CommPlex Systems LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CommPlex Systems LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Verizon Communications Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00348, E.D. Tex., 04/07/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunications products and services infringe a patent related to systems for transmitting digital data using multiple orthogonal frequencies.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for encoding data onto multiple simultaneous frequency signals (a form of frequency-division multiplexing) to increase data transmission rates over a given bandwidth.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s knowledge of the patent and its alleged infringement began with the service of the complaint itself, suggesting no prior licensing negotiations or litigation between the parties are being asserted as a basis for knowledge.

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," issued January 4, 2011

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in conventional Frequency Shift Keying (FSK) systems where component tolerances, aging, and temperature changes can cause the "center frequency" to drift, leading to a "distorted mark/space ratio in the demodulated data" and potential transmission errors (U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, col. 1:56-2:5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communication system that uses a set of multiple, locked, "orthogonal" frequencies to represent data (’900 Patent, Abstract). Instead of shifting a single frequency, the system transmits one or more frequencies selected from an available set simultaneously (’900 Patent, col. 4:23-25). A transmitter and receiver use a look-up table to map blocks of binary data to specific combinations of these frequencies, increasing the amount of data that can be sent per unit of bandwidth (’900 Patent, col. 5:60-65).
• Technical Importance: This approach is presented as a method to achieve higher data rates and greater code density (bits per Hertz of bandwidth) with less hardware and lower power consumption compared to using multiple, parallel, independent FSK systems (’900 Patent, col. 4:16-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '900 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit, but does not identify specific claims in the main body (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is the broadest system claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A communication system comprising a transmitter and a receiver.
  • A "general binary coded Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme" to increase code density and data rate.
  • A "plurality of narrow band carrier frequencies" that are orthogonal and transmitted in a binary code to represent data.
  • A specific configuration wherein 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" system.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific products, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts incorporated by reference from an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any technical description of the accused products' functionality. It makes the conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '900 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No allegations are made regarding the products' specific market position beyond their sale by Defendant (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates the specific factual basis by reference to "claim charts of Exhibit 2," which was not publicly available with the complaint (Compl. ¶17). The complaint asserts that these charts demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). Without the charts, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: Given the lack of detail, a primary question will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that any Verizon product or service actually implements the highly specific transmission scheme of claim 1. This includes meeting the numerical limitations related to carrier separation ("of the order of 0.1 MHz"), total bandwidth ("of the order of 3.2 MHz"), carrier count ("32 carriers"), and data rate ("at least 6 Mbps") in the specific "2 of 32" configuration (’900 Patent, col. 9:4-10).
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the patent's term "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme" can be read to cover modern, standardized communication technologies like LTE or 5G, which use OFDMA (Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access). The defense may argue the patent describes a bespoke, non-standard system distinct from these technologies.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble of claim 1 and defines the core technology of the patent. The outcome of the case may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to encompass industry-standard multiplexing methods or narrowly to cover only the specific embodiments described in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products likely operate on well-defined industry standards, and the infringement case hinges on mapping those standards to the patent's specific language.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the generic acronym "OFDM" in its final claim, suggesting an intent to cover a known class of technology (’900 Patent, col. 9:10). The claim language refers to a "general binary coded" scheme, which Plaintiff may argue is a broad descriptor not limited to the patent’s examples.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily details specific, non-standard implementations, such as a "1 out of 8" system representing 3 bits, or a "2 of 7" system representing 4 bits using a look-up table (’900 Patent, col. 4:35-37; col. 5:40-45). A defendant could argue that the term "scheme" is implicitly limited to these unique methods. Furthermore, the final clause of claim 1 recites a very specific "2 of 32" implementation with precise numerical parameters, suggesting the "scheme" is not general but is defined by these limitations (’900 Patent, col. 9:8-10).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14, ¶15). The complaint notes that these materials are referenced extensively in the unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's subsequent infringing activities are performed despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). These allegations lay the groundwork for a claim of post-filing willful infringement.

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

1. Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of claim construction. Can the term "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme," as conditioned by the specific numerical limitations in claim 1 (e.g., "0.1 MHz" separation, "3.2 MHz for 32 carriers," "at least 6 Mbps"), be interpreted to read on the standardized communication protocols used in Defendant's widespread commercial networks?
2. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The complaint is a notice pleading that relies entirely on an unprovided exhibit for its technical infringement allegations. A key question will be whether Plaintiff can, in its infringement contentions or through discovery, marshal sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a specific, identified Verizon product or service actually practices the claimed invention, meeting not just the general architecture but the precise quantitative parameters required by the claims.