DCT
2:23-cv-00246
Dali Wireless Inc v. AT&T Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dali Wireless, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: AT&T Corp., et al. (collectively "AT&T") (various); CommScope Holding Company, Inc., et al. (collectively "CommScope") (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Folio Law Group PLLC; Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00246, E.D. Tex., 05/30/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because AT&T and CommScope have regular and established places of business in the district, including AT&T retail stores, an AT&T "foundry" in Plano, and a CommScope office in Richardson.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant AT&T’s LTE and 5G networks, which use Defendant CommScope’s Distributed Antenna System (DAS) products, infringe a patent related to dynamically reconfigurable DAS technology.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), which are used to extend and manage wireless network coverage within large structures like stadiums or corporate campuses where standard cell towers are insufficient.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) previously denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed against the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff may use this denial to argue that the patent is strong and that Defendants' alleged infringement is willful.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-09-14 | U.S. Patent No. 9,820,171 Priority Date |
| 2017-11-14 | U.S. Patent No. 9,820,171 Issued |
| 2023-05-30 | Complaint Filed |
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. (Compl. ¶1).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of managing fluctuating wireless subscriber loads in specific locations, such as a corporate cafeteria that is crowded during lunch but empty otherwise. Conventional Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) are often "fixed," leading to wasted capacity in low-use areas and insufficient capacity in high-use areas. Manually reconfiguring these systems is often impractical and requires specialized staff. (’971 Patent, col. 1:35-45, col. 2:5-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a software-defined radio (SDR) based DAS that can dynamically reallocate radio resources. It comprises central Digital Access Units (DAUs) that interface with the carrier's base station and multiple Remote Radio Units (RRUs) that provide coverage. The system can be remotely reconfigured via software to change the number of carriers (i.e., capacity) assigned to each RRU, thereby matching network capacity to user demand in real time. (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 14:45-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows network operators to improve efficiency by shifting capacity to where it is needed, rather than overprovisioning the entire network, thereby reducing capital and operational costs. (’971 Patent, col. 12:30-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 and independent system claim 15. (Compl. ¶38, ¶59).
- Independent Claim 1 (Method): Essential elements 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 baseband signals corresponding to a plurality of carriers.
- Routing and switching the packetized signals between the DAU and RRUs.
- Reconfiguring an RRU by increasing or decreasing the number of carriers in its assigned subset.
- Thereafter, routing and switching signals according to the result of the reconfiguring.
- Independent Claim 15 (System): Essential elements include:
- A plurality of RRUs.
- At least one DAU configured to communicate with the RRUs.
- The RRUs are configured to packetize uplink signals, and the DAU is configured to packetize downlink signals.
- During a first time period, the RRUs are configured with a subset of carriers.
- During a second time period, at least one RRU is reconfigured to increase or decrease the number of carriers in its subset and operates according to that reconfiguration.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses AT&T's LTE and 5G networks that incorporate CommScope's ION®-E/ERA platform and/or CommScope's OneCell product. (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- ION®-E/ERA Platform: The complaint alleges this is a DAS solution for in-building wireless coverage. (Compl. ¶38). It is described as including a Central Area Node (CAN) that digitizes and combines signals from different operators for distribution throughout a building or campus to remote access points. (Compl. ¶40, ¶44). The complaint alleges the platform can "dynamically adjust system resources to maintain efficiency" by reassigning radio resources as users move between locations, such as from university classrooms to residences. (Compl. ¶53).
- OneCell Product: The complaint identifies this as a "Cloud-RAN small cell system." (Compl. ¶60). It is alleged to use a "baseband controller" and multiple "radio points" to create a virtualized "super cell" that covers an entire area, which is said to eliminate handovers and interference. (Compl. ¶60, ¶65). The system allegedly uses standard Gigabit Ethernet links for communication between the controller and the radio points. (Compl. ¶65).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'971 Infringement Allegations (Claim 1 vs. ION®-E/ERA)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for routing and switching signals comprising: | The ION®-E/ERA platform is alleged to be a system that routes and switches signals. | ¶40 | col. 12:51-52 |
| [1A] providing a plurality of remote radio units... | The platform allegedly includes a range of remote access points that convert digital signals back to radio frequency (RF). | ¶41-42 | col. 12:52-55 |
| [1B] providing at least one digital access unit configured to communicate with the plurality of remote radio units; | The platform allegedly consists of Central Area Nodes (CAN), Transport Extension Nodes, and Access Points, which together form the digital access unit. | ¶43-44 | col. 12:56-58 |
| [1C] translating the uplink and downlink signals between RF and base band; | The ION®-E/ERA platform allegedly "digitizes baseband RF signals." | ¶45-46 | col. 12:59-60 |
| [1D] packetizing the uplink and downlink base band signals...each remote radio unit configured to receive or transmit a respective subset... | The platform allegedly packetizes signals for transport over LAN cables to the Access Points and can configure different signal sets for different zones or operators. | ¶47-49 | col. 12:61-66 |
| [1E] 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 the operator's network to the Access Points. The complaint provides a diagram illustrating this architecture. (Compl. p. 13). | ¶50-51 | col. 13:1-4 |
| [1F] reconfiguring at least one of the plurality of remote radio unit by increasing or decreasing the number of carriers...; and thereafter | The platform can allegedly "dynamically adjust system resources" by reassigning radio resources as user populations move. A screenshot from a marketing video shows how the "system adapts to user movements". (Compl. p. 14). | ¶52-55 | col. 13:5-8 |
| [1G] routing and switching the packetized signals...according to a result of the reconfiguring. | The CAN allegedly routes and switches signals to the Access Points based on the reconfiguration described for the prior element. | ¶56-57 | col. 13:9-13 |
'971 Infringement Allegations (Claim 15 vs. OneCell)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for transmitting signals, comprising: [15A] a plurality of remote radio units; and | The OneCell product allegedly includes multiple "[r]adio [p]oints" such as the RP5000 and RP2000 series. | ¶62-63 | col. 14:15-16 |
| [15B] at least one digital access unit configured to communicate with the...remote radio units...wherein the plurality of remote radio units are each configured to packetize uplink signals...and the at least one digital access unit is configured to packetize downlink signals... | The OneCell system has a "baseband controller" that performs baseband processing and communicates with the Radio Points over Ethernet links. A marketing video screenshot shows how Physical Resource Blocks (PRBs) are allocated. (Compl. p. 18). | ¶64-65 | col. 14:17-27 |
| [15C] wherein during a first time period, each of the plurality of remote radio units is configured to receive or transmit the respective subset of the plurality of carriers, | During a first millisecond, the OneCell system allegedly configures each remote unit to transmit a specific subset of carriers (i.e., PRBs). A video screenshot depicts this allocation across virtual sectors. (Compl. p. 21). | ¶67-68 | col. 14:28-31 |
| [15D] wherein during a second time period, at least one remote radio unit...is reconfigured to increase or decrease the number of carriers...and...is configured to receive or transmit the first subset...according to the reconfiguration. | The complaint alleges that between millisecond 001 and millisecond 002, remote radio units have the number of carriers changed. Screenshots from a video are provided to show a change in resource allocation between two time points. (Compl. p. 24, 25). | ¶69-70 | col. 14:32-39 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions:
- Do the accused products' alleged functions of "dynamic adjustment" (ION-E/ERA) and millisecond-level resource block reuse (OneCell) meet the claim requirement of "reconfiguring... by increasing or decreasing the number of carriers"? The defense may argue this limitation requires a more discrete or persistent change in the carrier configuration, rather than highly dynamic, sub-second load balancing.
- Does the accused OneCell "baseband controller" function as the claimed "digital access unit," and do its "Radio Points" function as "remote radio units"? The court will need to determine if the specific architecture of the accused system maps onto the claimed system components.
- Technical Questions:
- What evidence demonstrates that the accused products "packetize" signals in the manner described by the patent? Claim 15 distinctly requires RRUs to packetize uplink signals and the DAU to packetize downlink signals. The complaint alleges the OneCell controller "perform[s] baseband processing and scheduling" (Compl. ¶65); whether this constitutes the claimed packetization scheme will be a central technical question.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "reconfiguring at least one of the plurality of remote radio unit by increasing or decreasing the number of carriers" (Claim 1); "reconfigured to increase or decrease the number of carriers" (Claim 15).
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention, capturing the dynamic capacity allocation. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused products' automated load-balancing and resource allocation features constitute "reconfiguring." Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether modern, highly dynamic DAS/small cell systems fall under the patent's coverage.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests an adaptive, automated process: "the DAU Management Control module adaptively modifies the system configuration to slowly begin to deploy additional radio resources...or...to slowly begin to remove certain radio resources." (’971 Patent, col. 12:5-15). This supports an interpretation that includes automated, load-based adjustments.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a more deliberate process: "The software settings within RRU1 are configured either manually or automatically such that Carriers 1-8 are present in the downlink output signal." (’971 Patent, col. 14:45-49). This could support an argument that "reconfiguring" implies a more distinct, state-changing event rather than continuous, real-time adjustments.
The Term: "packetizing the uplink and downlink base band signals" (Claim 1); "packetize uplink signals" / "packetize downlink signals" (Claim 15).
- Context and Importance: The method of digitizing and transporting signals is fundamental to the system's operation. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused products' specific data transport protocol (e.g., over Ethernet) qualifies as "packetizing" as understood in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly describes the process as converting signals to digital, framing them, and serializing them for transport over optical fiber. (’971 Patent, col. 14:10-16). This general language could encompass a variety of digital transport methods.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that "The DAUs and RRUs frame the individual data packets corresponding to their respective radio signature using the Common Public Interface Standard (CPRI)." (’971 Patent, col. 9:5-9). This explicit reference to the CPRI standard could be used to argue that "packetizing" is limited to the specific framing and protocol defined by CPRI, potentially excluding other methods like standard Ethernet transport if they differ significantly.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that CommScope induces infringement by providing AT&T with the accused platforms and "instructions on the use of the...routing and switching feature." (Compl. ¶73). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the accused hardware and software are "especially adapted for use in the infringing distributed antenna system" and have "no substantial non-infringing uses." (Compl. ¶75).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' actions despite an "objectively high likelihood" of infringement. The complaint specifically cites the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR on the ’171 patent as a fact supporting the patent's validity and, by extension, the objective likelihood of infringement. (Compl. ¶77).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "reconfiguring... by increasing or decreasing the number of carriers," which is described in the patent in the context of both manual and adaptive changes, be construed to cover the highly dynamic, millisecond-level resource allocation and load balancing allegedly performed by the accused systems?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused products' method of processing signals for transport over Ethernet links meet the "packetizing" limitation of the claims, particularly when the patent specification explicitly references the CPRI standard as a method for framing data packets?
- A key question for willfulness and damages will be the impact of the prior IPR denial: to what extent does the PTAB's non-institution decision, cited by the Plaintiff, establish pre-suit knowledge or objective recklessness on the part of the Defendants regarding their continued use of the accused technology?