DCT

2:23-cv-00457

Cobblestone Wireless LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprises Co Pursuant To Court Order Docket In Lead Case 2 23cv454

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00457, E.D. Tex., 09/29/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE) has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 802.11ac and 802.11ax-compliant wireless access points and stations infringe a patent related to methods for simultaneously transmitting information over different frequency ranges.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for enhancing wireless data transmission capacity and reliability by using a single transmitter to send signals concurrently across multiple, separate frequency bands.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-01-23 ’802 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2011-04-12 ’802 Patent Issue Date
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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical problem where conventional wireless transmitters are limited to sending information around a single center frequency, which, along with regulatory power limits, can restrict data throughput, transmission range, and reliability (’802 Patent, col. 1:12-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system for simultaneously transmitting information over two or more distinct frequency ranges using what is described as a single wireless transmitter architecture (’802 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:58-65). As illustrated in the patent’s figures, this can involve taking two separate digital data signals, 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 before transmission via a single antenna (’802 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture was designed to increase data capacity or improve reliability by making more efficient use of a single transmitter's components and the available frequency spectrum, rather than requiring multiple, fully independent transmitters (’802 Patent, col. 7:15-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
  • 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 the "Accused Instrumentalities" as "802.11ac and 802.11ax-compliant station and access point products that support 80+80 MHz channel width, including without limitation Aruba 650 Series Wi-Fi 6E Campus Access Points" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products are wireless networking devices sold by HPE and its subsidiary Aruba Networks (Compl. ¶¶2, 3, 11). The central accused functionality is the products’ compliance with the IEEE 802.11ac and 802.11ax standards, specifically their ability to operate in an "80+80 MHz" mode, which involves data transmission over two separate 80 MHz channels (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide further detail on the products' market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an exhibit that was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶14). The infringement theory, as inferred from the complaint’s allegations, is that the "80+80 MHz" mode of operation in the accused products directly practices the method of claim 1 of the ’802 patent.

’802 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
transmitting first information across a first frequency range using a wireless transmitter... The complaint alleges that the accused products, when operating in 80+80 MHz mode, transmit information over a first 80 MHz channel, which constitutes the "first frequency range" (Compl. ¶11). ¶11 col. 14:60-64
simultaneously transmitting second information across a second frequency range using the same wireless transmitter... The complaint alleges that the accused products, when operating in 80+80 MHz mode, simultaneously transmit information over a second, non-contiguous 80 MHz channel, which constitutes the "second frequency range," using the same transmitter hardware (Compl. ¶11). ¶11 col. 14:65-col. 15:2

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary issue will likely be whether the specific "80+80 MHz" channel bonding feature defined in the IEEE 802.11ac/ax standards falls within the scope of the method claimed in the ’802 patent. The court may need to determine if a standardized implementation of aggregated channels maps onto the patent’s more general description of transmitting "first information" and "second information."
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on the accused products' compliance with a standard, but provides no specific evidence regarding their internal hardware architecture. A key factual question will be whether the accused Aruba products actually use the "same wireless transmitter" to "simultaneously" generate and transmit signals on two distinct bands in a manner consistent with the patent's disclosure, particularly the architecture shown in Figure 2.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a definitive analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the asserted claims and accused technology, the following terms may be central to the litigation.

The Term: "simultaneously transmitting"

  • Context and Importance: The definition of "simultaneously" is critical. The dispute may turn on whether the accused 80+80 MHz transmissions are truly concurrent at the physical layer, as Plaintiff may argue, or if they involve multiplexing techniques that Defendant could argue are sequential at a granular level.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary describes the concept broadly, stating that embodiments "transmit multiple signals simultaneously over a communication channel at different center frequencies" (’802 Patent, col. 6:60-63).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also discloses specific embodiments tied to OFDM symbols, where a "first symbol is transmitted during a first time slot across the first frequency range and a second symbol is transmitted during the first time slot across the second frequency range" (’802 Patent, col. 2:16-20). This could support a more specific definition tied to symbol-level concurrency.

The Term: "using the same wireless transmitter"

  • Context and Importance: Infringement hinges on the accused products using a single, unified transmitter architecture. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern wireless chipsets are complex, and Defendant may argue its architecture employs logically or physically distinct signal paths that do not constitute the "same wireless transmitter" as depicted in the patent's simplified diagrams.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The high-level language of claim 1 itself suggests a functional definition, focusing on the use of a common "wireless transmitter" for two distinct transmissions (’802 Patent, col. 14:60-col. 15:2).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and Figure 2 illustrate an architecture where two parallel up-conversion chains are combined before a single, shared power amplifier (208) (’802 Patent, col. 6:46-63). A party could argue this specific topology implicitly defines the scope of the "same wireless transmitter."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). It asserts that by providing "user manuals and online instruction materials," HPE instructs and encourages its customers to use the accused products in their normal, infringing manner (Compl. ¶12). Knowledge is alleged to exist from at least the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶12). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) (Compl. ¶13).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it alleges that HPE continues its accused activities "despite its knowledge of the '802 Patent" acquired through the filing of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶12). This allegation could form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement. The prayer for relief also requests 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

The resolution of this case may depend on the court's answers to several central questions:

  1. A core issue will be one of technical mapping: Can the specific "80+80 MHz" channel aggregation protocol, as defined in the IEEE 802.11ac/ax standards, be read to practice the broader method of transmitting distinct "first information" and "second information" as claimed in the '802 patent?

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural identity: Does the internal hardware of the accused Aruba products constitute the "same wireless transmitter" for both frequency bands in the manner disclosed by the patent, or are there material differences in the signal generation, up-conversion, and amplification paths that place it outside the claim scope?

  3. A threshold procedural question may arise concerning the sufficiency of the allegations: Given that the complaint bases its infringement theory on the accused products' compliance with an industry standard rather than on specific, reverse-engineered details, the court may be asked to evaluate whether the allegations meet the plausibility standard required by federal pleading rules.