Mobility Workx LLC v. Intertek Testing Services Na Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mobility Workx, LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Zeisler PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01202, N.D.N.Y., 09/02/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant's residence in the state and district of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s network testing products and services infringe a patent related to a hybrid hardware-software system for emulating mobile wireless networks.
• Technical Context: The technology involves methods for testing how mobile devices and applications perform under varying network conditions, which is critical for developing reliable wireless products and services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-07-31	’330 Patent Priority Date
2007-06-12	’330 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-02	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,231,330 - Rapid Mobility Network Emulator Method and System

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,231,330, “Rapid Mobility Network Emulator Method and System,” issued June 12, 2007 (’330 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for better tools to test mobile network performance. It notes that purely software-based simulators are often slow and impractical, while existing hardware-based "wire-line" emulators fail to account for the unique characteristics of wireless mobility and complex signal propagation. (’330 Patent, col. 1:21-2:16).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hybrid system that combines physical hardware with software emulation. Instead of modeling complex radio physics in software, the system uses multiple fixed wireless access points whose signal characteristics are physically manipulated by variable attenuators. A central controller adjusts the attenuation levels of these access points to realistically simulate the movement of a mobile device (e.g., a phone moving away from one access point and toward another). This wireless hardware setup is linked to a software-based "network emulator" that simulates the conditions of the wired portion of the network, such as latency and packet loss. (’330 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:17-38).
• Technical Importance: This approach was designed to enable faster, more realistic, and repeatable real-time testing of mobile applications and protocols than was possible with prior art simulation tools. (’330 Patent, col. 3:59-4:8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claims 1-19. (’330 Patent, col. 9:48-12:67; Compl. ¶9). The key independent claims appear to be Claim 1 (a system) and Claim 11 (a method).
• Independent Claim 1 (System) includes:
  • A plurality of "fixedly-located wireless network nodes" that can variably adjust their wireless communication characteristics.
  • At least one "mobile node" that communicates with the wireless nodes.
  • A "network emulator" linked to the wireless nodes, configured to emulate attributes of a "packet-based wired communications network" (e.g., delay, congestion, bandwidth limits).
  • A "controller" linked to the wireless nodes, configured to control their wireless characteristics to "simulate" different wireless conditions experienced by the mobile node in actual operation.
• Independent Claim 11 (Method) includes:
  • "initiating communications" between a home agent and a mobile node via a fixed wireless node connected to a controller.
  • "dynamically adjusting" with the controller a wireless characteristic of the wireless node to simulate different communication conditions.
  • "emulating" with an emulator the attributes of a packet-based wired network.
• The complaint does not specify which dependent claims may be asserted.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "certain products and services ('Accused Emulation Products/Services')." (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide any specific details about the accused products or services, their technical functionality, how they operate, or their market positioning. (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a preliminary infringement claim chart (Exhibit 2) that was not included with the publicly filed document. (Compl. ¶9). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative allegations in the complaint do not specify which features of the Accused Emulation Products/Services are alleged to meet each claim limitation.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the patent’s focus on a specific hardware-based architecture and the lack of detail in the complaint, several fundamental questions about infringement may arise.
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the term "controller... configured to control the wireless communication characteristics" requires direct manipulation of physical-layer hardware (such as the "variable attenuator" disclosed in the specification), or if it can be read to cover purely software-based methods of simulating wireless conditions. The distinction between simulating mobility by controlling physical hardware versus modeling it in software may be a central point of dispute.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence that the accused products utilize the claimed architecture of "fixedly-located wireless network nodes" linked to a separate "network emulator" for the wired backbone. A key question will be whether the accused products are architecturally consistent with the system claimed in the ’330 Patent or if they achieve a similar result through a fundamentally different technical approach.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "controller communicatively linked to each of said plurality of wireless network nodes, said controller configured to control the wireless communication characteristics... to simulate... different wireless communication conditions" (from Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This term appears to capture the core of the inventive concept: simulating a mobile environment by actively managing the signal properties of fixed hardware. The definition of what constitutes "controlling" these "characteristics" will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern network emulation may be achieved entirely in software, raising the question of whether such systems fall within the scope of a claim seemingly directed at a hardware-centric solution.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general phrase "wireless communication characteristics," which the specification notes can include not only signal strength but also "signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and bit error rate (BER)." (’330 Patent, col. 10:4-6). This could support an argument that the claim is not limited to the specific mechanism of attenuation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and consistently describes the solution in terms of physical hardware. The detailed description explains that each wireless node includes a "variable attenuator", and the controller operates by "varying an amount of attenuation provided by the attenuators to simulate motion." (’330 Patent, col. 2:56-57, 2:60-64). This suggests the "control" is over a physical component, not a software model.

• The Term: "network emulator... configured to emulate attributes of a packet-based wired communications network".

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires a specific component dedicated to emulating the wired part of the network, distinct from the components simulating the wireless part. The infringement analysis may turn on whether an accused product has a separable module that performs this function or integrates all emulation into a single process.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that any system that models wired network effects like "tunable packet delay distributions, congestion and background loss, bandwidth limitation, and packet reordering" meets this limitation, regardless of its specific software architecture. (’330 Patent, col. 5:61-65).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification gives a specific example of the "National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) emulator" as an implementation. (’330 Patent, col. 6:1-3). This may support a narrower construction requiring a distinct software component that models the wired network separately from the wireless environment.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a judgment of indirect infringement, but the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support the required elements of knowledge and intent for either induced or contributory infringement. (Compl. p. 3).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint includes a qualified allegation of willful infringement, stating that infringement is willful "[t]o the extent Defendant has infringed or continues to infringe after knowledge of the ’330 Patent." (Compl. ¶10). This allegation appears to be based on potential post-suit knowledge rather than any alleged pre-suit notice or knowledge.

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

• A central issue will be one of technological scope: can the claims of the ’330 Patent, which describe a hybrid system using physical hardware like "variable attenuators" to simulate wireless mobility, be construed to cover modern network emulation products that may achieve similar results using entirely software-based or virtualized techniques?
• A primary procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which identifies the accused instrumentality only as "certain products and services" and provides no specific factual allegations of infringement beyond referencing an unattached exhibit, meet the plausibility pleading standards required under federal law? The court may need to address whether the complaint provides the defendant with fair notice of the basis for the infringement claim.