DCT

2:23-cv-00455

Cobblestone Wireless LLC v. CommScope Holding Co Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00455, E.D. Tex., 09/29/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and having committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Wi-Fi products compliant with the 802.11ac and 802.11ax standards infringe a patent related to methods for simultaneously transmitting data on two different frequency bands.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for increasing the data throughput or reliability of wireless systems by using a single transmitter to send signals over two separate, non-contiguous frequency channels at the same time.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant CommScope Holding Company, Inc. acquired the ARRIS group of companies in 2019. No other prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-01-23 ’802 Patent Priority Date
2011-04-12 ’802 Patent Issue Date
2019 CommScope acquires ARRIS
2023-09-29 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

  • Patent Identification: 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 that conventional wireless transmitters are often limited to sending data around a single center frequency, which constrains data capacity. Additionally, regulatory power limits can restrict the range and reliability of transmissions. ( ’802 Patent, col. 1:28-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method and system for simultaneously transmitting information across two distinct frequency ranges using what is described as a single wireless transmitter. As illustrated in Figure 2, this can be achieved by processing two separate digital data streams, converting them to analog, up-converting each to a different radio frequency (RF) center frequency, and then combining the signals for amplification by a single power amplifier and transmission via a single antenna. (’802 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2; col. 6:10-64).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture allows for higher data throughput (by sending different data on each channel) or enhanced reliability (by sending the same data on both channels) without the cost and complexity of fully duplicative transmitter hardware. (’802 Patent, col. 1:50-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶20-23).
  • 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.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "802.11ac and 802.11ax-compliant station and access point products that support 80+80 MHz channel width," with the "Ruckus R750" named as a representative example. (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The core accused functionality is the support for "80+80 MHz channel width" operation. (Compl. ¶20). This is a feature defined in the IEEE 802.11ac and 802.11ax Wi-Fi standards that allows a device to transmit and receive data simultaneously over two separate, non-contiguous 80 MHz channels.
  • The complaint alleges that Defendant CommScope makes, sells, and imports these products and that they are purchased and used within the Eastern District of Texas. (Compl. ¶¶14, 20). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit 2, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document. (Compl. ¶23). The infringement theory, as articulated in the complaint, is that Defendant's 802.11ac/ax products that implement the "80+80 MHz channel width" feature practice the method of Claim 1. (Compl. ¶20). This mode of operation inherently involves transmitting data across two distinct frequency ranges (the two 80 MHz channels) at the same time from a single access point or station. The complaint alleges this functionality meets the limitations of Claim 1 of the ’802 Patent. (Compl. ¶23).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the architecture of a standard-compliant Wi-Fi device constitutes "the same wireless transmitter" as that term is used in the patent. The defense may argue that the parallel signal paths used to generate the two separate channel signals in the accused devices are distinct "transmitters" whose outputs are merely combined, rather than a single transmitter operating on two frequencies.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory rests on compliance with a technical standard. A key question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused Ruckus R750 product’s actual hardware implementation and operation of the "80+80 MHz" mode maps to the specific elements of Claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "using the same wireless transmitter"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis. The definition will determine whether an accused device with parallel processing hardware for two different frequency bands, which are later combined, falls within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products' architecture could be characterized as either a single, multi-channel transmitter or as two co-located transmitters.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments where two up-converted signals are combined and fed into a single power amplifier (208) and a single antenna (209). (’802 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 6:56-64). A party could argue that the "transmitter" refers to the final-stage components, meaning any device using one power amplifier and/or antenna for both signals meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s Figure 2 depicts two distinct signal paths leading up to the power amplifier, including separate digital-to-analog converters (201, 202) and up-converters (205, 206). (’802 Patent, Fig. 2). A party could argue that the term "wireless transmitter" encompasses this entire signal generation chain, and because there are two parallel chains, the method does not use the "same" transmitter for both signals.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant instructs customers and end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner through user manuals and online materials. (Compl. ¶21).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the ’802 Patent and the allegedly infringing nature of its products "Through at least the filing and service of this Complaint," forming a basis for post-suit willful infringement. (Compl. ¶21). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Does the hardware implementation of the "80+80 MHz" feature in the accused Wi-Fi products constitute the use of "the same wireless transmitter" as recited in Claim 1, or does it represent the use of two distinct transmitters whose outputs are combined before the antenna?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: Beyond relying on the 802.11ac/ax standard, what technical evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused products' real-world operation precisely meets each element of the asserted claim, particularly the "simultaneously transmitting" limitation?