DCT

2:25-cv-00279

Arlington Tech LLC v. T-Mobile US Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00279, E.D. Tex., 03/07/2025
  • 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 a corporate office and numerous retail stores, has committed acts of patent infringement in the District, and derives substantial revenue from its activities there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless telecommunications products and services, including its 5G gateways and Voice over LTE (VoLTE) network, infringe five patents related to wireless networking protocols, quality of service management, call processing, and call security.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies for modern wireless networks, focusing on improving power efficiency, managing quality of service for multimedia traffic, routing calls in complex network architectures, and providing call security verification.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent correspondence to Defendant on February 10, 2025, notifying Defendant of the need to license the Asserted Patents, a fact which may be be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-05-30 U.S. Patent No. 7,193,986 Priority Date
2003-10-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,324,491 Priority Date
2004-03-31 U.S. Patent No. 7,408,925 Priority Date
2007-03-20 U.S. Patent No. 7,193,986 Issue Date
2008-01-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,324,491 Issue Date
2008-08-05 U.S. Patent No. 7,408,925 Issue Date
2010-05-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,886,789 Priority Date
2012-09-28 U.S. Patent No. 9,398,055 Priority Date
2014-11-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,886,789 Issue Date
2016-07-19 U.S. Patent No. 9,398,055 Issue Date
2021-03-25 T-Mobile Press Release Date re: STIR/SHAKEN Implementation
2025-02-10 Pre-suit Notice Correspondence Allegedly Sent to Defendant
2025-03-07 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,193,986 - "Wireless network medium access control protocol"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,193,986, "Wireless network medium access control protocol," issued March 20, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the need for improved power efficiency for battery-limited portable wireless devices and robust network synchronization in the face of difficult radio conditions common in wireless environments (ʼ986 Patent, col. 2:7-11, 36-42). Conventional systems are described as wasting energy when slave devices must actively listen to packets not intended for them (ʼ986 Patent, col. 2:18-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a master device transmits packets containing a "resynchronisation pointer (RP)" that indicates the time remaining before the next network-wide broadcast beacon is sent (ʼ986 Patent, col. 4:8-12). This allows a slave device, after receiving a packet, to enter a low-power sleep state and wake up precisely when needed to receive the beacon, which contains scheduling information for all participating devices (ʼ986 Patent, col. 4:26-36).
  • Technical Importance: This pointer-based scheduling method was designed to reduce energy consumption in slave devices and provide a rapid method for terminals to re-synchronize with the network after losing connection (ʼ986 Patent, col. 2:63-66).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A master wireless network device with a wireless medium adaptor and a component for implementing a medium access protocol.
    • The component is arranged to transmit and receive temporally spaced packets of information to and from slave network devices.
    • At least some transmitted packets include a pointer indicating the relative time before a "designated packet" will be transmitted.
    • The "designated packet" includes an indication of the slave devices participating in the network and indications of when those slave devices should transmit.
  • The complaint expressly reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. p. 9, fn. 1).

U.S. Patent No. 7,324,491 - "Method and apparatus for over-the-air bandwidth reservations in wireless networks"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,324,491, "Method and apparatus for over-the-air bandwidth reservations in wireless networks," issued January 29, 2008.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background addresses the challenge of assuring Quality of Service (QoS) for time-sensitive applications like Voice-over-IP (VoIP) on wireless local area networks (WLANs), where bandwidth is a limited and shared resource (ʼ491 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method of tiered access control where network traffic is assigned different priorities. Higher-priority traffic (e.g., VoIP) is required to submit a "bandwidth reservation request" to a central access point. The access point grants the request if bandwidth is available. Lower-priority traffic streams are permitted to access the network without a reservation, ensuring they do not interfere with the prioritized traffic (ʼ491 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This system provides a mechanism to guarantee bandwidth for critical, time-sensitive applications while allowing other data to use the network on a best-effort basis, thereby improving performance for multimedia services on a shared wireless medium (ʼ491 Patent, col. 1:27-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶55).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A method for controlling access to a wireless network to assure QoS for designated traffic.
    • Assigning designated traffic to use one of a plurality of priorities.
    • Requiring traffic streams using that priority or higher to submit "bandwidth reservation requests" to a wireless access point.
    • Receiving a bandwidth reservation from the access point in response to a request if bandwidth is available.
    • Allowing other traffic streams using lower priorities to communicate without requiring bandwidth reservation requests.
  • The complaint expressly reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. p. 9, fn. 1).

U.S. Patent No. 7,408,925 - "Originator based directing and origination call processing features for external devices"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,408,925, "Originator based directing and origination call processing features for external devices," issued August 5, 2008.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses call setup in a decomposed server architecture. It discloses a method where a "first directing server" (e.g., a proxy server) receives a call setup message and, determining that the originating device is associated with a separate "first communication manager," forwards the message to that manager to perform call origination processing before the call is routed to its final destination (Compl. ¶¶74, 76-77; ’925 Patent, Abstract). This ensures that originating-side features are applied correctly.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts Claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
  • Accused Features: The accused feature is T-Mobile's Voice over LTE (VoLTE) service, which operates on an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) architecture (Compl. ¶¶71, 73). The complaint alleges that the Proxy-Call Session Control Function (P-CSCF) acts as the "first directing server" and the Serving-Call Session Control Function (S-CSCF) acts as the "first communication manager" to perform the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶74, 76).

U.S. Patent No. 8,886,789 - "SIP monitoring and control anchor points"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,886,789, "SIP monitoring and control anchor points," issued November 11, 2014.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for inserting "anchor points" into the signaling path of a communication session, such as a SIP call. These anchor points act as a Back-to-Back User Agent (B2BUA) and serve as control points that allow applications (e.g., conferencing, call recording) to monitor, control, or be added to a communication session after it has already been established (Compl. ¶95; ’789 Patent, col. 2:9-19).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts Claim 1 (Compl. ¶93).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are part of T-Mobile's VoLTE service, where the S-CSCF allegedly functions as the claimed "anchor point" in the SIP signaling path (Compl. ¶¶95, 98). This functionality is alleged to be used when, for example, a T-Mobile user adds a third caller to an existing call to create a conference, with the S-CSCF remaining as the control point for the new conferencing application (Compl. ¶¶97-98).

U.S. Patent No. 9,398,055 - "Secure call indicator mechanism for enterprise networks"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,398,055, "Secure call indicator mechanism for enterprise networks," issued July 19, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for verifying the security of a communication session and displaying an indicator to the user. The method involves applying a security check to the received communication request (e.g., a SIP message), inspecting each "leg" of the communication path to check for trust, assigning a security classification based on the check, and controlling an indicator on the user's device to show whether the session is secure or not (Compl. ¶¶115-117; ’055 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts Claim 1 (Compl. ¶112).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionality is T-Mobile's cellular network service that implements the STIR/SHAKEN call verification standard (Compl. ¶¶110, 112). This service is alleged to perform the claimed security check on incoming calls and to control a secure call indicator on the user's device, displaying classifications such as "Number Verified" or "Scam Likely" (Compl. ¶¶116-117). The complaint provides a screenshot showing a "Number Verified" indicator on a smartphone display (Compl. p. 65).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses T-Mobile's wireless telecommunications products and services, which are categorized into three main groups corresponding to the asserted patents:
    1. Wireless Access Points: Devices such as the T-Mobile 5G Gateway (models G4AR, G4SE), Sagemcom Fast 5688W Gateway, Arcadyan KVD21 Gateway, and Nokia 5G21 Gateway are accused of infringing the ’986 Patent (Compl. ¶37). Various routers, access points, and IoT devices like the SyncUP PETS tracker and SyncUP Kids Watch are accused of infringing the ’491 Patent (Compl. ¶53).
    2. VoLTE Services: T-Mobile's Voice over LTE (VoLTE) cellular service, which utilizes an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) mobile core, is accused of infringing the ’925 and ’789 Patents (Compl. ¶¶71, 91).
    3. Call Verification Services: T-Mobile's cellular network services that include STIR/SHAKEN call verification are accused of infringing the ’055 Patent (Compl. ¶110).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused access points and routers provide wireless internet connectivity to consumers and businesses and are alleged to implement the 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard, including features like Target Wake Time (TWT), and the Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) standard for QoS (Compl. ¶¶39, 55). The complaint includes a screenshot of the technical specifications for a T-Mobile 5G Gateway, highlighting its "11ax" Wi-Fi connectivity (Compl. p. 10).
  • The accused VoLTE and call verification services are core components of T-Mobile's nationwide 4G and 5G cellular network offerings (Compl. ¶¶71, 113). The complaint alleges these services are used to set up and manage voice calls and to protect customers from spam and spoofed calls, leveraging industry standards like SIP and STIR/SHAKEN (Compl. ¶¶75, 112).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,193,986 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A master wireless network device including a wireless medium adaptor and a component implementing a medium access protocol... The accused products are wireless access points that include Wi-Fi hardware and support the 802.11ax medium access protocol. ¶39 col. 3:55-59
component being arranged to cause said adaptor to transmit temporally spaced packets of information... The accused products, implementing the 802.11ax standard, transmit frames during a scheduled Target Wake Time (TWT) Service Period, which constitutes temporally spaced transmissions. ¶40 col. 3:59-61
at least some of said transmitted packets including a pointer indicating the relative time before which a designated packet of information will be transmitted... The accused products transmit TWT elements that include a start time for a series of TWT Service Periods (SPs), which allegedly functions as the claimed pointer. ¶41 col. 4:8-12
said designated packet of information including an indication of the slave network devices participating in said network and respective indications as to when participating slave network devices should transmit... The accused products transmit a TWT element containing a "TWT Group Assignment field" (indicating participating slave devices) and "TWT Unit" and "TWT Offset" subfields (indicating when they should transmit). A diagram in the complaint shows the TWT Group Assignment field format (Compl. p. 13). ¶41 col. 4:13-22
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the 802.11ax TWT mechanism falls within the scope of the claims. For example, does the patent's "designated packet of information," described in the specification as a network-wide "broadcast beacon slot" (ʼ986 Patent, col. 4:32-36), read on the more granular TWT Service Period information transmitted for specific devices or groups in the 802.11ax standard?
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies on the accused products implementing the 802.11ax standard as described in documents cited by the complaint. A factual question for the court will be to determine the precise functionality of the accused products and whether their implementation of TWT scheduling contains the specific "pointer" and "indication" elements as required by the claim language.

U.S. Patent No. 7,324,491 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for controlling access to a wireless network...to assure quality of service for designated traffic, comprising...assigning all communication of the designated traffic to use one of a plurality of priorities... The accused products use the Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) standard, which assigns traffic to one of several Access Categories (e.g., voice, video, best effort), which constitute a plurality of priorities. The complaint includes a Wi-Fi Alliance certification showing WMM support (Compl. p. 19). ¶¶55-56 col. 2:40-45
requiring that ones of the...traffic streams wanting to communicate using the one of the...priorities and higher...submit bandwidth reservation requests... Client devices using WMM that wish to transmit high-priority traffic must submit a WMM TSPEC element in an ADDTS request frame to the access point, which the complaint alleges is a bandwidth reservation request. ¶57 col. 2:45-51
receiving a bandwidth reservation...in response to a bandwidth reservation request upon bandwidth being available... The access point receives the ADDTS request and, if bandwidth is available, accepts the request and grants a reservation by transmitting an ADDTS response frame. ¶58 col. 2:51-54
communicating by other ones of the...traffic streams using lower ones of the...priorities without requiring bandwidth reservation requests. The accused products allow lower-priority traffic (e.g., "best effort") to communicate using the standard channel access protocol (EDCA) without submitting an ADDTS request. ¶59 col. 2:54-58
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on the definition of "bandwidth reservation request." The question arises whether the WMM admission control process, involving a TSPEC in an ADDTS request, constitutes a "reservation" in the manner claimed, or if it is a distinct form of prioritized access control that falls outside the claim's scope.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that all accused products, particularly the IoT devices like the SyncUP PETS tracker, implement the full WMM specification for both high-priority admission control and low-priority non-reserved access as alleged? The functionality of these specific devices may present a factual dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’986 Patent

  • The Term: "pointer indicating the relative time before which a designated packet of information will be transmitted"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core scheduling and power-saving mechanism of the invention. The infringement case depends on whether the timing fields within the 802.11ax TWT protocol, which the accused products implement, can be characterized as this specific type of "pointer" to a "designated packet."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, requiring a "pointer indicating the relative time." Plaintiff may argue this broad language covers any data field that serves the function of informing a slave device about a future transmission event, not just the specific embodiment in the patent.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the pointer as a "resynchronisation pointer (RP)" that points to a specific, network-wide "broadcast beacon slot" (ʼ986 Patent, col. 4:8-12, 32-36). Practitioners may focus on this, as Defendant could argue the term should be limited to a pointer pointing to a system-wide beacon, rather than the more granular TWT scheduling information for individual devices.

For the ’491 Patent

  • The Term: "bandwidth reservation request"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical as it distinguishes the mandatory procedure for high-priority traffic from the procedure-free access for low-priority traffic. The viability of the infringement allegation hinges on whether the WMM standard's "ADDTS request" containing a "TSPEC element" is properly construed as a "bandwidth reservation request."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract states the invention involves requiring certain traffic streams to "submit bandwidth reservation requests." The complaint alleges the function of an ADDTS request is to request admission and reserve bandwidth (Compl. ¶¶57-58). Plaintiff may argue that any protocol message intended to secure prioritized channel access based on traffic needs meets the functional definition of the term.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Practitioners may focus on whether a "reservation" implies a stronger guarantee of resources than what is provided by WMM's admission control. Defendant could argue that the term requires a more explicit allocation of a specific data rate or time slot, which may not be what the WMM protocol provides. The patent also discusses coupling reservation control with "admission control" (ʼ491 Patent, col. 1:33-34), which may suggest they are related but distinct concepts.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each of the five asserted patents, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegations are based on Defendant allegedly providing instructions, user manuals, advertisements, and executable code that encourage and instruct customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (e.g., by enabling WMM or using VoLTE features) (Compl. ¶¶44, 62, 82, 101, 120). The contributory infringement allegations state that the accused products contain non-staple components (e.g., source code) specifically adapted to practice the inventions (Compl. ¶¶45, 63, 83, 102, 121).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all five patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, stemming from correspondence Plaintiff sent to Defendant on February 10, 2025, notifying it of the alleged infringement (Compl. ¶¶22, 46, 64, 84, 103, 122).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical translation: can the specific claim limitations of the asserted patents be read onto the complex, multi-faceted industry standards (802.11ax TWT, WMM, IMS, and STIR/SHAKEN) that the accused T-Mobile products and services are alleged to implement? The case may depend on whether the functions described in the standards are materially distinguishable from the specific methods disclosed and claimed in the patents.
  • Another key question will be one of architectural correspondence: for the call processing patents, does the functional relationship between T-Mobile's P-CSCF and S-CSCF components in its real-world IMS network truly map onto the claimed architecture of a separate "directing server" and "communication manager" (’925 Patent) or the claimed functionality of a SIP "anchor point" (’789 Patent)?
  • A central evidentiary question will concern scienter and damages: did the pre-suit notice letter provide Defendant with knowledge of infringement sufficient to establish willfulness for its post-notice conduct, and what will be the appropriate methodology for calculating a reasonable royalty across five distinct technologies implemented in a wide range of hardware and network services?