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: Machat & Associates, PC; Zeisler PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01202, N.D.N.Y., 11/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a resident of New York and the Northern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s network testing products and services infringe three patents related to mobile network emulation and the proactive allocation of resources during network handoffs.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for testing and improving the performance of mobile communication networks, specifically by simulating device mobility and managing the transition of a mobile device between different network access points.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417 was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR), IPR2018-01150. According to the IPR certificate provided with the patent, the two asserted claims (3 and 6) were found patentable, while the independent claim from which they depend (Claim 1) was cancelled. The legal status of asserting dependent claims whose parent claim has been cancelled may become a central issue for this patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-07-31	Priority Date for '330, '508, and '417 Patents
2007-06-12	U.S. Patent No. 7,231,330 Issued
2010-04-13	U.S. Patent No. 7,697,508 Issued
2012-07-03	U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417 Issued
2018-06-01	IPR filed against U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417
2023-02-15	IPR Certificate Issued for U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417
2025-11-17	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," issued June 12, 2007 (’330 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for better tools to test mobile computing networks. It notes that software-based simulators can be slow and costly to update for new technologies, while existing hardware-based "wire-line emulators" fail to account for the unique characteristics of mobile networks, such as rapid movement and complex signal propagation ('330 Patent, col. 1:19-col. 2:17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a hybrid hardware and software system for emulating mobile networks. It proposes using multiple fixed wireless nodes, each equipped with a variable attenuator that can dynamically adjust signal strength ('330 Patent, col. 2:18-34, Fig. 1). A central controller modifies the attenuation levels of these nodes to simulate the motion of a mobile device—making the signal from one node weaker while another gets stronger—without the device physically moving. This allows for realistic, real-time testing of how mobile applications and protocols respond to conditions like handoffs between network cells ('330 Patent, col. 5:27-44).
• Technical Importance: This approach enables repeatable and controllable testing of mobile network performance under various mobility scenarios, which was a challenge for purely software-based or conventional hardware-based tools ('330 Patent, col. 3:1-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claims 1-19 ('Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1 and 11 appear to be central.
• Claim 1 (System):
  • A plurality of fixedly-located wireless network nodes configured to variably adjust wireless communication characteristics.
  • At least one mobile node to wirelessly communicate with the wireless network nodes.
  • A network emulator linked to the wireless nodes to emulate attributes of a packet-based wired network.
  • A controller linked to the wireless nodes to control their communication characteristics to simulate different wireless conditions experienced by the mobile node in actual operation.
• Claim 11 (Method):
  • Initiating communications between a home agent and a mobile node via a fixedly-located wireless network node.
  • While the mobile node communicates, dynamically adjusting a wireless communication characteristic of the wireless node to simulate different wireless conditions.
  • Emulating with a network emulator attributes of a packet-based wired network to simulate network conditions.

U.S. Patent No. 7,697,508 - "System, Apparatus, and Methods for Proactive Allocation of Wireless Communication Resources," issued April 13, 2010 (’508 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In mobile networks, when a device moves from the coverage area of one access point (a "foreign agent") to another, the process of "handing off" can cause delays and data loss. The patent notes this is because the setup of a new connection typically cannot begin until the device has already arrived in the new agent's physical region ('508 Patent, col. 2:19-34).
• The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a "preemptive and predictive" system using "ghost entities" to make handoffs seamless ('508 Patent, col. 2:35-42). A "ghost-mobile node," which is a virtual representation of the actual mobile device, predicts the device's future location and pre-registers with the next foreign agent before the device arrives ('508 Patent, col. 6:15-28). Concurrently, a "ghost-foreign agent" can advertise the presence of an upcoming network access point to the mobile device while it is still in its current location, preparing it for the handoff in advance ('508 Patent, col. 9:18-31; Fig. 2A).
• Technical Importance: This proactive resource allocation is intended to eliminate the delay and packet loss associated with reactive handoff procedures, thereby improving the performance and reliability of communications for highly mobile users ('508 Patent, col. 4:8-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claims 7 and 14 ('Compl. ¶17). Claim 14 is independent.
• Claim 14 (Method):
  • Identifying a mobile node and determining its current geographical state.
  • Predicting one or more future geographical states of the mobile node based on GPS data.
  • Identifying a foreign agent for each future state.
  • Creating a "ghost foreign agent" for each foreign agent to announce its presence.
  • Registering the mobile node (or a "ghost mobile node") with the foreign agent while the mobile node remains in its current state.
  • Linking the mobile node with the new foreign agent when it enters the future state.

U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417 - "System, Apparatus, and Methods for Proactive Allocation of Wireless Communication Resources," issued July 3, 2012 (’417 Patent)

Technology Synopsis

As a continuation of the application leading to the ’508 Patent, the ’417 Patent shares the same specification and addresses the same technical problem of mobile network handoff delays ('417 Patent, col. 1:8-12). The patented solution is similarly based on using predictive "ghost" entities to proactively manage network resources and pre-register a mobile node with its next access point ('417 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts at least claims 3 and 6 ('Compl. ¶24). Both claims depend from independent claim 1. However, claim 1 was cancelled during Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-01150, though claims 3 and 6 themselves were confirmed as patentable ('417 Patent, IPR Certificate).

Accused Features

The "Accused Handover Products/Services" are alleged to infringe ('Compl. ¶24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies two categories of accused instrumentalities: "Accused Emulation Products/Services" (accused of infringing the ’330 Patent) and "Accused Handover Products/Services" (accused of infringing the ’508 and ’417 Patents) (Compl. ¶¶11, 17, 24).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical functionality of the accused products or services. It does not name any specific products or describe how they operate. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references preliminary infringement claim charts in Exhibits 2, 4, and 6, but these exhibits were not provided with the complaint filing (Compl. ¶¶11, 17, 24). In their absence, the infringement theories must be summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

’330 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges on information and belief that Defendant’s "Accused Emulation Products/Services" directly infringe claims 1-19 of the ’330 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶11). Without product details or a claim chart, the specific manner in which these products are alleged to meet the claim limitations of a system with variable attenuators and a network emulator is not specified.

’508 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant indirectly infringes claims 7 and 14 by inducing its customers to use the "Accused Handover Products/Services" (Compl. ¶17). The theory is that Defendant knowingly encourages customers to use its products in a way that performs the patented method of proactive, predictive handoffs using "ghost" agents (Compl. ¶18). The complaint does not specify the factual basis for this encouragement, such as user manuals or marketing materials.

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Basis: A primary question will be whether the complaint's generalized allegations against vaguely named "Products/Services" provide a plausible basis for infringement. Discovery will be necessary to identify the specific products and their technical operations.
• Technical Questions: For the ’330 Patent, a key question will be whether the accused products use a hardware-based system with variable attenuators to simulate motion, as claimed, or rely on a different emulation technique. For the ’508 and ’417 Patents, the analysis will focus on whether the accused products perform predictive, proactive registration based on location tracking, and whether their architecture maps onto the "ghost-mobile node" and "ghost-foreign agent" limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’330 Patent

• The Term: "network emulator... configured to emulate attributes of a packet-based wired communications network" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The scope of this term is central to defining what the claimed system must be able to do. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a comprehensive emulation of a wired network (e.g., delay, congestion, packet loss) or if emulating a more limited set of attributes suffices for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language recites emulating "attributes" (plural), which could suggest any combination of two or more network characteristics.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of emulated attributes, such as "tunable packet delay distributions, congestion and background loss, bandwidth limitation, and packet re-ordering and duplication" ('330 Patent, col. 9:56-62). A defendant might argue the term should be limited to these disclosed examples.

For the ’508 Patent

• The Term: "ghost-mobile node" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is a neologism created by the patentee, and its definition will be critical to the infringement analysis. The dispute will likely center on what technical component or process in the accused system constitutes a "ghost-mobile node."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the ghost-mobile node as a "virtual node" that can be a "set of software instructions running on a device that is remote from the mobile node" ('508 Patent, col. 6:21-26). This could support a broad construction covering various software agents or processes.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the ghost-mobile node "operates by signaling a communication network node based upon a predicted future state" and can "create 'spoofed' Universal Datagram Packets" ('508 Patent, col. 6:28-30; col. 9:17-19). A defendant may argue that an accused feature must perform these specific functions to qualify as a "ghost-mobile node."

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

For the ’508 and ’417 Patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The basis is the allegation that Defendant "knowingly and intentionally induces" and "actively encourage[s] customers" to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶18, 25). The complaint does not provide specific examples of such inducement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that to the extent Defendant infringed after gaining knowledge of the patents-in-suit, such infringement was deliberate, knowing, and willful (Compl. ¶¶12, 19, 26). Knowledge of the ’508 and ’417 Patents is alleged to have occurred "[p]rior to, or at least through, the filing and service of this amended complaint" (Compl. ¶¶18, 25).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue is whether the complaint’s reliance on generic terms like "Accused Emulation Products/Services" without identifying specific products or functionalities will be sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief, or if it will be challenged early in the proceedings.
2. Claim Construction of Neologisms: The case for the ’508 and ’417 Patents will likely turn on the construction of patent-coined terms such as "ghost-mobile node" and "ghost-foreign agent". A key question is whether the court will adopt a broad, functional definition or a narrower one tied to the specific software implementations described in the specification.
3. Assertibility of Post-IPR Dependent Claims: For the ’417 Patent, a critical legal question is whether dependent claims 3 and 6 can be asserted for infringement when their parent independent claim 1 has been cancelled by the USPTO in an Inter Partes Review. This raises a fundamental issue of claim validity and enforceability that may be dispositive for the ’417 Patent.