these distinct header structures, and whether that mechanism maps directly to the claimed elements.

’272 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the U7-Pro-US Access Point directly infringes at least claims 1 and 11 of the ’272 Patent, which cover methods of transmission and reception, respectively Compl. ¶29 The infringement theory is that the accused product, through its hardware and software, necessarily performs the claimed methods of generating, transmitting, receiving, and decoding packets with both two-block and repeated four-block headers Compl. ¶¶14, 30

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: The analysis will likely focus on whether the accused product's standard operation constitutes "generating" and "transmitting" the two packet types as required by claim 1, and separately "receiving" and "demodulating" them per claim 11.
  • Technical Question: A key question is whether the product's firmware implements the specific, ordered steps of the claimed methods, or if it achieves a similar result through a technically distinct process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "first packet type" / "second packet type"

  • Context and Importance: These terms are foundational to the infringement case, as Plaintiff must map the functionality of the accused Wi-Fi product onto these two specific packet structures defined in the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patents originated in the context of the G.hn (home networking) standard, and Defendant may argue the terms are limited to that context and do not read on products implementing other standards like Wi-Fi.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims are directed to a "wireless OFDM...transceiver" generally, not one explicitly limited to a specific standard, which may support an interpretation covering any system using OFDM, including Wi-Fi ’707 Patent, col. 12:49-51
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification makes numerous references to the G.9960 (G.hn) standard, which could suggest the claimed "packet types" should be construed as the specific frame structures contemplated within that standard ’707 Patent, col. 1:57-68

• The Term: "wherein the first set of header bits... is the same as the second set of header bits"

  • Context and Importance: This repetition language is the technical core of the asserted claims. Its construction will determine how identical the repeated header blocks must be for infringement to occur.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that the "modulation of the copied block may not be exactly the same as the original version," which could support a construction where "same" refers to the informational content of the bits, not necessarily an identical physical-layer representation ’707 Patent, col. 2:35-37
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that "is the same as" requires a literal, bit-for-bit identity and that any difference in modulation or encoding between the blocks means they are not "the same" as required by the plain language of the claim ’707 Patent, col. 13:8-10

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement or facts to support a finding of pre- or post-suit knowledge of infringement.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional and technical scope: can the claims, which describe specific "first" and "second" packet types with distinct header repetition schemes, be construed to cover the packet formats used in modern Wi-Fi standards implemented by the accused U7-Pro-US Access Point? The case may turn on whether the patents are interpreted as being limited to the G.hn standard context in which they arose.

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: assuming the claim scope is broad enough, does the accused product's actual operation—specifically, how its silicon and firmware handle different Wi-Fi frame formats for backward compatibility or high-efficiency modes—align with the specific two-symbol and four-symbol repeated header structures recited in the independent claims? The complaint asserts this alignment but does not provide the underlying technical evidence.