DCT

2:22-cv-00125

Entropic Communications LLC v. Charter Communications Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Case Name: Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc.
  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00125, E.D. Tex., 01/10/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Charter has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains regular and established places of business there, including retail stores.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cable modems, set-top boxes, and associated cable television and internet services infringe six patents related to cable network technology, including system architecture, channel assessment, and signal management.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to core technologies for delivering high-speed data and television services over hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) networks, a foundational part of the modern telecommunications infrastructure.
  • Key Procedural History: The currently operative Second Amended Complaint follows an Original Complaint filed on April 27, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has been on notice of infringement of the asserted patents since at least April 27, 2022, via letters and the service of the original complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-09-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,223,775 Priority Date
2008-12-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,284,690 Priority Date
2009-04-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,210,362 Priority Date
2011-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,792,008 Priority Date
2011-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 9,825,826 Priority Date
2012-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 8223775 Issued
2012-07-23 U.S. Patent No. 10,135,682 Priority Date
2012-10-09 U.S. Patent No. 8284690 Issued
2014-07-29 U.S. Patent No. 8792008 Issued
2015-12-08 U.S. Patent No. 9210362 Issued
2017-11-21 U.S. Patent No. 9825826 Issued
2018-11-20 U.S. Patent No. 10135682 Issued
2022-04-27 Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letters to Defendant
2022-04-27 Original Complaint filed
2022-05-03 Original Complaint served
2023-01-10 Second Amended Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,223,775 - “Architecture for a Flexible and High-Performance Gateway Cable Modem,” issued July 17, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of integrating a growing number of complex functions—such as IP routing, firewalling, and Voice over IP (VoIP)—into a gateway cable modem in a cost-effective, flexible, and high-performance manner (Compl. ¶37; ’775 Patent, col. 1:11-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a functionally partitioned architecture. A dedicated "cable modem engine" handles core DOCSIS and VoIP functions, while a separate "data networking engine" manages home networking tasks like routing and security. Critically, the architecture provides a direct data path for downstream data packets from the MAC processor to the networking engine, bypassing the main controller to increase throughput and reduce latency (’775 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:45-56).
  • Technical Importance: This architectural separation allowed for independent software development and field upgrades for revenue-generating gateway services without impacting the basic, certified cable modem functionality (’775 Patent, col. 1:31-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 18 and dependent claim 19 (Compl. ¶40).
  • Claim 18 (System) Elements:
    • A data networking engine implemented in a first circuit with a RISC processor, programmed to perform home networking functions.
    • A cable modem engine implemented in a separate second circuit, programmed to perform cable modem functions.
    • The cable modem engine is configured for independent software upgrades from the data networking engine.
    • A data bus connects the two engines.
    • The cable modem functions are "completely partitioned" from the home networking functions.
    • A DOCSIS MAC processor is configured to process and forward downstream PDU packets directly to the data networking engine without involving the DOCSIS controller to boost throughput.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,284,690 - “Receiver Determined Probe,” issued October 9, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a lack of flexibility in network channel characterization, where a transmitting node typically sends a fixed, predetermined probe signal, making it difficult for the receiving node to perform tailored diagnostics (’690 Patent, col. 2:41-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where the receiving node initiates the process by sending a "probe request" to a transmitting node. This request specifies a plurality of parameters for the probe to be sent back, such as its modulation profile, payload content, and transmit power, thereby giving the receiver control over the diagnostic signal's form and function (’690 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-20).
  • Technical Importance: This "receiver determined" approach enhances diagnostic flexibility, allowing for more efficient network troubleshooting and performance optimization without requiring changes to the transmitting node's core software (’690 Patent, col. 2:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts method claims 7, 8, 11, 15, and 16 (Compl. ¶56). Independent claims include 1 and 9.
  • Claim 9 (Method) Elements:
    • A first node transmitting a probe request to a second node.
    • The probe request specifies a first plurality of probe parameters for a physical layer probe, including a form and modulation profile.
    • The first node receiving the probe from the second node.
    • The received probe is generated in accordance with the first plurality of parameters and a second plurality of parameters determined by the second node.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,792,008 - “Method and Apparatus for Spectrum Monitoring,” issued July 29, 2014

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a system for monitoring a wide spectrum of signals, such as a full cable television band. The system digitizes the entire signal range and uses a channelizer to concurrently send a first portion of the signal (e.g., a specific channel being watched) to a data processor for user consumption and a second portion (e.g., the entire spectrum) to a signal monitor for analysis and reporting (Compl. ¶69; ’008 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

Claims 1 and 2 are asserted (Compl. ¶73). Independent claim 1 is a system claim.

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Charter's Set Top Products (e.g., Spectrum 210) and associated services of infringing by monitoring signals generated by the products (Compl. ¶72).

U.S. Patent No. 9,210,362 - “Wideband Tuner Architecture,” issued December 8, 2015

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a wideband receiver that can down-convert a broad range of frequencies containing both desired and undesired TV channels, digitize the entire range, and then use digital circuitry to select and output only the desired channels as a digital data stream to a demodulator (Compl. ¶86; ’362 Patent, Abstract). This allows non-contiguous channels to be grouped together.

Asserted Claims

Claim 11 is asserted (Compl. ¶90). Claim 11 is a method claim.

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Charter’s Accused Set Top Products (e.g., Spectrum 210) and Accused Services of infringing by performing the claimed steps of down-converting, digitizing, and selecting television channels (Compl. ¶89).

U.S. Patent No. 9,825,826 - “Method and Apparatus for Spectrum Monitoring,” issued November 21, 2017

Technology Synopsis

This patent, related to the ’008 Patent, describes a receiver in an HFC network that digitizes a received signal, selects a portion for monitoring, measures a characteristic, and controls the transmission of network management messages back to the headend based on that measurement (Compl. ¶103; ’826 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶107). Claim 1 is a method claim.

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Charter’s Accused Services and Accused Set Top Products (e.g., Spectrum 210) of infringing by monitoring signals generated by the products and using the results to manage the network (Compl. ¶106).

U.S. Patent No. 10,135,682 - “Method and System for Service Group Management in a Cable Network,” issued November 20, 2018

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a method for a cable modem termination system (CMTS) to optimize network performance. The CMTS determines a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metric for various cable modems, assigns them to service groups based on this metric, and then selects physical layer communication parameters for each group based on a composite, worst-case SNR profile for that group (Compl. ¶120; ’682 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

Claim 14 is asserted (Compl. ¶124). The complaint also references infringement of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶125-126). Claim 1 is a method claim, and claim 14 is a system claim.

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Charter’s Accused Services, which utilize cable modem termination systems that communicate with the Accused Cable Modem Products, of infringement (Compl. ¶123).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies three categories of accused instrumentalities:

  1. Accused Cable Modem Products: Including the Arris SB6183, Spectrum PC20 (e.g., EU2251), and other similar products (Compl. ¶11).
  2. Accused Set Top Products (STBs): Including Spectrum 100-series, 200-series, 101-series, 201-series, 110-series, 210-series, the Arris DCX3600 STB, and other similar products (Compl. ¶11).
  3. Accused Services: The provision of cable television and internet services by Charter using the accused hardware (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products and services form the core of Charter's "Spectrum" brand offerings, which serve over 32 million customers in 41 states (Compl. ¶5). The accused products are provided to customers to enable access to Charter's internet and television services (Compl. ¶14).
  • The complaint alleges that Charter maintains ownership of the accused products even when deployed at a customer's property (Compl. ¶38, ¶70) and that it has regular and established places of business in the district, providing a photograph of a "Spectrum" retail store in Plano, Texas as evidence (Compl. ¶16). This photograph shows a storefront with the "Spectrum" logo and branding (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references non-limiting claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent (Exhibits G-L) but does not attach them (Compl. ¶40, ¶56, ¶73, ¶90, ¶107, ¶124). The infringement theory is therefore summarized in prose based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

’775 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Cable Modem Products (e.g., Spectrum PC20, Arris SB6183) directly infringe at least claims 18 and 19 (Compl. ¶40). The core of the infringement theory is that the accused modems embody the patented "partitioned cable modem" architecture. The complaint asserts that this architecture separates cable modem functions from data and home networking functions, enabling the incorporation of enhanced features as taught by the patent (Compl. ¶37). It is alleged that Charter infringes by using, importing, selling, and offering for sale these products (Compl. ¶39).

’690 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that Charter's Accused Services directly infringe at least method claims 7, 8, 11, 15, and 16 (Compl. ¶56). The infringement theory is based on the process of generating "probe transmissions." The complaint alleges that in Charter's network, a receiving node can request a probe and specify its parameters, and a second node generates and transmits the probe in response. This process is alleged to improve the receiving node's ability to recognize the probe, matching the functionality described in the patent (Compl. ¶53, ¶55).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions:
    • For the ’775 Patent, a central question may be whether the architecture of modern System-on-a-Chip (SoC) devices used in the accused modems can be considered "completely partitioned" into a "cable modem engine" and a "data networking engine" as required by the claims. The defense may argue that such functions are highly integrated on a single piece of silicon, not "completely partitioned."
    • For the ’690 Patent, a dispute may arise over the meaning of a "probe request specifying a plurality of parameters." The question will be whether routine network configuration and operation in the accused system constitutes a specific "request" that "specifies" parameters for a "probe," or if the claims require a more explicit, receiver-initiated diagnostic command that is absent from the accused system.
  • Technical Questions:
    • For the ’775 Patent, a technical question is whether the data flow in the accused modems follows the claimed path of bypassing the DOCSIS controller to "boost downstream throughput." Evidence of the internal data bus architecture and processing pathways within the accused chips will be critical.
    • For the ’690 Patent, evidence will be needed to show that a first node (the receiver) actually transmits a "probe request" that dictates the form of a subsequent transmission from a second node (the transmitter), as opposed to the transmitter sending a probe based on its own internal logic or a system-wide configuration.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from ’775 Patent (Claim 18): "completely partitioned"

Context and Importance

This term is central to the patent's claimed architectural innovation. The definition will determine whether the physical and logical integration of functions in modern SoCs falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the degree of "partitioning" between functional blocks on a single chip is a nuanced technical and legal question.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader (Functional) Interpretation: The specification emphasizes the goal of allowing "independent software development and field-upgrade" (’775 Patent, col. 1:32-34) and describes the engines in terms of the functions they perform, which could support a view that "completely partitioned" refers to functional and software independence, not necessarily physical separation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower (Physical/Structural) Interpretation: The patent repeatedly refers to the engines being implemented in different "processors" (e.g., "ARM #1," "ARM #2," "ARM #3") and "circuits" (’775 Patent, claim 1; col. 4:26-30). The summary of the invention also states the engines are "completely decoupled" (’775 Patent, col. 2:17-19), language that may support a requirement for a higher degree of structural separation.

Term from ’690 Patent (Claim 9): "probe request"

Context and Importance

The invention is titled "Receiver Determined Probe," making the nature of the "request" from the receiver paramount. The case may turn on whether routine network communications in Charter's system can be characterized as a "probe request" that actively "specifies" parameters, or if the term implies a specific type of diagnostic command.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discusses using the probes for various applications, including discovering hidden nodes and OFDMA sub-channel assessment (’690 Patent, col. 2:21-25), which could suggest that any communication that results in a specified transmission for channel characterization could be a "probe request."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background contrasts the invention with systems using "predetermined" and "well defined" probes, where the receiver knows the reference signal in advance (’690 Patent, col. 2:41-52). This context suggests "probe request" is meant to be an active, on-demand mechanism initiated by the receiver to define a custom probe, distinguishing it from routine, pre-configured network signals.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.

  • Inducement: It is alleged that Charter induces its customers' direct infringement by providing specific instructions and assistance, including installation, for using the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶44, ¶60, ¶77, ¶94, ¶111).
  • Contribution: It is alleged that Charter contributes to infringement by providing the Accused Products, which are claimed to have no substantial non-infringing uses and to be especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner when operated with the Accused Services (Compl. ¶45-46, ¶61-62, ¶78-79, ¶95-96, ¶112-113).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Charter’s infringement has been and continues to be willful, intentional, and deliberate for all asserted patents. This allegation is based on Charter’s alleged knowledge of the patents since "at least April 27, 2022 upon the receipt of the letters attached as Exhibit M and Exhibit N, as well as the receipt of copies of the Original Complaint" (Compl. ¶42, ¶58, ¶75, ¶92, ¶109, ¶126).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Can the functionally integrated design of a modern cable modem System-on-a-Chip be "completely partitioned" into a "cable modem engine" and a "data networking engine" with a throughput-boosting bypass path, as specifically required by the ’775 Patent claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patent's compartmentalized architecture and the accused product's integrated reality?

  2. A second central dispute will concern process characterization: Do the routine, system-level communications and configurations within Charter's network for managing performance constitute a "receiver determined" process where a first node transmits a "probe request specifying a plurality of parameters" to a second node, as claimed in the ’690 Patent, or does the claim require a specific, user- or receiver-initiated diagnostic command that is absent from the Accused Services?

  3. A third key question will be one of functional scope: For the spectrum monitoring patents (’008, ’362, ’826, ’682), does the normal operation of Charter's set-top boxes and network management systems perform the specific steps of digitizing, channelizing, analyzing, reporting, and grouping based on SNR profiles in the manner claimed, or will the evidence show a different technical method of operation that falls outside the claims' boundaries?