DCT

2:23-cv-00231

Iarnach Tech Ltd v. AT&T Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00231, E.D. Tex., 05/26/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because AT&T conducts substantial business in the district, including operating retail stores, offering its accused fiber internet services, and maintaining an "AT&T Foundry" innovation center in Plano, Texas, which constitutes a regular and established place of business. The complaint also notes that AT&T has previously admitted or not contested venue in this district in other patent infringement actions.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fiber-optic network infrastructure and services, including AT&T Fiber, infringe five patents related to the management and operation of Passive Optical Networks (PON).
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for managing Passive Optical Networks (PON), which form the backbone of modern fiber-to-the-premises internet services, a critical and highly competitive sector of the telecommunications market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the asserted patents were originally assigned to ZTE Corporation and were subsequently assigned to Plaintiff Iarnach Technologies Ltd. in January 2023.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-11-04 Earliest Priority Date ('359 Patent)
2009-11-23 Earliest Priority Date ('242 Patent)
2010-01-25 Earliest Priority Date ('378 Patent)
2010-01-01 AT&T began deploying fiber internet (approximate date)
2011-04-13 Earliest Priority Date ('013 Patent)
2012-07-13 Earliest Priority Date ('892 Patent)
2014-04-29 '242 Patent Issued
2015-01-13 '359 Patent Issued
2015-01-27 '378 Patent Issued
2016-06-07 '013 Patent Issued
2017-10-31 '892 Patent Issued
2020-01-01 AT&T began deploying XGS-PON systems
2023-01-09 Asserted Patents assigned from ZTE Corp. to Iarnach
2023-05-26 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,712,242 - "Ranging Method and Apparatus in Passive Optical Network"

  • Issued: April 29, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In a Passive Optical Network (PON), multiple Optical Network Units (ONUs) at customer premises are at varying distances from the central Optical Line Terminal (OLT). To prevent upstream data transmissions from colliding, the OLT must perform a "ranging" process to synchronize each ONU. This requires opening a "quiet window" where other ONUs cease transmitting. The patent notes that if this quiet window is excessively long, it interrupts service for other users and reduces the overall efficiency of the network (ʼ242 Patent, col. 1:64-2:5).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to shorten the quiet window's duration. Instead of using a one-size-fits-all quiet window based on maximum possible network distances, the method first obtains the specific Round Trip Delay (RTD) for the particular ONU being ranged. It then opens a quiet window tailored to that specific RTD, making the process more efficient and reducing service disruption for other ONUs on the network (ʼ242 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-24).
  • Technical Importance: Optimizing the ranging process by minimizing quiet window duration is critical for maximizing available upstream bandwidth and improving quality of service in high-speed fiber networks (Compl. ¶72).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶76).
  • Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
    • obtaining a Round Trip Delay (RTD) between an OLT and an ONU; and
    • opening a quiet window used for ranging the ONU according to the RTD.
    • wherein the step of opening the quiet window comprises: determining a required period T during ranging according to the RTD; obtaining an open time for the quiet window according to the period T and a preset adjustment time Δt; sending a ranging request and simultaneously opening the quiet window; receiving a ranging response within the open time; and obtaining and sending an Equalization Delay (EqD) to the ONU.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶75).

U.S. Patent No. 8,942,378 - "Method and Device for Encrypting Multicast Service in Passive Optical Network System"

  • Issued: January 27, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need to secure multicast services (e.g., IPTV) delivered over a PON. Encrypting this data is necessary to prevent unauthorized access by malicious users on the shared network. Prior art approaches that duplicated multicast data for unicast encryption or managed keys on a per-multicast-group basis were complex and increased the operational burden on the OLT (’378 Patent, col. 1:49-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method where an OLT generates a "common key" and uses that single key to encrypt the data of "all different multicast services" that are transmitted within the same bearer channel. This common key is then securely distributed to successfully activated ONUs via a management control channel. This simplifies the encryption architecture by allowing multiple services to be protected by a single, efficiently managed key (’378 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:9-18).
  • Technical Importance: This approach streamlines the security process for delivering broadcast-style services over fiber networks, reducing system complexity and resource requirements for the network operator (Compl. ¶101).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶105).
  • Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
    • an OLT generating a common key;
    • using the common key to encrypt multicast service data of all different multicast services in a same bearer channel and sending the encrypted data; and
    • the OLT sending the common key via a management control channel to a successfully activated ONU that applies to receive the multicast service data.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶104).

U.S. Patent No. 9,363,013 - "Optical Network Unit Power Management in Passive Optical Networks"

  • Issued: June 7, 2016 (Compl. ¶123)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to methods for identifying and mitigating the impact of a "rogue" ONU, which is an ONU that transmits improperly and causes interference across the network. The disclosed method involves detecting the rogue ONU and then transmitting a message that addresses only a subset of ONUs—specifically, those that have not yet been discovered—to isolate the rogue unit while managing the discovery process for legitimate new ONUs (Compl. ¶¶125, 129).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶129).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses AT&T's PON systems of infringing by having hardware and software capable of detecting rogue ONUs and transmitting messages to disable subsets of ONUs, allegedly in conformance with the NG-PON2 standard (Compl. ¶¶132-136).

U.S. Patent No. 9,806,892 - "Optical Network Unit Power Management in Passive Optical Networks"

  • Issued: October 31, 2017 (Compl. ¶146)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a power management method for an ONU that uses at least two distinct low-power states: a first state where the transmitter is off but the receiver is on (a "doze" state), and a second state where both are off (a "sleep" state). The invention allows the ONU to transition directly between these two low-power states based on a power management rule, improving power efficiency without needing to return to a fully powered-up state (Compl. ¶¶148, 152).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶152).
  • Accused Features: AT&T's PON systems are accused of infringing by implementing power management functionalities, allegedly conforming to the XGS-PON standard, that operate ONUs in these distinct low-power states and transition between them based on rules received from an OLT (Compl. ¶¶156-160).

U.S. Patent No. 8,934,359 - "Method and Passive Optical Network System for Managing Uplink Burst Parameters"

  • Issued: January 13, 2015 (Compl. ¶173)
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for dynamically managing upstream burst overhead parameters (e.g., preamble, delimiter) in a PON. The system detects the transmission quality of the downlink and, based on that quality, determines and selects a suitable set of overhead parameters for the ONU to use for its upstream transmissions. This adaptive approach aims to improve bandwidth utilization and decrease complexity compared to using fixed parameters (Compl. ¶¶175, 179).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶179).
  • Accused Features: AT&T's systems are accused of infringing by monitoring downlink quality and determining appropriate burst profile parameters for ONUs, allegedly in accordance with the XGS-PON standard's procedures for managing burst profiles (Compl. ¶¶183-187).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are AT&T's fiber-optic networks and services, sold under brands including "AT&T Fiber" and "AT&T Business Fiber." This encompasses the entire system, including hardware and software components such as Optical Line Terminals (OLTs) at the network core and Optical Network Units (ONUs)/Optical Network Terminals (ONTs) at customer premises, one example being the BGW320 XGS-PON ONU (Compl. ¶¶8, 61-62).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that AT&T's networks operate using Passive Optical Network technology, specifically the Gigabit Passive Optical Network (GPON) standard and, since 2020, the 10-Gigabit Symmetrical Passive Optical Network (XGS-PON) standard (Compl. ¶58). These networks are used to provide high-speed residential and commercial internet services with symmetrical upload and download speeds advertised up to 5 Gbps (Compl. ¶¶63-65). The complaint includes a high-level network diagram illustrating AT&T's XGS-PON architecture, showing how different types of customers (residential, business, cellular antenna sites) connect via splitters to an OLT (Compl. ¶60, Figure 4). The fiber network is also alleged to be used for wireless backhaul for AT&T's 4G and 5G cellular networks (Compl. ¶66).
  • The complaint positions fiber as a "foundational" component of AT&T's business, citing company statements about its importance and its goal of expanding the fiber network to over 30 million locations by 2025 (Compl. ¶¶39, 42). AT&T is described as a massive market participant, serving over 100 million U.S. consumers and nearly all Fortune 1000 companies (Compl. ¶37).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'242 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
obtaining a Round Trip Delay (RTD) between an Optical Line Terminal (OLT) and an Optical Network Unit (ONU) The accused system performs ranging to measure the round-trip delay between the OLT and ONU as part of the ONU activation process, consistent with the XGS-PON standard. ¶82 col. 2:18-20
opening a quiet window used for the ranging for the ONU according to the RTD to perform the ranging on this ONU The OLT in the accused system opens a quiet window, and the complaint alleges the size and timing of this window are determined using ranging information that includes the round-trip delay, as specified in the XGS-PON standard. ¶83 col. 2:21-24
determining a required period T during performing the ranging on the ONU according to the RTD The complaint alleges this is performed by calculating the size of the quiet window using formulas from the XGS-PON standard (e.g., Equation C.13-5) which incorporate the round-trip delay. ¶85 col. 2:44-46
obtaining an open time of the quiet window according to the determined required period T during performing the ranging on the ONU and a preset adjustment time Δt The accused system allegedly determines the offset of the quiet window based on a formula from the XGS-PON standard (Equation C.13-4) that uses a dynamically generated StartTime value. ¶86 col. 2:47-50
when the ONU is in a ranging state, sending a ranging request to the ONU, and opening the quiet window used for performing the ranging on the ONU simultaneously... The OLT allegedly issues a ranging grant to the ONU that is accompanied by a quiet window, with both occurring in the same downstream PHY frame. The complaint provides a timing diagram from the XGS-PON standard to illustrate this simultaneous action (Compl. ¶87, Figure C.13.3). ¶87 col. 2:50-55
receiving a ranging response within the open time of the quiet window During the ranging process, the ONU allegedly responds to the OLT's ranging grant during the quiet window, as illustrated in the timing diagram. ¶89 col. 2:56-58
obtaining an Equalization Delay (EqD) of the ONU that is in the ranging state and sending the EqD to the ONU that is in the ranging state The OLT allegedly calculates the equalization delay for the ONU and communicates it to the ONU while it is in the ranging state, conforming to the XGS-PON standard. ¶90 col. 2:59-62

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether AT&T's implementation of the XGS-PON standard (ITU-T G.9807.1) necessarily practices every element of claim 1. The complaint's theory relies on mapping the claim to the standard; a key dispute could be whether the standard allows for non-infringing alternatives or if AT&T's specific system deviates from the standard's exemplary implementations.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the parameters used in the accused system (e.g., for calculating window size and offset) directly correspond to the claimed "required period T" and "preset adjustment time Δt"? The infringement analysis may turn on whether the formulas cited from the standard are equivalent to the specific method steps claimed in the patent.

'378 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an optical line terminal (OLT) generating a common key, and using the common key to encrypt multicast service data of all different multicast services in a same bearer channel and then sending encrypted data... The complaint alleges the OLT in the accused system generates and uses a "broadcast key" to encrypt multicast traffic, which it contends functions as the claimed "common key" for different services within a bearer channel defined by an XGEM Port-ID. ¶111-113 col. 7:62-67
said OLT sending the common key applied in encrypting the multicast service data via a management control channel to an optical network unit (ONU) that is activated successfully and applies to receive said multicast service data The complaint alleges the OLT uses the ONU Management and Control Interface (OMCI) protocol, which it asserts is a "management control channel," to send the broadcast/multicast encryption key to ONUs that are provisioned to receive multicast traffic and have completed their activation cycle. ¶114-115 col. 8:1-7

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: Does the "broadcast key" as described in the ITU-T standards cited by the complaint meet the claim limitation of "a same common key" used for "all different multicast services"? A defendant might argue that its system uses different keys for different services or service types, thereby avoiding this limitation. Further, does the "bearer channel," defined in the complaint by an XGEM Port-ID, align with the scope of the term as used in the patent? The complaint includes a diagram of the XGEM frame header format to support its definition (Compl. ¶113, Figure C.9.2).
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused ONUs receive the key only after being "activated successfully" and having applied to "receive said multicast service data"? The timing and conditions under which the key is distributed will be a key factual question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'242 Patent

  • The Term: "opening a quiet window ... according to the RTD"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's purported novelty. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused system's method for determining the quiet window's properties is governed "according to" the specific RTD of the ONU being ranged, as opposed to a generic or worst-case value. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the causal link between the RTD measurement and the quiet window configuration.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention states the method comprises "opening a quiet window used for the ranging for the ONU according to the RTD to perform the ranging on this ONU" (’242 Patent, col. 2:21-24). This general language could support an interpretation where the RTD is merely one of several inputs or a general consideration.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific formula for calculating the required ranging period T, which is directly based on the RTD (’242 Patent, col. 5:11-24). A defendant could argue this ties the term "according to" to a direct mathematical dependency on the measured RTD.

'378 Patent

  • The Term: "a same common key"
  • Context and Importance: The claim requires using the same key for all different multicast services within a single bearer channel. The definition of "a same common key" is critical because if the accused system uses different keys for different services, even within the same channel, it may not infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term as it is a potential chokepoint for the infringement read.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's stated goal is to "reduce the complexities of the OLT encryption mechanism" (’378 Patent, col. 3:9-11). Plaintiff may argue this supports interpreting "a same common key" functionally, to cover any keying scheme that achieves this simplification, rather than requiring strict, literal identity across all possible services.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is precise: "a same common key" and "multicast service data of all different multicast services" (’378 Patent, col. 7:62-65). This language suggests a single key must be used for every distinct multicast service on that channel. The specification also describes the OLT "generating a public key" (singular) for the service, which could support a narrower reading (’378 Patent, col. 7:10-12).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

For each of the five asserted patents, the complaint alleges active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and contributory infringement under § 271(c). The factual basis is that AT&T manufactures, sells, and provides its customers with the Accused Instrumentalities (e.g., ONUs and fiber service) with the knowledge and intent that the customers' use of the system will directly infringe the patents. The complaint alleges that when a customer connects to the network, the infringing functionality is automatically implemented (e.g., Compl. ¶¶93-96, 117-120, 140-143, 167-170, 192-195).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on AT&T's knowledge of the asserted patents "at least as of the filing and service of the original Complaint (Dkt. 1) in this case" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶93, 117). This frames the willfulness claim as being based on alleged post-suit conduct. The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of willfulness and enhanced damages (Compl. p. 73).

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

  • A central issue for all five patents will be one of standards-based infringement: does AT&T's alleged conformance with the GPON and XGS-PON (ITU-T) standards necessarily mean it practices the specific limitations of the asserted claims? The case may depend on whether the standards mandate the claimed methods or merely describe them as one of several permissible, non-infringing options.
  • The litigation will likely involve a critical battle over claim construction: can terms such as "according to the RTD" ('242 patent), "a same common key" ('378 patent), and "probabilistically splitting" ('013 patent) be construed broadly enough to read on the functionality described in the relevant industry standards, or will a narrower construction place the accused systems outside the scope of the claims?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: beyond mere conformance with standards, what is the specific, factual operation of AT&T's network hardware and software? The ultimate outcome may depend on evidence demonstrating whether the accused systems actually perform the precise steps required by the claims, such as using a single key for all multicast services or directly transitioning between two specific low-power states.