Fractal Networks LLC v. Nippon Telegraph Telephone Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fractal Networks LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00099, E.D. Tex., 02/01/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has an established place of business in the District and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunications infrastructure infringes patents related to low-latency edge computing in 5G cellular systems.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to edge computing architectures for 5G and future cellular networks, a critical field for enabling low-latency applications such as autonomous vehicles and augmented reality.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,637,142 - "Computing system"

• Issued: April 28, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the evolution of cellular technology and notes that the high speeds and low delays offered by 5G require a "huge number of 5G towers" that are smaller and more densely positioned than previous generations, such as on light poles or buildings (’142 Patent, col. 1:35-48). This dense deployment creates challenges for processing data with minimal delay (latency).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture to reduce latency by moving computation closer to the user and the antenna (’142 Patent, col. 1:52-60). It describes a system with steerable antennas and an "edge processing module" coupled to the transceiver to provide "low-latency computation" locally, rather than sending all data to a distant core network or cloud data center (’142 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2J). The specification discloses that this edge processing can include advanced technologies like "cryogenic processors, quantum processors, neuromorphic processors, learning machines, GPUs, and FPGA" (’142 Patent, col. 1:63-66).
• Technical Importance: This edge computing approach is intended to enable time-sensitive 5G applications, such as autonomous vehicles or virtual reality, that cannot tolerate the processing delays inherent in traditional, centralized cloud computing architectures (’142 Patent, col. 2:12-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (’142 Patent, col. 91:42-53).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A transceiver to communicate with a predetermined target.
  • One or more antennas coupled to the transceiver, each electrically or mechanically steerable.
  • An edge processing module coupled to the transceiver and antennas to provide low-latency computation.
  • A quantum computer coupled to the edge processing module.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 10,694,399 - "Cellular system"

• Issued: June 23, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’399 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’142 Patent: the need for a dense, low-latency network infrastructure to support advanced 5G applications (’399 Patent, col. 1:30-49).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a cellular system that places an "edge processing module" physically close to the antenna to perform low-latency computations (’399 Patent, col. 2:50-58). This module is part of a distributed architecture where it "shares workload with a core processing module located at a head-end and a cloud module located at a cloud data center" (’399 Patent, col. 2:20-25). The patent specifies that as processing moves from the edge to the core and then to the cloud, the associated latency increases (’399 Patent, col. 2:25-28).
• Technical Importance: The invention describes a specific tiered computing architecture for 5G networks, aiming to balance processing loads and minimize latency for critical tasks by handling them at the network edge (’399 Patent, col. 2:16-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (’399 Patent, col. 91:43-67).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A 5G cellular transceiver.
  • One or more electrically or mechanically steerable antennas coupled to the transceiver.
  • A processor to control the directionality of the antennas.
  • An edge processing module that provides low-latency computation and shares workload with a core processing module (at a head-end) and a cloud module (at a data center), where each successive module has increased latency.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶¶12, 21). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in claim chart exhibits attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). These exhibits were not publicly filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided, and its narrative allegations are conclusory, stating only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary... Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). Without the referenced charts or more detailed factual allegations, a summary of the infringement theory cannot be provided.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • ’142 Patent - Technical Questions: A primary question for the infringement analysis of the ’142 Patent will be factual. Claim 1 explicitly requires "a quantum computer coupled to the edge processing module." A central issue will be what evidence, if any, the Plaintiff can produce to show that Defendant’s commercial telecommunications products incorporate a quantum computer.
  • ’399 Patent - Scope Questions: A key dispute for the ’399 Patent may involve claim scope. The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether Defendant’s products implement the specific three-tiered architecture of Claim 1, which requires an "edge processing module" that "shares workload" with distinct "core processing" and "cloud" modules in a hierarchy of increasing latency. The question will be whether the accused system operates in the specific manner required by the claim language.
  • Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold legal question may be whether the complaint, by failing to identify any accused products and relying on unfiled exhibits, provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the standards of Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "quantum computer" (’142 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term appears to be the most technically specific and potentially dispositive limitation in the asserted claim of the ’142 Patent. The viability of the infringement claim will depend heavily on whether any accused product can be shown to meet the definition of a "quantum computer." Practitioners may focus on this term because its inclusion raises the evidentiary bar for infringement significantly compared to claims directed to conventional computing hardware.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists "quantum processors" as one of several examples of technologies that can be included in an "edge processing" module, alongside more conventional GPUs and FPGAs (’142 Patent, col. 1:63-66). A party might argue this contextual listing suggests a degree of interchangeability.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent dedicates Figure 8 and corresponding text to describing a "hybrid classical/quantum computer supporting edge computing," which includes components like "quantum computers 816," "cryogenic memory 817," and a module to map classical code to a "quantum algorithm module 812" (’142 Patent, Fig. 8; col. 73:29-45). This detailed embodiment provides specific structural and functional context that could support a narrow construction limited to devices with these advanced capabilities.

The Term: "edge processing module shares workload with a core processing module...and a cloud module" (’399 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the specific distributed computing relationship required by the claim. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused system's architecture matches this three-tiered model of workload sharing and increasing latency. The term's construction will determine whether a general distributed network infringes, or only one that implements this specific hierarchical structure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "shares workload" is a general concept in distributed computing and should be interpreted broadly to cover various forms of task allocation across a network.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a clear hierarchy, stating that the edge module shares workload with a core module "located at a head-end" and a cloud module "located at a cloud data center," with "each processing module having increased latency" as data moves away from the edge (’399 Patent, col. 2:20-28). This language suggests a specific, structured relationship and could be used to argue for a narrower construction that excludes architectures that do not follow this precise model.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents (Compl. ¶¶15, 24). The complaint references Exhibits 3 and 4 as containing this evidence; these exhibits were not provided.
• Willful Infringement: Willful infringement is not explicitly pleaded. The complaint alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" for both patents, but bases this knowledge solely on "The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts" (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). This allegation supports only a claim for post-suit knowledge and potential enhancement of post-filing damages, not pre-suit willfulness.

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency for "Quantum Computer": A dispositive issue for the ’142 patent will be whether Plaintiff can present any evidence that Defendant’s commercial products contain a "quantum computer." The specificity of this claim limitation presents a significant factual hurdle that will be a primary focus of discovery.
2. Architectural Congruence: For the ’399 patent, the case will likely turn on a question of technical and definitional mapping: does the architecture of the accused products, once identified, align with the specific three-tiered model of workload sharing between distinct "edge," "core," and "cloud" modules as required by the asserted claim?
3. Pleading Plausibility: A threshold legal question for the entire case is whether the complaint's reliance on unfiled exhibits and failure to identify any accused product by name meets the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.