DCT

1:20-cv-07534

CommWorks Solutions LLC v. RCN T

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:20-cv-07534, S.D.N.Y., 12/03/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant RCN maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunications services and related networking equipment infringe a portfolio of nine patents related to quality of service management, wireless access provisioning, and network traffic detection.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern methods for managing data flow, ensuring service quality, and securely adding devices to complex computer networks, which are fundamental operations for internet service providers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice letter on April 20, 2020, identifying the patents-in-suit and accused products, and that Defendant did not respond prior to the filing of the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-12-17 Priority Date for ’465 Patent and ’904 Reissue Patent
2000-05-19 Priority Date for ’249 Patent
2000-10-27 Priority Date for ’315 Patent
2003-01-13 Priority Date for ’807, ’285, ’596, and ’979 Patents
2004-09-30 Priority Date for ’664 Patent
2004-12-14 ’249 Patent Issued
2005-05-10 ’807 Patent Issued
2006-04-11 ’465 Patent Issued
2007-02-13 ’285 Patent Issued
2008-12-09 ’596 Patent Issued
2010-07-20 ’664 Patent Issued
2011-03-22 ’979 Patent Issued
2012-02-14 ’315 Patent Issued
2014-05-20 ’904 Reissue Patent Issued
2020-04-20 Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Defendant
2020-12-03 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,832,249 - "Globally Accessible Computer Network-Based Broadband Communication System With User-Controllable Quality of Information Delivery and Flow Priority"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,832,249, “Globally Accessible Computer Network-Based Broadband Communication System With User-Controllable Quality of Information Delivery and Flow Priority,” Issued December 14, 2004.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes that at the time of the invention, the public Internet suffered from congestion and latency, and lacked a routing system that could avoid these issues to provide consistent quality of service (QoS) (Compl. ¶8; ’249 Patent, col. 2:8-10). Conventional systems managed network functions in isolated layers of the Open System Interconnection (OSI) model, preventing effective, holistic QoS control (Compl. ¶9; ’249 Patent, col. 6:53-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system that monitors network performance across multiple OSI layers. When a QoS event, such as a connection failure, is detected at a higher layer (designated as layer "N," e.g., the IP Layer 3), the system responds by changing the network’s configuration at a lower layer (a layer "less than N," e.g., the Data Link Layer 2) to reroute traffic and maintain performance (’249 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:53-65). This cross-layer approach is designed to “bridge the gaps” between the OSI layers for more effective network management (Compl. ¶9).
  • Technical Importance: This method provided a more integrated approach to network management, enabling the delivery of deterministic, low-latency applications that "best effort" internet routing could not reliably support (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 (Compl. ¶39).
  • The essential elements of claim 11 include:
    • monitoring at least one OSI reference model layer
    • determining that a quality of service event has occurred
    • determining that the event occurred at a layer N
    • responding by changing network provisioning at a layer less than N
    • signaling that the network provisioning has been changed
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807 - "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807, “Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning,” Issued May 10, 2005.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that provisioning new wireless devices onto a network was often impractical for non-technical users or for devices lacking a user interface for configuration (Compl. ¶11). The process typically required manual transcription of device identification information, such as a MAC address, to the access point (’807 Patent, col. 3:19-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a time-based provisioning system where a network access point tracks an operation of a wireless device (e.g., power-on or the start of a signal transmission). If this operation occurs within a user-activated, finite time window, the access point automatically provisions the device for network access, thereby simplifying the setup process (’807 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:42-50).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provided a user-friendly mechanism for securely adding new devices to a wireless network, a key enabler for the growth of consumer-level home networking (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent system claim 17 (Compl. ¶45).
  • The essential elements of claim 17 include:
    • a network access point connected to a network, comprising logic for tracking operation of the wireless device
    • logic for provisioning the wireless device if its operation occurs within an activatable time interval
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,027,465 - "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,027,465, “Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection,” Issued April 11, 2006.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem that conventional network access points required complex, resource-intensive processing of upper-layer protocols to differentiate high-priority traffic from normal traffic (Compl. ¶14). The patented solution is a method for detecting priority traffic at a lower level (the MAC layer) by extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a data frame and comparing it to a known search pattern, thereby avoiding complex processing (Compl. ¶15).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent method claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: The Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) functionality in Wi-Fi enabled modems and routers, such as the Linksys E1200, is accused of infringing by mapping data frames to an Access Category based on bit patterns in the QoS Control field (Compl. ¶51).

U.S. Patent No. 7,177,285 - "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,177,285, “Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning,” Issued February 13, 2007.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’807 Patent: the impracticality of provisioning wireless devices that lack a user interface or require technical proficiency from the user (Compl. ¶17). The solution is a process for provisioning based on tracking an "operating parameter" of the device, such as the "onset of a signal transmission," and initiating provisioning if the event occurs within a specified time interval (Compl. ¶18).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent process claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶57).
  • Accused Features: The Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) functionality in routers like the Linksys E1200 is accused of infringing by monitoring for a Probe Request from a device and initiating provisioning if it occurs within a 120-second time period (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 7,463,596 - "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,463,596, “Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning,” Issued December 9, 2008.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’807 and ’285 Patents regarding the difficulty of provisioning wireless devices (Compl. ¶20). The solution is a process for associating devices by tracking an operating parameter of a first device (e.g., power on or onset of signal transmission) and automatically associating it with a second device if the parameter occurs within a specific time interval (Compl. ¶21).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent process claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶63).
  • Accused Features: The Push-Button Configuration (PBC) method of WPS in routers like the Linksys E1200 is accused of infringing by tracking a Probe Request initiated by a button press and associating the device if it occurs within a 120-second window (Compl. ¶63).

U.S. Patent No. 7,760,664 - "Determining and Provisioning Paths in a Network"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,760,664, “Determining and Provisioning Paths in a Network,” Issued July 20, 2010.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficiency of prior art systems for provisioning network paths, which modeled every port as a node in a graph, resulting in large and complex models (Compl. ¶23). The invention improves on this by enabling the management of links instead of nodes in a graphical interface, reducing the number of nodes to consider and thereby reducing processing overhead (Compl. ¶24).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent method claim 7 is asserted (Compl. ¶69).
  • Accused Features: The Ciena Blue Planet and Juniper Contrail network management platforms are accused of infringing by determining and representing interconnections (e.g., MPLS Tunnels or VXLAN tunnels) between network elements as single links and storing their status in a database (Compl. ¶69).

U.S. Patent No. 7,911,979 - "Time Based Access Provisioning System and Process"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,911,979, “Time Based Access Provisioning System and Process,” Issued March 22, 2011.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’807, ’285, and ’596 Patents regarding the difficulty of provisioning wireless devices, particularly those without user interfaces (Compl. ¶26). The solution is a provisioning process performed by a system with provisioning logic that tracks an operating parameter (onset of signal transmission) and sends a signal to initiate provisioning if the parameter occurs within a designated time interval (Compl. ¶27).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶75).
  • Accused Features: The WPS Push-Button Configuration (PBC) process in routers like the Linksys E1200 is accused of infringing by using provisioning logic to monitor for a Probe Request and sending a Probe Response to initiate provisioning if the request occurs within a 120-second time window (Compl. ¶75).

U.S. Patent No. 8,116,315 - "System and Method for Packet Classification"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,116,315, “System and Method for Packet Classification,” Issued February 14, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficiency of conventional routers that required data packet classification to be repeated at both the ingress and egress units of a switch, requiring duplicative hardware and causing delay (Compl. ¶29). The invention improves upon this by determining classification parameters at the ingress unit and sending them with the data packet to the egress unit, which can then route the packet without reclassifying it (Compl. ¶30).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent method claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶81).
  • Accused Features: Ciena devices using SAOS and Juniper devices using Junos OS are accused of infringing by determining QoS classification parameters at an ingress edge unit, constructing a classification index, and forwarding packets to a destination egress port based on that index without reclassification at the egress interface (Compl. ¶¶81, 29-30).

U.S. Patent No. RE44,904 - "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. RE44,904, “Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection,” Issued May 20, 2014. This is a reissue of the patent that became the ’465 patent.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’465 patent: the complexity and processing required to differentiate priority traffic in conventional systems (Compl. ¶32). The solution is a method to distinguish priority traffic by extracting a bit pattern from a MAC layer frame and comparing it to a search pattern, thereby allowing low-cost access points to handle priority traffic efficiently (Compl. ¶33).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent method claim 7 is asserted (Compl. ¶87).
  • Accused Features: The WMM functionality in routers like the Linksys E1200 is accused of infringing by detecting priority based on information in the QoS Control field (e.g., the UP subfield), extracting a bit pattern, comparing it to a search pattern (Access Category), and transmitting the frame in a reserved period (TXOP) (Compl. ¶87).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies several categories of accused products and services ("Accused Products and Services") provided by Defendant RCN (Compl. ¶¶38, 44, 68). These include:
    • Network hardware from Ciena that runs the Service Aware Operating System (SAOS), including the Ciena 6500 and CN4200 platforms (Compl. ¶38, ¶39).
    • Network hardware from Juniper that runs the Junos OS, including LAN/WAN routers and switches (Compl. ¶38, ¶39).
    • Wi-Fi enabled modems and routers provided to RCN subscribers, specifically identifying the Linksys E1200 router (Compl. ¶44).
    • Network management platforms, including Ciena's Blue Planet Manage, Control and Plan platform and Juniper Contrail devices (Compl. ¶68).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products are network infrastructure equipment and consumer-facing devices that RCN, an internet service provider, allegedly uses, sells, and leases to its customers to provide broadband internet and related services (Compl. ¶¶38, 45). The Ciena and Juniper hardware is alleged to perform core network functions like multi-layer traffic routing using MPLS Fast Reroute and advanced packet classification (Compl. ¶¶39, 81). The Linksys E1200 router is alleged to provide consumer-level wireless access using standardized technologies like Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) and Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) (Compl. ¶¶45, 51). The management platforms are alleged to perform high-level network configuration and traffic routing (Compl. ¶69). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’249 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
monitoring at least one OSI reference model layer functioning in the multi-layered network; Ciena and Junos OS devices with MPLS Fast Reroute monitor and detect a failure of a node or link associated with the Internet Protocol (IP) layer, which is OSI model layer 3. ¶39 col. 9:1-4
determining that a quality of service event has occurred in the multi-layered network; The accused devices determine the occurrence of a quality of service event, such as a failure condition (packet loss/latency) of a node or link associated with an IP address. ¶39 col. 11:1-4
determining that the quality of service event occurred at a layer N in the OSI reference model; The accused devices determine that a node or link associated with an IP address has failed in OSI model layer 3 (layer N), affecting network quality of service. ¶39 col. 11:59-67
responding to the quality of service event in the multi-layered network by changing network provisioning at a layer less than N; The accused devices respond to the quality of service event by changing the data traffic path provisioning at OSI model layer 2 (a layer less than N), by switching packet routing to a pre-established backup LSP detour. ¶39 col. 12:9-14
signaling that the network provisioning at the layer less than N has been changed. The accused devices send messages or notifications signaling that the data traffic path has changed to the backup LSP tunnel at OSI model layer 2. ¶39 col. 12:45-48
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "changing network provisioning," as used in the patent, can be construed to read on the dynamic rerouting of data packets performed by MPLS Fast Reroute. The analysis could explore whether "provisioning" implies a more static, configuration-level change (e.g., establishing a new physical circuit) versus a real-time traffic management action.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that detecting a failure at the IP layer (Layer 3) and responding by switching to a backup LSP at the data link layer (Layer 2) practices the claimed method. A technical question is what evidence demonstrates that the accused MPLS Fast Reroute function performs this specific cross-layer detection and response, as opposed to operating entirely within a single layer or in a manner different from that claimed.

’807 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a network access point connected to the network, the network access point comprising logic for tracking operation of the wireless device; RCN’s WPS access points are connected to the network and comprise logic that tracks the operation of a wireless device seeking to join a WLAN, such as tracking requests to join. ¶45 col. 4:29-34
and logic for provisioning the wireless device if the operation of the wireless device occurs within an activatable time interval. WPS access points include logic to provision wireless devices if the WPS button on the device is pressed within 120 seconds of the button press on the access point, which the complaint defines as the "activatable time period." ¶45 col. 4:6-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement theory hinges on equating the functionality of the Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) standard with the claimed "time based network access provisioning system." A point of contention may be whether the fixed 120-second "Walk Time" alleged for WPS meets the claim limitation of an "activatable time interval."
    • Technical Questions: The claim requires "logic for tracking operation of the wireless device." The complaint alleges this is met by tracking "requests to join the network." The analysis may raise the question of whether this specific tracking function in WPS constitutes tracking the "operation of the wireless device" as contemplated by the patent, which also describes tracking "power on" time as an embodiment.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’249 Patent:

  • The Term: "changing network provisioning" (claim 11)
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central action of the claim's response step. Its construction will determine whether dynamic, protocol-based traffic rerouting (as alleged) constitutes infringement, or if the claim requires a more fundamental, administrative change to the network's configuration or capacity. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality, MPLS Fast Reroute, is an automated traffic management feature.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the network controller responds to a QoS event "by changing the network provisioning at a layer less than N" (’249 Patent, col. 3:9-11). The general phrasing may support a construction that includes any change affecting how the network handles traffic.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An embodiment described in the specification involves "activating third and fourth STM-1 lines" to increase bandwidth, which is a change in the underlying circuit capacity (’249 Patent, col. 13:25-33). This example of provisioning an "additional circuit" could support a narrower construction limited to changes in physical or virtual circuit configuration rather than just path selection.

For the ’807 Patent:

  • The Term: "activatable time interval" (claim 17)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the temporal window that qualifies a device for provisioning. The dispute will likely center on whether the fixed 120-second window used in the accused WPS functionality falls within the scope of this term, or if the patent requires a different type or method of activation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract refers generally to a "designated time interval," suggesting the specific duration or method of activation is not limiting (’807 Patent, Abstract). The term "activatable" implies it is a period that can be turned on or initiated by an action.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An embodiment describes the provisioning logic using an "acceptance time interval, e.g. such as a 5 minute interval" (’807 Patent, col. 5:6-10). A defendant may argue that this specific example, or the context around it, limits the scope of the "interval" to a particular type or duration, potentially creating a mismatch with the 120-second window alleged in the complaint.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The basis for this allegation is that RCN provides the Accused Products to its partners and customers along with "specifications, instructions, manuals, advertisements, marketing materials, and technical assistance" that allegedly direct and encourage users to operate the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶40, 46, 52, 58, 64, 70, 76, 82, 88).
  • Willful Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges that RCN's infringement has been and continues to be willful. This allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents and infringement, arising from a notice letter Plaintiff sent to RCN on April 20, 2020, to which RCN allegedly did not respond (Compl. ¶¶35-36, 42, 48, 54, 60, 66, 72, 78, 84, 90).

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

This case presents a broad challenge to a telecommunications provider's use of standard networking equipment and protocols. The outcome will likely depend on the court's resolution of several central questions:

  • A core issue will be one of technical mapping: does the off-the-shelf, industry-standard functionality of the accused products (e.g., MPLS Fast Reroute, Wi-Fi Protected Setup, Wi-Fi Multimedia) operate in a manner that directly corresponds to the specific steps and structures recited in the asserted patent claims, or are there fundamental mismatches in their technical operation?
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope: can broad claim terms such as "changing network provisioning" (’249 patent) and "tracking operation of the wireless device" (’807 patent) be construed to encompass the widely adopted, standardized technologies used by the defendant, or will their meaning be narrowed to the specific embodiments disclosed in the patents?
  • A central theme of the case will be the relationship between patents and standards: the dispute raises the question of whether the plaintiff’s patents claim foundational networking concepts that are now practiced by industry standards, or if the standards-based products used by the defendant implement those concepts in a materially different, non-infringing way.