DCT
2:21-cv-00416
Telecom Network Solutions LLC v. Verizon Communications
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Telecom Network Solutions, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:21-cv-00416, E.D. Tex., 11/09/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Verizon operates wireless networks, maintains regular and established physical places of business (retail stores and offices), employs personnel, and has committed acts of infringement within the district. The complaint also notes that Verizon has previously admitted or not contested venue in the district in other patent cases.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 4G LTE and 5G network management functionalities, which prioritize user data traffic during periods of network congestion, infringe a patent related to dynamic network resource allocation.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit addresses the management of finite bandwidth in modern wireless networks, a critical function for maintaining quality of service as mobile data consumption increases.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 8,600,850. The complaint does not mention any other significant procedural events.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-12-10 | U.S. Patent No. RE47,813 Earliest Priority Date (PCT) |
| 2020-01-14 | U.S. Patent No. RE47,813 Issue Date |
| 2021-11-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. RE47,813 - "Feedback Loop for Dynamic Network Resource Allocation"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. RE47,813, "Feedback Loop for Dynamic Network Resource Allocation", issued January 14, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In wireless networks, unpredictable network congestion can compromise the quality of service provided to mobile devices, even for users with different allocated service levels (’813 Patent, col. 1:28-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system and method that monitors a shared network resource (like a cell tower) and dynamically adjusts resource allocation based on a feedback loop. The system receives service profiles and billing profiles for each device, generates a priority list based on those profiles and usage history, and then modifies the profiles to manage network traffic, either by increasing resources for some users when capacity is available or decreasing them for others during congestion (’813 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-40). This allows network operators to actively manage user experience based on subscription tiers and real-time network conditions.
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a systematic way for network operators to differentiate service quality among users sharing a common resource, enabling them to monetize premium service tiers and manage network performance during peak demand (’813 Patent, col. 1:25-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least representative Claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).
- Independent Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
- receiving a service profile for each of a plurality of devices sharing a network resource;
- receiving a billing profile for each of said plurality of devices;
- generating a prioritization list defining an order of said plurality of devices, based on said billing profiles and on a billing history for each of said plurality of devices;
- repeating a loop that includes:
- receiving traffic profiles over said network resource for said plurality of devices;
- managing said network resource according to said service and billing profiles if the resource is fully utilized;
- selecting at least one device based on the prioritization list and dynamically modifying its service and/or billing profile if the resource is under- or over-utilized;
- continuing the loop until the devices no longer share the resource; and
- clearing the prioritization list when the devices are no longer sharing the resource.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but states it is providing details for "only as to a single patent claim" (Compl. ¶61).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Instrumentalities" are products and services from Verizon that "prioritize data transfer rates with respect to one or more users (or devices) on the Verizon network as part of the network management functionality in the Verizon Network" (Compl. ¶60). This encompasses Verizon's 4G LTE and 5G networks (Compl. ¶26).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Verizon's network management system for its 4G/5G services implements the patented method. This system is described as comprising an Evolved Packet Core (EPC), Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF), and Home Subscriber Server (HSS) in the 4G network, and a Policy Control Function (PCF) and Unified Data Management (UDM) in the 5G network (Compl. ¶¶38-49). A block diagram provided in the complaint depicts an implementation of the Verizon 4G LTE system architecture, showing the interrelation of components like the PCRF and HSS (Compl. ¶40, p. 16).
- Functionally, when a cell site experiences high demand (congestion), Verizon's system allegedly prioritizes data for some users over others based on their data plan (e.g., "Start Unlimited," "Play More Unlimited") and their data usage within the billing cycle (Compl. ¶¶35-36, ¶63). The complaint includes a screenshot from Verizon's website stating that on certain plans, during congestion, "your data may be temporarily slower than other traffic" (Compl. ¶63, p. 24).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
RE47,813 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving a service profile for each of a plurality of devices sharing a network resource | The Verizon Network's PCRF/PCF allegedly receives subscription information, which constitutes the service profile. This profile includes Quality of Service (QoS) information that defines authorized data treatment based on subscription, which is used to derive the authorized QoS for a service data flow (Compl. ¶¶65-66, citing 3GPP TS 23.203). | ¶65-66 | col. 2:25-29 |
| receiving a billing profile for each of said plurality of devices | The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly receive a billing profile in the form of the specific data plan a customer selects (e.g., "Start Unlimited," "Play More Unlimited," etc.). These plans dictate how a user's data is treated during congestion (Compl. ¶67). A screenshot details the "Start Unlimited" plan, which is subject to deprioritization in times of congestion (Compl. Id., p. 26). | ¶67-68 | col. 2:29-30 |
| generating a prioritization list defining an order of said plurality of devices, based on said billing profiles and on a billing history for each of said plurality of devices | Verizon allegedly generates a prioritization list to determine which devices will experience decreased data speeds. This is based on the device's data plan (the "billing profile") and the amount of data used under that plan during the billing cycle (the "billing history"), such as exceeding a 50 GB threshold on certain premium plans (Compl. ¶¶69-70). A screenshot of the "Play More Unlimited" plan notes that data may be slowed "after exceeding 50 GB/mo/line" in times of congestion (Compl. ¶41, p. 41). | ¶69-70 | col. 2:31-34 |
| repeating: receiving traffic profiles over said network resource for said plurality of devices | The Verizon Network allegedly receives traffic profiles by monitoring network usage to determine if a cell site is "congested" or "experiencing high demand" (Compl. ¶72). The complaint alleges this functionality is implemented via the PCRF, which can receive information about "RAN user plane congestion status" (Compl. ¶73, citing TS 23.203). | ¶72-73 | col. 2:35-37 |
| managing said network resource according to said service profile and said billing profile if said network resource is fully utilized by said traffic profiles | When a network resource like a cell site is fully utilized (i.e., congested), Verizon allegedly manages the resource according to the user's service and billing profile (i.e., their data plan), which determines their priority relative to other users (Compl. ¶74). | ¶74-75 | col. 2:37-40 |
| selecting at least one of said devices based on said prioritization list and dynamically modifying at least one of said service profile and said billing profile... if said network resource would be over-utilized... | Based on the prioritization list, Verizon allegedly selects certain users to receive slower data speeds. This temporary reduction in speed is alleged to be a dynamic modification of the user's service profile. This occurs when network demand exceeds capacity (over-utilization) (Compl. ¶76). For example, users on certain plans are "prioritize[d]... behind other traffic" (Compl. ¶77, p. 54). | ¶76-77 | col. 2:40-47 |
| when said plurality of devices are no longer sharing said network resource, clearing said prioritization list | The complaint alleges that when devices are no longer sharing the network resource (e.g., an IP-CAN session is terminated), the PCRF deletes the relevant subscription and policy information, which is alleged to constitute clearing the prioritization list (Compl. ¶¶81-82, citing TS 23.203). | ¶81-82 | col. 2:51-53 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the patent's term "billing profile," which the specification describes in the context of per-unit rating and charging (e.g., "five cents per minute"), can be construed to read on Verizon's modern, flat-rate "unlimited" data plans, which feature deprioritization thresholds rather than per-unit charges (’813 Patent, col. 6:30-44; Compl. ¶67).
- Technical Questions: The complaint relies heavily on 3GPP technical standards (e.g., TS 23.203) to describe how Verizon's network can operate (Compl. ¶¶50-52). A key factual dispute may be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence that Verizon's actual network implementation performs the specific steps of Claim 1, particularly the "generating a prioritization list defining an order" based on both billing profiles and billing history, as opposed to a simpler, two-tiered system of prioritized and deprioritized users.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "billing profile"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because the claim requires generating a prioritization list based on it. The complaint equates Verizon's various "unlimited" data plans with this term (Compl. ¶67). Whether this interpretation holds will significantly impact the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could either confine the patent to older, per-usage billing models or allow it to cover modern subscription tiers.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, simply reciting "receiving a billing profile." A party could argue this encompasses any set of rules tied to a customer's bill that affects service delivery.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of a "billing profile," stating it "regulates rating or charging or both" and gives examples like "five cents per minute" for voice calls or "two cents per kilobyte" for instant messaging (’813 Patent, col. 6:23-44). This could support an argument that the term is limited to metered, per-unit charging systems and does not cover flat-rate plans with deprioritization.
The Term: "generating a prioritization list defining an order"
Context and Importance: This step is the core of the claimed method for managing congestion. The infringement theory depends on showing that Verizon's network does more than simply apply a binary rule (e.g., "deprioritize after 50 GB"); it must be shown to generate an ordered list.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "list" could be interpreted broadly to mean any logical grouping that results in ordered treatment, even if not a formal, enumerated list of every user.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification, particularly Figure 6 and its accompanying description, details a process of generating a "metric" for each device and then "insert[ing] a device identifier into a prioritization list based on the metric" (’813 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 12:5-15). This suggests a specific, iterative process of creating a ranked ordering, which may be narrower than simply bucketing users into a few tiers.
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not allege indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "billing profile", which the patent describes using per-unit-of-use charging examples from the late 2000s, be interpreted to cover modern, tiered "unlimited" data plans that use data consumption thresholds for service deprioritization?
- Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: can the plaintiff demonstrate that Verizon's network management system, in its actual implementation, performs the specific, multi-step method of Claim 1—particularly the generation of an "ordered" "prioritization list"—or will discovery show a simpler technical mechanism that falls outside the claim's scope? The case may depend on whether the plaintiff's reliance on 3GPP standards can be substantiated with evidence of Verizon's specific network architecture and software logic.