Cobblestone Wireless LLC v. Cellco Partnership

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cobblestone Wireless, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00382, E.D. Tex., 08/25/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including numerous specified retail locations, and operates cellular base stations providing 4G and 5G services to customers within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cellular base stations, mobile products, and services that support 3GPP carrier aggregation infringe a patent related to methods for simultaneous wireless transmission across multiple frequency bands.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for increasing data throughput and/or reliability in wireless systems by transmitting data over different radio frequencies concurrently, a concept foundational to modern standards like 4G LTE and 5G carrier aggregation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-01-23	U.S. Patent No. 7,924,802 Priority Date
2011-04-12	U.S. Patent No. 7,924,802 Issued
2023-08-25	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,924,802 - Wireless Communication Systems and Methods

Issued April 12, 2011.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the limitations of conventional wireless transmitters that typically operate on a single center frequency, which constrains the amount of data that can be transmitted. It also notes that regulatory limits on output power can restrict the reliability, range, and effective throughput of wireless communications (’802 Patent, col. 1:28-52).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method to transmit information simultaneously across two or more distinct frequency ranges using a single wireless transmitter. As depicted in embodiments like Figure 2, this involves processing separate digital data streams, converting them to analog signals, "up-converting" each signal to a different radio frequency (RF) center frequency, and then combining the signals before amplifying them with a single power amplifier for transmission via a single antenna (’802 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:21-48; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This architecture allows for the aggregation of bandwidth from different frequency bands to increase data rates or for the transmission of the same data over different frequencies to improve reliability, without the cost and complexity of implementing multiple, fully independent transmitter chains (’802 Patent, col. 6:56-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶12).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A method of transmitting information in a wireless communication channel comprising:
  • transmitting first information across a first frequency range using a wireless transmitter, the first frequency range having a first center frequency, a first highest frequency, and a first lowest frequency; and
  • simultaneously transmitting second information across a second frequency range using the same wireless transmitter, the second frequency range having a second center frequency greater than the first center frequency, a second highest frequency, and a second lowest frequency.
• The complaint's use of "at least Claim 1" suggests the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims, may be reserved for later stages of litigation.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "cellular base stations, mobile products, and services that support 3GPP carrier aggregation, including without limitation Apple mobile products" offered, sold, or imported by Verizon (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products and services implement 3GPP carrier aggregation, a feature of 4G and 5G cellular standards that allows a device to communicate over multiple frequency bands simultaneously to increase data speeds (Compl. ¶12). Verizon is alleged to offer and provide these 4G and 5G services and equipment to customers in the district (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an exhibit that was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶15). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Verizon's products and services that "support 3GPP carrier aggregation" directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least Claim 1 of the ’802 patent (Compl. ¶12). The core of this theory is that the function of carrier aggregation—simultaneously transmitting data on multiple component carriers (i.e., different frequency ranges)—is a commercial implementation of the method recited in Claim 1. The complaint does not provide specific technical details mapping the operation of any particular accused product to the claim elements.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "using the same wireless transmitter"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in both main clauses of claim 1 and is central to the patent's purported efficiency gain. The definition of what constitutes "the same wireless transmitter" will be critical for determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern wireless devices utilize highly integrated radio-frequency systems-on-a-chip (RF-SoCs) with multiple, complex signal paths, raising the question of whether such a system is one "transmitter" or several.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not further define "wireless transmitter." The specification broadly describes the invention's ability to "transmit multiple signals simultaneously over a communication channel at different center frequencies, and may use a single power amplifier and antenna" (’802 Patent, col. 6:61-64). This could support an interpretation where any system that ultimately uses a single power amplifier qualifies, regardless of the upstream componentry.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and their descriptions show a specific architecture where two distinct up-converter paths (e.g., items 205 and 206) are combined before a single power amplifier (208) and antenna (209) (’802 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 6:56-60). A party could argue that "the same wireless transmitter" requires this specific post-combination amplification structure, potentially excluding systems with different hardware configurations.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Verizon encourages and instructs end users to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner through, for example, "user manuals and online instruction materials" (Compl. ¶13).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Verizon has knowledge of the ’802 Patent and the infringing nature of its products "Through at least the filing and service of this Complaint" and continues its accused conduct despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶13). This forms a basis for post-suit willful infringement. The prayer for relief also seeks a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl., Prayer for Relief E).

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

• Evidentiary Specificity: A threshold issue will be the plaintiff's ability to develop a factual record beyond the general allegation that "3GPP carrier aggregation" infringes. The case may turn on whether discovery reveals that the specific hardware and software architectures of Verizon's accused base stations and the mobile products it sells map to every limitation of the asserted claims, a more granular inquiry than the high-level allegation in the complaint.
• Architectural Mapping: A central technical dispute will likely concern the scope of the claim term "using the same wireless transmitter." The key question for the court will be whether the highly integrated, multi-path RF systems in modern 4G/5G devices and infrastructure should be considered a "single transmitter" as contemplated by the ’802 patent, or whether they function as multiple transmitters that fall outside the claim's scope.
• Validity in View of Industry Standards: Given the patent's 2008 priority date, a significant question underlying the entire dispute will be the patent's validity against the backdrop of wireless standards development. The case will likely involve an examination of whether the claimed method was novel and non-obvious in light of technical contributions and standards-setting activities related to carrier aggregation in 3GPP and other bodies prior to 2008.