Qualserve Solutions LLC v. Samsung Electronics America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Qualserve Solutions LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: SAND, SEBOLT & WERNOW CO., LPA
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00550, S.D.N.Y., 01/23/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant is incorporated in New York and is therefore deemed to reside in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Samsung Galaxy S10 smartphone infringes a patent related to systems for processing Quality-of-Service (QoS) parameters to select optimal communication paths across multi-domain networks.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for managing and ensuring the quality of data transmission (e.g., for voice or video calls) across complex, heterogeneous communication networks operated by different providers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,046,489, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING QUALITY-OF-SERVICE PARAMETERS IN A COMMUNICATION NETWORK, issued October 25, 2011.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: When establishing a communication session across a global network composed of multiple independent domains (e.g., different telecom carriers), it is difficult for the originating domain to determine the best end-to-end path and to know if a required Quality-of-Service (QoS) can be met (’489 Patent, col. 1:12-34). Prior art approaches were seen as deficient because they might require new signaling protocols, would not be scalable, and could force the disclosure of confidential commercial Service Level Agreement (SLA) information between competing network providers (’489 Patent, col. 2:48-55).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system featuring a central "SLA registry" and a "QoS processor" (’489 Patent, Abstract). The SLA registry stores QoS parameters for various network domains. When a new session is requested, the QoS processor retrieves this data, predicts the end-to-end QoS for multiple potential paths, and then ranks or selects the optimal path(s) (’489 Patent, col. 2:60-col. 3:15). This allows a domain to make an informed routing decision without directly exchanging sensitive SLA data with other domains, as illustrated conceptually in Figure 2 (’489 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The described approach provides a method for decentralized, autonomous path selection in multi-domain networks while maintaining end-to-end QoS objectives and commercial confidentiality. (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’489 Patent, Compl. ¶16).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A "Service Level Agreement (SLA) registry" containing QoS-related parameter values for relevant network domains.
  • A "Quality-of-Service (QoS) processor" configured to:
    • process QoS parameter values retrieved from the SLA registry;
    • predict a plurality of end-to-end QoS values for different communication paths; and
    • rank and/or select one or more communication paths based on the predicted QoS values.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but does reserve the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Samsung Galaxy S10" smartphone (Compl. ¶27). The complaint notes that its investigation is ongoing and other products may be added later (Compl. p. 7, n.1).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Samsung Galaxy S10 practices a system for processing communication sessions, including voice and data applications over LTE and satellite networks (Compl. ¶27). The core accused functionality is the device's purported use of a system that provides for end-to-end QoS, which the complaint alleges is similar to the ETSI TS 102 462 standard (Compl. ¶27). The allegations state that the accused system is utilized by the product "at least in internal testing and usage" (Compl. ¶¶28-31). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint refers to an Exhibit B claim chart that was not included in the provided filing. The following table summarizes the infringement allegations as described in the body of the complaint.

’489 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the claimed "system" can be found to reside on a consumer handset like the Galaxy S10. The patent's description appears to focus on components within network provider infrastructure, raising the question of whether the "SLA registry" and "QoS processor" are part of the phone's local operation or are functions of the carrier network in which the phone operates.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the Accused Product utilizes the claimed system (Compl. ¶¶28-31). A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the Galaxy S10's own hardware and software perform the specific functions of predicting multiple end-to-end QoS values and then ranking or selecting a path, as opposed to simply executing routing decisions made by the network carrier.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "Service Level Agreement (SLA) registry"

• Context and Importance: This term is a cornerstone of the claimed invention. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the accused product contains an equivalent structure. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a specific, discrete database component or can be read more broadly to cover any collection of stored configuration data related to network performance.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the form of the "registry," which could support an argument that any persistent storage of QoS-related data meets the limitation (’489 Patent, col. 6:53-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification refers to a "(common) Service Level Agreement (SLA) registry" and depicts it in Figure 2 as a distinct module ("SLAReg"), which may support an interpretation requiring a more structured, centralized, or logically distinct component (’489 Patent, col. 2:60-62; Fig. 2).

The Term: "QoS processor"

• Context and Importance: The identity and function of the "QoS processor" are central to the infringement analysis. The dispute may turn on whether this term requires a specialized or dedicated processing unit or if its functions can be performed by a general-purpose processor executing software.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "processor" is generally given a broad meaning. An argument could be made that any processing component executing instructions that perform the claimed functions of "process," "predict," and "rank and/or select" meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites a processor that is "configured to" perform a specific set of tasks, and the specification describes it as being "adapted for processing QoS related parameters" (’489 Patent, col. 2:65-67). This, combined with its depiction as a discrete "QoS Proc" module in Figure 2, may support a narrower construction requiring a component specifically architected or designated for this purpose.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement by "encouraging infringement" and contributory infringement by selling a non-staple article of commerce for an infringing use (Compl. ¶¶37-38). The complaint does not, however, plead specific factual support for these allegations, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials that instruct on the infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the ’489 Patent obtained "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶35). This allegation is based on post-suit knowledge.

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

• A core issue will be one of locus of infringement: can the claimed "system," comprising an "SLA registry" and a "QoS processor," be proven to exist and operate within the architecture of the accused smartphone itself? Or will evidence show these are functions performed at the network-carrier level, with the phone merely acting as a terminal endpoint?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused product's software performs the specific, multi-step process recited in Claim 1—retrieving data, predicting a plurality of distinct end-to-end QoS values, and then ranking or selecting a path based on that prediction—as opposed to a more general network optimization or connection management function?