DCT
2:23-cv-00245
Dali Wireless Inc v. Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dali Wireless, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Delaware); CommScope Holding Company, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Folio Law Group PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00245, E.D. Tex., 05/30/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants have regular and established places of business in the district, have registered to conduct business in Texas, and have committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Verizon's LTE and 5G networks, which utilize Defendant CommScope's distributed antenna system (DAS) products, infringe a patent related to remotely reconfigurable DAS technology for dynamic capacity allocation.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns software-defined radio technology for Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), which are used to provide and manage wireless coverage inside large buildings or venues, a market where efficient allocation of radio resources is critical.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) previously denied institution of at least one petition for inter partes review (IPR) of the patent-in-suit, a fact Plaintiff may leverage to argue against any invalidity defenses.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-09-14 | ’171 Patent - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2015-XX-XX | Verizon and CommScope relationship regarding accused ION-E platform noted |
| 2017-11-14 | ’171 Patent - Issue Date |
| 2023-05-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,820,171 - "Remotely Reconfigurable Distributed Antenna System and Methods," issued November 14, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency of conventional Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) in handling fluctuating subscriber loads, for example, when many users congregate in one part of a building like a cafeteria during lunch. Such systems are often either wastefully over-provisioned or provide inadequate service, and manual reconfiguration is impractical and costly (’971 Patent, col. 1:35-50; col. 2:20-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a software-defined radio (SDR) based DAS that allows for remote, dynamic reconfiguration of radio resources. A central Digital Access Unit (DAU) communicates with multiple Remote Radio Units (RRUs). The system can change the number of carriers assigned to specific RRUs via software, effectively moving wireless capacity to areas with high user demand and away from areas with low demand (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:5-19). This is described as a "Flexible Simulcast" capability, where the amount of radio resources assigned to a particular RRU can be set via software control (’971 Patent, col. 4:10-19).
- Technical Importance: This architecture enables more efficient use of hardware and spectrum by dynamically matching network capacity to real-time user distribution, which is a key challenge for providing cost-effective, high-quality in-building wireless coverage (’971 Patent, col. 12:31-36).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Providing a plurality of remote radio units (RRUs) and at least one digital access unit (DAU).
- Translating signals between RF and baseband.
- Packetizing the signals, which correspond to multiple carriers, with each RRU configured to handle a "respective subset" of those carriers.
- Routing and switching the packetized signals among the RRUs via the DAU.
- Reconfiguring at least one RRU by "increasing or decreasing the number of carriers in the respective subset."
- Thereafter routing and switching the signals "according to a result of the reconfiguring."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Verizon's LTE and 5G networks, which incorporate CommScope's ION®-E/ERA platform for in-building wireless coverage (Compl. ¶2, ¶33). The complaint alleges that the ION-E and ERA platforms share the same hardware and software architecture (Compl. ¶2, fn. 1).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused ION®-E/ERA platform as a DAS comprising Central Area Nodes (CANs), Transport Extension Nodes, and remote Access Points (APs) (Compl. ¶39).
- Functionally, the CAN is alleged to digitize baseband RF signals from different operators and distribute them throughout a building, while the APs convert the digital signal back to RF for over-the-air transmission (Compl. ¶35, ¶37).
- The complaint alleges, based on CommScope marketing materials, that the platform can "dynamically adjust system resources" and remap sectors to where radio resources are most needed, such as when users move between different locations within a university campus (Compl. ¶48-49). A system diagram provided in the complaint illustrates the CAN routing signals between an operator's C-RAN hub and remote access points (Compl. p. 13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’971 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for routing and switching signals | The ION®-E/ERA platform's central area node (CAN) is alleged to digitize, combine, and distribute signals, thereby performing routing and switching. | ¶35 | col. 12:46-47 |
| providing a plurality of remote radio units, each remote radio unit configured to transmit one or more downlink signals and to receive one or more uplink signals | The accused platform includes a "range of remote access points" that convert digital signals to RF signals for transmission and reception. | ¶36-37 | col. 12:49-52 |
| providing at least one digital access unit configured to communicate with the plurality of remote radio units | The accused platform provides Central Area Nodes (CANs) that communicate with the remote access points. | ¶38-39 | col. 12:53-55 |
| translating the uplink and downlink signals between RF and base band | The CAN allegedly "digitizes baseband RF signals" while the Access Points convert between RF and digital signals. | ¶40-41 | col. 12:56-57 |
| packetizing the uplink and downlink base band signals, wherein the packetized signals correspond to a plurality of carriers, each remote radio unit configured to receive or transmit a respective subset of the plurality of carriers | The platform allegedly packetizes signals for transport over LAN cables, and marketing materials allegedly show that different "signal sets" (subsets of channels/carriers) can be created and sent to specific remote access points. A screenshot from marketing materials shows a user interface for assigning different signal sets to different remote units (Compl. p. 14). | ¶42-44 | col. 12:58-63 |
| routing and switching the packetized signals among the plurality of remote radio units via the at least one digital access unit | The CAN is alleged to route and switch packetized signals from an operator's network to the Access Points (downlink) and from the Access Points to the operator's network (uplink). | ¶45-46 | col. 12:64-67 |
| reconfiguring at least one of the plurality of remote radio units by increasing or decreasing the number of carriers in the respective subset of the plurality of carriers | The platform can allegedly "dynamically adjust system resources" as users move, for example, from university classrooms to residences. A visual from marketing materials depicts the system adapting to user movements between different locations (Compl. p. 14). | ¶47-48 | col. 13:1-4 |
| routing and switching the packetized signals among the plurality of remote radio units via the at least one digital access unit according to a result of the reconfiguring | The complaint alleges that the routing and switching function described previously occurs according to the result of the dynamic reconfiguration. | ¶51-52 | col. 13:5-8 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be one of definitional scope: does CommScope's "Access Point" (AP) or "Universal Access Point" (UAP) constitute a "remote radio unit" (RRU) as that term is used and described in the patent? Similarly, does the "Central Area Node" (CAN) meet all the functional requirements of a "digital access unit" (DAU)?
- Technical Questions: Does the accused system’s alleged "dynamic adjustment" of resources perform the specific function of "increasing or decreasing the number of carriers in the respective subset," as required by claim 1? The court may need to determine if the accused system’s mechanism for reallocating capacity (e.g., re-routing pre-defined signal sets) is technically equivalent to the claimed method of altering the number of carriers assigned to a remote unit.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "reconfiguring"
Context and Importance
This term is central to the invention's novelty. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused platform's alleged ability to "dynamically adjust system resources" (Compl. ¶48) falls within the claim's definition of "reconfiguring." Practitioners may focus on this term because the claim itself provides a specific definition: "by increasing or decreasing the number of carriers in the respective subset of the plurality of carriers" ('971 Patent, col. 13:3-4).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the invention in the context of "dynamic reconfiguration based on the needs of the enterprise" ('971 Patent, col. 2:23-25), which could support an interpretation that covers various methods of dynamic resource allocation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit language of claim 1 ties "reconfiguring" to the specific action of changing the "number of carriers." The patent also describes a mechanism for this, such as using gain control parameters to remotely "turn on and off the individual carriers" ('971 Patent, col. 6:62-65), suggesting a specific technical implementation rather than just re-routing existing carrier groups.
The Term: "digital access unit"
Context and Importance
The complaint equates this term with CommScope’s "Central Area Node" (CAN) (Compl. ¶39). Its construction will be critical to establishing whether a fundamental component of the claimed system is present in the accused instrumentality.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the DAU's core function as interfacing with a base station and processing signals (digitizing, I/Q mapping, framing) for transport to RRUs ('971 Patent, col. 6:6-14). The complaint alleges the CAN performs analogous functions (Compl. ¶35).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "networked DAU system" where multiple DAUs are connected to make "all of Carriers 1-8 ... available within DAU1 and DAU2" ('971 Patent, col. 6:39-44). A court could be persuaded that this networking and resource-pooling capability is a required feature of a "digital access unit," which the accused CAN may not possess.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges CommScope induces infringement by providing Verizon with instructions, installation, configuration, and maintenance services for the ION®-E/ERA platform, with the intent to cause infringement (Compl. ¶55). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused platform's hardware and software are "especially adapted for use in the infringing distributed antenna system" and lack substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶57).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patent "at least as early as of and by way of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶58). The complaint further alleges an "objectively high likelihood" of infringement, arguing that any belief of non-infringement or invalidity is unreasonable, in part because the PTAB previously denied a petition to institute inter partes review of the '171 Patent (Compl. ¶59).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and technical operation: Does the accused platform's method of "dynamically adjusting" resources, which the complaint supports with marketing materials, meet the specific claim requirement of "reconfiguring ... by increasing or decreasing the number of carriers"? The case may turn on whether re-routing existing signal sets is equivalent to altering the number of active carriers at a remote unit.
- A key evidentiary question will be whether the real-world operation of the CommScope ION®-E/ERA platform matches the allegations, which are based on publicly available marketing documents. Discovery will likely focus on the precise technical functionality of the "Central Area Node" and "Access Points" to determine if they are structurally and functionally equivalent to the patent's "Digital Access Unit" and "Remote Radio Units."
- The allegation of willful infringement raises a significant legal question: what weight will the court give to the PTAB's prior decision to deny institution of inter partes review? Plaintiff will argue this fact makes Defendants' litigation posture objectively unreasonable, while Defendants will likely counter that a denial of institution is not a final judgment on the merits of validity.