DCT

2:24-cv-00124

Adaptive Spectrum Signal Alignment Inc v. Charter Communications Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00124, E.D. Tex., 02/21/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain regular and established places of business in the district, including leased properties in Plano and Beaumont, Texas, and function as an integrated organization for business operations.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Spectrum-branded broadband internet services and related hardware infringe four patents related to dynamic network performance management, remote optimization, and data collection via downloadable agents.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for actively monitoring and optimizing performance in complex communication networks, such as DOCSIS cable and Wi-Fi systems, which is a critical function for modern internet service providers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant in November 2019, putting Defendant on notice of its patent portfolio. For one patent, the complaint alleges knowledge based on a citation to its parent application during the prosecution of one of Defendant’s own patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-12-07 ’996 Patent Priority Date
2010-10-05 ’996 Patent Issue Date
2011-01-12 ’108 Patent Priority Date
2011-11-10 ’398 Patent Priority Date
2012-07-13 ’654 Patent Priority Date
2017-01-01 Alleged Launch of Accused DOCSIS 3.1 Service
2019-11-01 Alleged Adoption of Accused OpenSync Platform
2020-11-24 ’398 Patent Issue Date
2021-06-29 ’654 Patent Issue Date
2022-10-18 ’108 Patent Issue Date
2024-02-21 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,809,996 - “Adaptive FEC Codeword Management,” issued October 5, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of managing data transmission errors in a dynamic communication environment without unduly increasing latency, a problem with static error correction schemes. (’996 Patent, col. 3:4-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that adaptively manages Forward Error Correction (FEC) coding. It periodically monitors various transmission error values (e.g., bit error rate, code violations, Signal-to-Noise Ratio) after a connection is established. (’996 Patent, col. 5:32-47). Based on these monitored values, a controller generates a "retransmission overhead control signal" to adjust the composition of data codewords—the balance between payload data and error-correction data—to optimize performance for current channel conditions. (’996 Patent, col. 5:51-56).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a network to enhance data integrity during periods of high noise while maximizing throughput during favorable conditions, thereby improving overall network efficiency and user experience.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 20. (Compl. ¶35).
  • Claim 20 recites a transmission system comprising:
    • A transmission channel for data transfer between a transmitter and a receiver/decoder.
    • A transmission error value monitor to periodically check for error values (e.g., bit error rate, errored seconds, Signal-to-Noise Ratio, TCP/IP throughput) after connection training and initialization.
    • The monitor generates an input signal based on the monitored error values.
    • A controller receives the input signal and, in response, generates a retransmission overhead control signal for the transmitter.

U.S. Patent No. 10,848,398 - “Method, Apparatus, and System for Optimizing Performance of a Communication Unit by a Remote Server,” issued November 24, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem that communication units like Wi-Fi access points often use static, pre-set adaptation algorithms based on design-time assumptions, which may be sub-optimal for the unique and dynamic real-world environment where each device operates. (’398 Patent, col. 1:49-col. 2:13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a remote server that collects real-time and historical operational data from a multitude of communication units, potentially across different geographical areas. (’398 Patent, col. 4:48-51). By processing this large-scale dataset, the server determines an optimized "policy"—a set of operational rules or conditions—and communicates it to the individual units. This enables each unit to improve its performance based on a more sophisticated, centrally-derived intelligence that accounts for both its local conditions and broader network trends. (’398 Patent, col. 4:54-65).
  • Technical Importance: This centralized, data-driven approach to network optimization allows for more intelligent and adaptive performance management than is achievable by individual, isolated devices.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶61).
  • Claim 1 recites a method for improving performance, comprising:
    • Receiving, by a server, real-time data comprising a parameter from network monitoring devices associated with two or more communication units.
    • Processing, by the server, the received data and/or historical data.
    • Determining a policy for at least one communication unit based on the processed data.
    • A conditional step: in response to the server detecting interference or noise where packets will be lost regardless of rate selection, making that determination; otherwise, communicating the policy to the communication units to implement algorithms that improve performance.

U.S. Patent No. 11,050,654 - “Method and System for Using a Downloadable Agent for a Communication System, Device, or Link,” issued June 29, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system where a downloadable agent is executed on a computing device within a subscriber's Local Area Network (LAN). The agent collects Wide Area Network (WAN) performance information, such as throughput, and transmits it to a remote server. The server analyzes the information to generate and report on network performance, and is also operable to receive on-demand change requests related to metrics like throughput or latency. (Compl. ¶28, 29, 84).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 18 is asserted. (Compl. ¶83).
  • Accused Features: The "Spectrum Advanced Internet and WiFi system" is accused, which allegedly uses the OpenSync framework. This system is alleged to comprise a downloadable agent on a subscriber's gateway that collects WAN performance information, stores it in a cloud database, analyzes it to generate results including throughput, and reports the results to the service provider or subscriber. (Compl. ¶83, 87, 91, 95-96).

U.S. Patent No. 11,477,108 - “Systems and Methods for Jointly Optimizing WAN and LAN Network Communications,” issued October 18, 2022

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a management device with interfaces to both a LAN and a WAN. The device collects information from one or more communication layers on the LAN and uses it to identify an operational condition within the WAN in a different communication layer. This joint, cross-layer analysis enables more sophisticated network optimization and diagnostics. (Compl. ¶31, 32, 117).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶114).
  • Accused Features: Charter's LAN/WAN devices that utilize OpenSync are accused. The complaint alleges these devices collect LAN information from one or more communication layers (e.g., Layer 2 network statistics) and analyze it to identify operational conditions within the WAN (e.g., WAN-side data saturation, a Layer 3 condition). (Compl. ¶114, 126, 128).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Charter's Spectrum-branded broadband services and the associated systems and hardware. This includes: (1) the "Spectrum System" supporting the DOCSIS 3.1 standard; (2) "Spectrum WFAM products" that implement the Wi-Fi Agile Multiband specification to provide "Spectrum Advanced Wi-Fi"; and (3) the "Spectrum Advanced Internet and WiFi system" that incorporates the OpenSync framework. (Compl. ¶35, 61, 83).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The DOCSIS 3.1 system provides high-speed internet over Charter's cable network. The complaint alleges it utilizes a Profile Management Application (PMA) to monitor transmission quality metrics (e.g., RxMER, codeword errors) and dynamically adjust transmission profiles to optimize performance. (Compl. ¶40, 43).
  • The Wi-Fi Agile Multiband system manages subscribers' local Wi-Fi networks. It allegedly uses access points that receive network condition data (e.g., Beacon reports) from client devices and, in response, issue policies (e.g., a "BSS Transition Candidate List") to steer clients to better channels or access points to improve performance. (Compl. ¶66, 68). The complaint provides a topology diagram from the Wi-Fi Agile Multiband specification illustrating the relationship between access points (APs) and client stations (STAs). (Compl. p. 23).
  • The OpenSync-based system employs a downloadable software agent on customer premises equipment (e.g., routers) to collect detailed LAN and WAN performance data. (Compl. ¶91). This data is transmitted to a cloud-based server platform for storage, analysis, and reporting, enabling functions like remote diagnostics and performance monitoring. (Compl. ¶89, 95). The complaint includes a software architecture diagram showing the OpenSync agent collecting data and communicating with the OpenSync Cloud via an MQTT server. (Compl. p. 38).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’996 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 20) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a transmission channel to carry data between a transmitter and a receiver/decoder... The cable network carrying data between the CMTS (transmitter) and the Cable Modem (receiver/decoder). ¶39 col. 1:49-53
a transmission error value monitor...to periodically monitor for transmission error values indicative of impulse noise events... The Profile Management Application (PMA) module in the DOCSIS 3.1 system, which periodically collects metrics. ¶40, 42 col. 5:29-37
wherein the transmission error values are periodically monitored after training and initialization on the receiver/decoder... The PMA collects error values during user data transmission, which occurs after the initial training and initialization of the cable link. ¶43 col. 5:37-39
the transmission error values being selected from a group comprising: a bit error rate, errored seconds...Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)... The PMA allegedly collects data related to RxMER (a type of SNR), SNR Margin, and codeword errors (code violations). ¶43 col. 5:39-47
wherein the transmission error value monitor to further generate an input signal based on the transmission error values monitored... The PMA analyzes the monitored error values to design and select transmission profiles, which constitute the alleged input signal. ¶45 col. 5:47-50
a controller coupled with the transmitter...to further generate a retransmission overhead control signal for the transmitter in response to the input signal. The "Codeword Builder" block in the CMTS transmitter acts as the controller. It receives profile assignments (the input signal) and generates "Next Codeword Pointer" (NCP) signals. The complaint alleges these NCP signals control the codeword composition ratio and thus function as the claimed control signal. A diagram shows the Codeword Builder receiving profile information and outputting signals including the NCP. (Compl. p. 16). ¶46, 47 col. 5:51-56
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the accused "Next Codeword Pointer (NCP)" signal can be construed as a "retransmission overhead control signal." A defendant could argue that an NCP is a data structuring and mapping pointer within the physical layer, whereas a "retransmission overhead control signal" implies control over a higher-layer error-correction scheme involving re-sending data, not just setting parameters for forward error correction.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the NCP signal is generated "in response to" the input signal from the monitor, as opposed to being a standard part of the data framing process that simply uses the profile information as one of many inputs?

’398 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving, by a server, from network monitoring devices that monitor, in real-time, data associated with an operation of two or more communication units located in different geographical areas, the data comprising a parameter; The accused Access Point (AP) acts as the server, receiving Beacon reports (data) in real-time from multiple client STAs (communication units). The BSSID in the report is alleged to be a parameter. ¶66 col. 4:48-51
processing, by the server, at least one of the data and historical data; The AP processes the information from the Beacon reports it receives from the client STAs. ¶67 col. 4:52-53
based on the processed data, determining a policy for at least one of the two or more communication units; The AP uses the Beacon report data as input to an algorithm to determine a policy, such as creating a BSS Transition Candidate List that directs STAs. ¶68 col. 4:54-55
in response to the server detecting interference or noise from nearby wireless channels, determining that packets will be lost regardless of rate selection and, otherwise, communicating the policy... This conditional logic is allegedly met by two different system operations. The first clause ("detecting interference...determining packets will be lost") is met when a client STA sends a "Non-preferred Channel Report" indicating a channel is "non-operable" due to interference. The second, "otherwise" clause is met when the AP, in the absence of such a report, communicates a policy by sending a BSS Transition Management Request frame to the STA. A diagram shows the format of this request frame. (Compl. p. 28, 32). ¶69, 70 col. 4:56-65
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the final conditional limitation. A defendant may argue that the claim requires an integrated, two-part logical process within the server, where the server first performs an interference detection and packet loss determination, and only if that determination is negative, does it then "otherwise" communicate the policy. The complaint's theory maps two independent and separately initiated events (a client-initiated status report and a server-initiated policy communication) onto this single claim element, which raises a question of mismatch in operation.
    • Technical Questions: Does the "server detecting interference" as claimed read on a server receiving a report from a client that the client has detected interference? A defendant might argue the claim requires the server itself to perform the detection step.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’996 Patent

  • The Term: "retransmission overhead control signal" (Claim 20)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the output of the claimed controller and is the final functional step of the claim. The infringement allegation hinges on mapping the accused Next Codeword Pointer (NCP) signal to this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory equates a signal defining forward error correction (FEC) structure with a term that explicitly mentions "retransmission," which often implies a different error-correction mechanism (e.g., ARQ).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s abstract describes "dynamically controlling system parameters that affect performance," which could be read broadly to encompass any signal that adjusts error-correction overhead. (’996 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges that controlling the Codeword Composition Ratio via the NCP signal is a form of controlling overhead for data that might otherwise need retransmission. (Compl. ¶48).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The word "retransmission" suggests a direct link to a process of re-sending data, which is distinct from FEC. The patent’s title is "Adaptive FEC Codeword Management," suggesting the invention is focused on FEC, which could be used to argue that "retransmission overhead" refers to something other than the FEC parameters themselves. (’996 Patent, Title).

For the ’398 Patent

  • The Term: "in response to the server detecting interference... determining that packets will be lost... and, otherwise, communicating the policy..." (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This conditional limitation is the core of the claimed method's logic. The viability of the infringement case depends on whether the accused system's bifurcated operations (reacting to a client error report versus proactively sending a policy) can satisfy this integrated "if/then-else" structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a remote server that analyzes data to "provide rules and conditions for the communication system to improve its performance." (’398 Patent, col. 4:58-61). This could support a functional interpretation where the system has distinct modes for handling severe problems (like unusable channels) and for general optimization.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a sequence of actions ("detecting... determining... and, otherwise, communicating") that suggests a single, cohesive process executed by the server. The specification states the server "generates a policy... and sends the policy," which may suggest the server is the primary actor in the entire sequence, potentially creating a conflict with the complaint's theory where a client initiates the "detecting" step by sending a report. (’398 Patent, col. 4:54-56).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all four asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement based on Charter encouraging its customers to use the accused services and systems. This encouragement is allegedly provided through marketing materials, user manuals, and online support resources. (Compl. ¶50-51, 73, 103, 131). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging Charter provides essential components of the infringing systems (e.g., routers, servers, software) that are not staple articles of commerce. (Compl. ¶53, 74, 105, 133).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all patents based on pre-suit knowledge. It asserts that ASSIA sent a letter to Charter in November 2019 regarding its patent portfolio, including the asserted patents. (Compl. ¶54, 75-76, 106-107, 134-135). For the ’108 patent specifically, the complaint alleges an additional basis for pre-suit knowledge: an application from which the ’108 patent issued was cited during the prosecution of Charter's own U.S. Patent No. 11,109,082. (Compl. ¶115).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "retransmission overhead control signal" in the ’996 patent, which on its face suggests control over re-sending data, be construed to cover the "Next Codeword Pointer" in the accused DOCSIS system, which primarily defines the structure of forward error correction data?
  • A key question of claim interpretation will center on the conditional logic in claim 1 of the ’398 patent. The court will need to determine whether the claim’s "if/then-else" structure requires a single, integrated process within the accused server, or if it can be satisfied by mapping its clauses to two distinct, separately-initiated system behaviors as alleged in the complaint.
  • The cases for the ’654 and ’108 patents will likely depend on a critical evidentiary question regarding system architecture: does the evidence show that Charter’s OpenSync-based systems perform the specific cross-domain analysis claimed in the ’108 patent—namely, using collected LAN information from one communication layer to identify an operational condition within the WAN at a different layer?