DCT

2:25-cv-00344

CommPlex Systems LLC v. Hitron Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00344, E.D. Tex., 04/07/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to systems for sending and receiving digital data using frequency modulation techniques.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns high-data-rate digital communications, specifically methods for encoding data onto multiple orthogonal frequency carriers to improve bandwidth efficiency.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The allegations of knowledge and inducement are based on the filing of the instant complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-10-30 Earliest Priority Date / Application Filing for '900 Patent
2011-01-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900 Issues
2025-04-07 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900 - "Communication system for sending and receiving digital data"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, "Communication system for sending and receiving digital data," issued January 4, 2011.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes how conventional Frequency Shift Keying (FSK) systems can suffer from inaccuracies in their center frequencies due to factors like component aging and temperature changes, which can distort the demodulated data and lead to transmission errors (’900 Patent, col. 2:56-64). The invention seeks to improve data transmission rates and code density over a given bandwidth (’900 Patent, col. 3:13-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communication system using a "Multiple Orthogonal locked frequencies Narrow Band Frequency Shift Keying (Mary-NBFSK) system" (’900 Patent, col. 4:9-11). Instead of transmitting a single frequency to represent data, the system selects and transmits multiple orthogonal frequencies simultaneously from a larger set of available, locked frequencies (’900 Patent, Abstract). Data is converted into specific combinations of frequencies using a look-up table, allowing for a higher density of information to be encoded per transmission symbol (’900 Patent, col. 5:40-45; Fig. 7).
  • Technical Importance: This approach is described as increasing the "code density and data rate per Hz of bandwidth" compared to conventional binary FSK systems, which use separate, individually coded carriers (’900 Patent, col. 3:13-15, col. 4:11-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," identified as the "Exemplary '900 Patent Claims" in a referenced exhibit not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is foundational.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites:
    • A communication system comprising a transmitter and a receiver.
    • A "general binary coded Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme" is provided to increase code density and data rate per Hz of bandwidth.
    • The system uses a plurality of "narrow band carrier frequencies" that are orthogonal and transmitted in a binary code.
    • The narrow band carrier frequencies have a separation "of the order of 0.1 MHz" and provide a bandwidth "of the order of 3.2 MHz for 32 carriers," allowing transmission of "at least 6 Mbps in a 2 of 32 Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing" scheme.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the 'Exemplary Defendant Products')" (Compl. ¶11). These charts were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality, features, or market position. It alleges, in general terms, that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '900 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references infringement claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" to detail its allegations, but this exhibit was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint’s narrative theory states that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '900 Patent" and that they "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '900 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without the specific allegations from the charts or identification of the accused products, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Questions: A primary factual dispute will concern whether the accused products, once identified, meet the highly specific numerical and functional limitations recited in claim 1. This includes the carrier separation ("of the order of 0.1 MHz"), total bandwidth ("of the order of 3.2 MHz"), carrier count ("32 carriers"), data rate ("at least 6 Mbps"), and the specific modulation scheme ("2 of 32 Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing") (’900 Patent, col. 9:4-10).
    • Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether the term "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme" as used in the patent reads on the specific architecture and methods employed by the defendant's technology.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to claim 1 and defines the core technology of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused products are found to implement such a "scheme."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim preamble refers to a "general binary coded" scheme, which could suggest the term is not limited to a single embodiment but encompasses a class of systems with these general characteristics (’900 Patent, col. 8:61-63).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim body links the term to a very specific "2 of 32" implementation with precise data rates and bandwidths, suggesting the "scheme" may be defined by these specific performance characteristics (’900 Patent, col. 9:8-10). The specification's Table 1 also tightly couples different system configurations (e.g., "5/32") to specific performance metrics, which may be used to argue the term is tied to the disclosed examples (’900 Patent, col. 5, Table 1).

  • The Term: "of the order of"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase qualifies two key numerical limitations in claim 1: the carrier separation ("of the order of 0.1 MHz") and the total bandwidth ("of the order of 3.2 MHz") (’900 Patent, col. 9:5-7). Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine how much deviation from the stated numerical values is permissible for a finding of literal infringement.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of this term, rather than an exact number, suggests the patentee intended to claim a range around the specified values, not the precise values themselves.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that while the term allows for some minor variation, it does not cover systems with substantially different parameters, and may point to other limitations in the claim (e.g., "32 carriers," "6 Mbps") that are stated as exact values to argue that the patentee was precise when intending to be.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant induces infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The allegation of knowledge for inducement is based on Defendant being served with the complaint (Compl. ¶15).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant's continuation of allegedly infringing activities after receiving "actual knowledge of infringement" via the service of the complaint and its attached (but un-filed) claim charts (Compl. ¶13-14). No pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

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

  1. A Threshold Pleading Question: A preliminary issue may be the sufficiency of a complaint that does not identify any specific accused products by name and fails to include the infringement charts it incorporates by reference, raising the question of whether it provides the notice required under federal pleading standards.
  2. A Core Factual Question: Once discovery proceeds, a central evidentiary dispute will be whether the accused technology factually meets the very specific numerical limitations of claim 1, including the "32 carriers," "6 Mbps" data rate, and the "2 of 32" modulation scheme.
  3. A Key Claim Construction Question: The outcome will likely depend on the definitional scope of the claims. Specifically, can the term "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme" be construed broadly, or is it limited by the specific numerical and functional parameters detailed in the claim and specification? The interpretation of "of the order of" will be critical in determining the permissible range for a finding of literal infringement.