CommPlex Systems LLC v. Micro Star Intl Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CommPlex Systems LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Micro-Star International Co. Ltd. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00345, E.D. Tex., 04/07/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to communication systems that use multiple orthogonal frequencies to transmit digital data.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for increasing the rate and efficiency of digital data transmission over a given bandwidth by encoding data onto combinations of specific, orthogonal carrier frequencies.
• Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes how conventional Frequency Shift Keying (FSK) systems can suffer from inaccuracies in determining the center frequency of a signal due to component tolerances, aging, and temperature changes, which can lead to a "distorted mark/space ratio in the demodulated data" and transmission errors (U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, col. 1:56-65). The invention aims to increase data capacity and transmission rates within a limited bandwidth (U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, col. 3:4-8).
• The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a communication system that uses multiple orthogonal frequencies, where data is represented by transmitting specific combinations of these frequencies simultaneously (U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, Abstract). Instead of a simple binary FSK system (where one frequency means '0' and another means '1'), this "Multiple Orthogonal locked frequencies Narrow Band Frequency Shift Keying (Mary-NBFSK)" system can encode more data per transmission symbol, for example, by using two out of a possible 32 frequencies to represent a 10-bit data combination (U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, col. 6:62-67; Fig. 7). This approach is designed to increase the "code density and data rate per Hz of bandwidth" (U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, col. 3:13-15).
• Technical Importance: The described technique sought to improve upon standard FSK and Frequency Modulation (FM) systems by offering a method to achieve higher data rates and greater spectral efficiency, which is critical in wireless communications where bandwidth is a constrained resource (U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, col. 4:22-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’900 patent without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is foundational to the patent.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A communication system for sending and receiving data, comprising: a transmitter and a receiver;
  • wherein a general binary coded Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme is provided between said transmitter and said receiver to thereby increase code density and data rate per Hz of bandwidth;
  • a plurality of narrow band carrier frequencies, wherein, said narrow band frequencies are orthogonal and are transmitted in a binary code to represent data; and
  • wherein, said narrow band carrier frequencies includes narrow band separation between orthogonal carriers.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers to them generically as "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in an attached, but not publicly filed, exhibit (Compl. ¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality or market context. 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’s infringement theory is presented exclusively by reference to "charts comparing the Exemplary '900 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" contained in Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16). The complaint states that it "incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim charts of Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶17). As this exhibit was not filed with the complaint, and no narrative infringement theory is provided in the body of the complaint, an element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible from the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and defines the core technical principle of the invention (U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, col. 8:62). The dispute will likely center on whether the accused systems, which may use modern and standardized wireless protocols (e.g., Wi-Fi, which uses OFDM), practice the specific "scheme" described and claimed in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claim reads on a broad class of modern communication technologies or is limited to the specific embodiments described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme" without further structural limitations within the claim itself, which may support an argument for a broad construction covering any system that uses the principle of OFDM (U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, col. 8:61-64).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the invention with reference to a specific implementation referred to as "Multiple Orthogonal locked frequencies Narrow Band Frequency Shift Keying (Mary-NBFSK)" (U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, col. 4:9-12). A defendant may argue that the claimed "scheme" should be limited to this specific "Mary-NBFSK" system, which involves selecting and transmitting a small number of frequencies from a larger set to represent data bits via a look-up table (U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, col. 6:49-54).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating 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 '900 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge. It asserts that "service of this Complaint...constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued activities thereafter are willful (Compl. ¶13-14). This frames the willfulness claim as being based on post-filing conduct only.

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

1. A central issue will be one of claim scope: will the term "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme" be construed broadly to cover modern standardized communication methods, or will it be limited to the specific "Mary-NBFSK" lookup-table-based embodiments detailed in the patent's specification? The answer will likely determine the extent of any potential infringement.
2. An immediate procedural question arises from the complaint's sufficiency under modern pleading standards. The complaint identifies neither the specific products accused nor the specific claims asserted, and its infringement allegations are made entirely by reference to an unfiled exhibit. This raises the question of whether the complaint provides the defendant with fair notice of the claims against it.
3. A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused products' functionality maps onto the patent's claimed methods. Given the lack of detail in the complaint, discovery will be necessary to determine the specific technical operations of the accused products and compare them to the patent's claims, particularly the requirements for how data is encoded onto orthogonal frequencies.