DCT

2:22-cv-00042

HowLink Global LLC v. Verizon Media Inc

Key Events

Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Howlink Global LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Verizon Communications Inc., et al. (Delaware, New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP; LTL Attorneys LLP
Case Identification: Howlink Global LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., 2:22-cv-00042, E.D. Tex., 02/03/2022
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction, have regular and established places of business in the district, and have committed acts of infringement in the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s LTE and 5G wireless networks, backhaul systems, and private network/femtocell products infringe three patents related to cellular network synchronization, backhaul architecture, and user access control.
Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to fundamental aspects of modern cellular network operation, including how mobile devices connect to the network, how data is transported within the network's backbone, and how access is managed for different users.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that U.S. Patent No. 7,565,167 (the original patent reissued as the ’415 Patent) was cited by a patent examiner during the prosecution of a patent issued to Verizon entities, potentially establishing pre-suit knowledge of the ’415 Patent as of August 2014. Plaintiff also provided pre-suit notice to Defendant regarding all three patents-in-suit on February 1, 2022.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-04-08	’415 Patent Priority Date
2006-12-28	’279 Patent Priority Date
2007-03-27	Verizon awards network expansion contract to Alcatel-Lucent
2009-07-21	Original patent for ’415 Patent (No. 7,565,167) issues
2010-12-05	Verizon launches its 4G LTE network
2011-04-22	’576 Patent Priority Date
2014-01-14	’279 Patent Issues
2014-08-12	Examiner cites application for ’415 Patent in Verizon patent prosecution
2015-03-01	Verizon launches LTE Network Extender (approx. date)
2017-03-14	’576 Patent Issues
2017-05-23	’415 Patent (Reissue) Issues
2022-02-01	Plaintiff provides pre-suit notice to Verizon for all patents-in-suit
2022-02-03	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,630,279 - "Method for Generating Downlink Signal, and Method for Searching Cell," issued January 14, 2014

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: In a cellular system, a mobile device must first achieve time and frequency synchronization with a base station to establish a connection. The patent’s background section states that existing methods for this "cell search" process can be complex and slow, particularly during handovers between different network types (’279 Patent, col. 1:11-54).
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for generating and receiving a specially structured downlink signal. This signal uses a combination of "unique cell identification code groups" and "frame synchronization identification sequences" arranged in a downlink frame. This structure allows a mobile device to rapidly acquire synchronization and identify the specific cell it is connecting to (’279 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-30).
Technical Importance: This cell search and synchronization process is a foundational requirement for a mobile device to operate on a cellular network, such as LTE (Compl. ¶33).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claims 1 and 7 (Compl. ¶62).
Independent Claim 1 (Method for generating a downlink signal):
- generating a plurality of unique cell identification code groups; and
- allocating the plurality of unique cell identification code groups to a plurality of synchronization durations within a downlink frame,
- wherein the groups comprise a first code group formed by concatenating a first and second cell identification code, and a second code group formed by concatenating the second and first cell identification code.
Independent Claim 7 (Method for searching a cell):
- receiving a plurality of unique cell identification code groups; and
- obtaining cell identification information based on at least one of the unique cell identification code groups,
- with the same code group structure as recited in claim 1.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,415 - "Low-Cost Network System Between a Base Station Controller and a Base Transceiver Station, and Method for Transmitting Data Between Them," issued May 23, 2017

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the transition from legacy TDM/CDMA networks, which used copper-based backhaul, to modern IP-based 4G/LTE networks, which use fiber-optic backhaul. This transition was expensive, and the legacy TDM systems could not directly interoperate with the new IP-based systems (Compl. ¶45). The patent background confirms the goal is to create a "low-cost network system" to connect base station controllers and transceivers (’415 Patent, col. 1:20-30).
The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system with "matching units" (a BSCMU and a BTSMU) that act as intermediaries. These units are configured to connect to both a traditional dedicated line (like an E1/T1 line) and a modern IP network. They function by converting signals from the dedicated-line format into IP packets for transmission over the IP network, and vice-versa, thereby bridging the two disparate network types (’415 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-13).
Technical Importance: This technology is described as providing a "low-cost fix for the transition from legacy networks to all-IP networks," which was a critical challenge for carriers upgrading their infrastructure (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶77).
Independent Claim 1 (System for signal processing):
- a base transceiver station (BTS) configured to communicate with a mobile terminal;
- a base station controller (BSC) configured to control the BTS;
- a BSC matching unit (BSCMU) connected to the BSC via a first dedicated line, configured to convert between a dedicated-line signal and a first set of IP packets; and
- a BTS matching unit (BTSMU) connected to the BTS via a second dedicated line, configured to convert between a dedicated-line signal and a second set of IP packets, and to communicate the IP packets with the BSCMU via an IP network.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,596,576 - "Providing Services According to Subscription Status of User Equipment," issued March 14, 2017

Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for a femtocell (a small, local base station) to provide different levels of network access based on a user's subscription status. The system determines if a connecting device belongs to a "Closed Subscriber Group" (CSG). If it does, the femtocell allocates a private IP address for access to a private network (e.g., a corporate intranet); if not, it allocates a public IP address for access to a public network (e.g., the Internet) (’576 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶56).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶93).
Accused Features: The accused features are Verizon's systems, networks, and services that use CSG lists to manage access, specifically including the "Verizon LTE Network Extender" and other private network services for enterprise customers (Compl. ¶57, ¶60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are broadly defined as Verizon's systems, networks, and components for implementing its LTE and 5G wireless networks (Compl. ¶61). This includes:

Systems for generating and searching downlink signals for cell synchronization, allegedly based on the 3GPP TS 36.211 standard (Compl. ¶39, ¶61).
Hybrid network backhaul systems that enable intercommunication between legacy TDM-based and newer IP-based architectures, allegedly including Alcatel-Lucent 7705, 7710, and 7750 service routers (Compl. ¶51, ¶61).
Private network services and femtocell products, such as the Verizon LTE Network Extender and Cisco LTE 2.0 NIM, that allegedly provide differentiated network access based on a user's status in a Closed Subscriber Group (CSG) (Compl. ¶57, ¶61).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused functionalities are central to Verizon's mobile network operations. The complaint alleges Verizon launched its LTE network in 2010 and expanded it to cover 97% of the U.S. population by 2013, touting it as an advanced 4G network (Compl. ¶34, ¶38). The complaint further alleges that Verizon's 5G network operates in the same manner for the purposes of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶40). The femtocell products, like the LTE Network Extender launched around March 2015, are offered to consumers and enterprise customers to extend network coverage (Compl. ¶59).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits D, E, and F) that were not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶64, ¶79, ¶95). The analysis below summarizes the narrative infringement theories presented in the complaint.

’279 Patent Infringement Allegations:
The complaint alleges that Verizon's LTE and 5G networks and compatible mobile devices were developed in compliance with the 3GPP TS 36.211 v8.9.0 standard (Compl. ¶39). It asserts that the patent claims "read on" this standard (Compl. ¶30). The infringement theory is that by implementing the LTE standard for cell synchronization, Verizon's network (the transmitting side, infringing claim 1) and compatible devices (the receiving side, infringing claim 7) necessarily practice the claimed methods of generating and searching for downlink signals using specific code group structures (Compl. ¶36-37).
’415 Patent Infringement Allegations:
The complaint alleges that Verizon operates a network comprising legacy TDM-based backhaul and newer IP-based network architectures (Compl. ¶50). The infringement theory centers on Verizon's alleged use of equipment from Alcatel-Lucent (now Nokia) to bridge these two systems. The complaint points to a 2007 contract for Verizon to upgrade its network to an IP-based platform using Alcatel-Lucent infrastructure, allegedly including specific router models (Compl. ¶51). The core allegation is that these systems function as the "matching units" (BSCMU and BTSMU) recited in claim 1, converting between dedicated-line signals and IP packets to enable a hybrid backhaul architecture (Compl. ¶44, ¶50).

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: For the ’415 Patent, a central question may be whether the connections in Verizon's modern network qualify as a "dedicated line" as the term is used in the patent, which provides E1/T1 lines as the primary context (’415 Patent, col. 3:38-40). The court will need to determine if this term is limited to legacy technologies or can be construed to cover modern equivalents.
Technical Questions: For the ’279 Patent, the complaint asserts the patent is not a standard-essential patent (SEP), while also asserting its claims "read on" the LTE standard (Compl. ¶30, ¶35). This raises the question of whether there are non-infringing ways to implement the 3GPP standard, and if so, what evidence shows that Verizon’s specific implementation practices the claimed method. For the ’415 and ’576 patents, the primary technical question is evidentiary: does the equipment Verizon actually uses in its network (e.g., Alcatel-Lucent routers, the LTE Network Extender) operate in the specific manner required by each element of the asserted claims?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term (’279 Patent, Claim 1): "a first code group which is formed by a concatenation of a first cell identification code and a second cell identification code"
- Context and Importance: The precise meaning of "concatenation" is critical to infringement. The dispute will likely focus on whether this requires a specific structural arrangement of the codes or a more general combination.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "concatenation" suggests linking things together in a chain or series, which could support a more general interpretation of combining the codes.
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes arranging elements of the unique cell identification codes with "spacing of one subcarrier" (’279 Patent, col. 6:14-17). A defendant may argue that this specific spaced arrangement is a definitional requirement of the claimed "concatenation."
Term (’415 Patent, Claim 1): "dedicated line"
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’415 Patent depends on Verizon's network using components that connect via a "dedicated line." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the patent can read on modern network links that may not be technologically identical to the E1/T1 lines discussed in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined. A plaintiff could argue for a functional definition, where any point-to-point, non-IP-based connection serving the purpose described in the patent qualifies as a "dedicated line."
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently uses "E1 line and T1 line" as the primary examples of a dedicated line (’415 Patent, col. 2:11-12). A defendant may argue that the claims should be limited to these specific legacy technologies or their direct equivalents.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe all three patents. The basis for this allegation is that Verizon provides "product manuals and other technical information" as well as marketing and advertising that encourage and instruct customers and end-users to use the accused networks, devices, and services in their normal, infringing manner (Compl. ¶70-72, ¶86-88, ¶101-103).
Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents.
- For the ’279 and ’576 Patents, the allegation is based on alleged actual notice provided via an offer to license on February 1, 2022, just two days before the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶65, ¶96).
- For the ’415 Patent, the complaint alleges knowledge based on the same February 1, 2022 notice (Compl. ¶81). It also alleges an earlier date of knowledge, August 12, 2014, when the original patent (’167) was allegedly cited by a USPTO examiner during the prosecution of a patent application owned by Verizon entities (Compl. ¶80).

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

A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: The infringement theories for the ’415 and ’576 patents rely on Verizon’s use of specific third-party hardware (e.g., Alcatel-Lucent routers, Cisco NIMs) to perform the claimed functions. A key question for the court will be whether discovery confirms that Verizon's network is, in fact, currently configured and operating in the precise manner alleged in the complaint.
A second issue will be one of claim scope versus evolving standards: For the ’279 patent, the case may turn on the relationship between the patent claims and the 3GPP standard. Given the plaintiff's assertion that the patent is not an SEP, a key question is whether Verizon's implementation of the standard is coextensive with the claim limitations, or if there are material technical differences that place it outside the scope of the claims.
Finally, a key legal question for the ’415 patent will be construction of legacy terms: Can the term "dedicated line," which is rooted in the E1/T1 technology context of the early 2000s, be construed to cover the architecture and connection types used in Verizon’s modern, hybrid fiber-and-copper backhaul network?