DCT

2:25-cv-00379

Entropic Communications LLC v. Sagemcom Broadband SAS

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00379, E.D. Tex., 04/10/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a resident of the United States and is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cable modems and set-top boxes infringe six patents related to high-performance signal processing and network monitoring technology for coaxial cable networks.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to the architecture of devices that deliver internet and video services over cable networks, a critical technology for multiple-system operators (MSOs).
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was aware of the patents-in-suit prior to this litigation due to a series of lawsuits Plaintiff filed against Defendant's major MSO customers—including Charter, Comcast, and Cox—which accused the same Sagemcom products of infringement. The complaint notes that the court in a prior case, Entropic v. Charter, conducted a Markman hearing and issued claim construction rulings concerning several of the asserted patents, suggesting that certain claim scope disputes may be revisited.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-09-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,223,775 Priority Date
2009-04-17 U.S. Patent Nos. 11,381,866, 11,399,206, & 11,785,275 Priority Date
2011-09-08 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,792,008 & 9,825,826 Priority Date
2012-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,223,775 Issued
2014-07-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,792,008 Issued
2017-11-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,825,826 Issued
2022-04-27 Plaintiff alleges Defendant's awareness of '775, '008, '826 patents via lawsuit against Charter
2022-07-05 U.S. Patent No. 11,381,866 Issued
2022-07-26 U.S. Patent No. 11,399,206 Issued
2023-02-10 Plaintiff alleges Defendant's awareness of '866, '206 patents via lawsuits against Charter, Cox, and Comcast
2023-10-10 U.S. Patent No. 11,785,275 Issued
2023-12-08 Plaintiff alleges Defendant's awareness of '275 patent via lawsuit against Comcast
2025-04-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,223,775 - “Architecture for a Flexible and High-Performance Gateway Cable Modem,” issued July 17, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of integrating a wide range of data networking and VoIP services into a cable modem platform efficiently and cost-effectively, noting that conventional architectures create performance bottlenecks and limit the ability to independently upgrade different software functions (Compl. ¶69; ’775 Patent, col. 1:12-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a functionally partitioned architecture with a distinct "cable modem engine" for core DOCSIS and VoIP functions and a "data networking engine" for home networking applications (’775 Patent, Abstract). This design allows downstream data packets to be forwarded directly from the DOCSIS MAC processor to the data networking engine, bypassing the main DOCSIS controller, which increases throughput and allows for independent software development and field upgrades for each engine (Compl. ¶69; ’775 Patent, col. 4:13-21, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This partitioned architecture provided a path for cable modems to evolve into high-performance home gateways without compromising the stability of core network functions or requiring monolithic software updates (’775 Patent, col. 2:30-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶73).
  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to break down the essential elements of the asserted claim.

U.S. Patent No. 8,792,008 - “Method and Apparatus for Spectrum Monitoring,” issued July 29, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the need for network operators to monitor the health and performance of signals across the cable spectrum without the high cost of conventional monitoring equipment and without interrupting service to the end-user (Compl. ¶84; ’008 Patent, col. 1:36-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system within a receiver (such as a set-top box) that digitizes a wide band of the television spectrum containing multiple channels. A "channelizer" then selects and concurrently outputs a first portion of the digitized signal to a "signal monitor" for analysis of network characteristics (e.g., power levels, noise) and a second portion to a "data processor" for normal content recovery (e.g., viewing a TV channel) (’008 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶84).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows the customer-premises equipment itself to act as a remote network probe for the MSO, enabling non-intrusive, real-time diagnostics of the cable plant's condition (’008 Patent, col. 2:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 3 (Compl. ¶88).
  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to break down the essential elements of the asserted claim.

U.S. Patent No. 9,825,826 - “Method and Apparatus for Spectrum Monitoring,” issued November 21, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the technology of the ’008 Patent, this patent describes a receiver in a hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) network that digitizes an incoming signal, concurrently sending part of it for analysis and part for data recovery (Compl. ¶99). A key feature is using the measured signal characteristics from the monitoring portion to "control the transmission of network management messages back to the headend," creating a closed-loop diagnostic and response system (’826 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶99).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶103).
  • Accused Features: The functionality is accused of being present in Defendant's Accused Set-Top Box Products, including the DGCI384 gateway (Compl. ¶103).

U.S. Patent No. 11,381,866 - “Cable Television Device,” issued July 5, 2022

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a wideband television receiver that uses an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) to digitize a large, contiguous band of frequencies that includes both desired and undesired channels (’866 Patent, Abstract). A digital frontend (DFE) then concurrently selects the plurality of desired channels and provides them for access, while filtering out the undesired channels, improving efficiency and channel selection flexibility (Compl. ¶114).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 27 and 41 (Compl. ¶118).
  • Accused Features: The technology is accused of being used in the Accused Set-Top Box Products that include a Digital Video Recorder (DVR), such as the DGCI384 gateway (Compl. ¶118-119).

U.S. Patent No. 11,399,206 - “Method for Receiving a Television Signal,” issued July 26, 2022

  • Technology Synopsis: Related to the ’866 Patent, this patent describes a method where a television receiver digitizes a "full, contiguous band of frequencies that includes all of the television channels within the received signal" (’206 Patent, col. 1:49-52; Compl. ¶130). The system then concurrently selects multiple desired channels from this digitized superset without selecting any undesired channels, enabling efficient multi-channel processing for features like DVR recording (Compl. ¶130, ¶132).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 25 and 38 (Compl. ¶134).
  • Accused Features: The method is accused of being performed by the Accused Set-Top Box Products that comprise a DVR (Compl. ¶134).

U.S. Patent No. 11,785,275 - “System and Method for Receiving a Television Signal,” issued October 10, 2023

  • Technology Synopsis: Also in the same family, this patent describes a system that digitizes a full band of input frequencies and extracts multiple desired channels, providing them "in digital form for demodulation" (’275 Patent, col. 1:47-51; Compl. ¶146). This architecture improves the efficiency of providing multiple channels to downstream demodulator components (Compl. ¶148).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶150).
  • Accused Features: The system is accused of being embodied in the Accused Set-Top Box Products, including the DGCI384 gateway (Compl. ¶150-151).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies two categories of accused products: "Accused Cable Modem Products" and "Accused Set-Top Box Products," with the exemplary DGCI384 gateway falling into both categories (Compl. ¶37-39). The allegations also target products that include or are based on specific Broadcom System-on-Chip (SoC) models: BCM3390, BCM33843, or BCM3384 (Compl. ¶38-39).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products are gateways and set-top boxes designed to provide broadband internet and television services to end-users over coaxial cable networks (Compl. ¶2-3). They are marketed and sold to major MSOs, such as Comcast and Cox, for deployment in customer homes (Compl. ¶4, ¶27-28). The complaint alleges these products incorporate the patented technologies to achieve high performance and offer advanced features like DVR functionality and network monitoring (Compl. ¶84, ¶118). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts attached as appendices, which were not provided for this analysis. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

’775 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, including the DGCI384 gateway, infringe claim 18 by implementing a functionally partitioned architecture (Compl. ¶69, ¶73). This architecture allegedly boosts throughput by forwarding data packets from a DOCSIS MAC processor to a data networking component while bypassing the main DOCSIS controller, which the patent identifies as a potential performance bottleneck (Compl. ¶69, ¶71). This design is also alleged to provide greater flexibility for software upgrades (Compl. ¶69).

’008 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Set-Top Box Products infringe claim 3 by implementing a system for non-disruptive signal analysis (Compl. ¶88-89). This is allegedly achieved by digitizing a wide band of the television signal and concurrently routing a portion of that signal to a monitor for network performance analysis while routing another portion to a data processor for normal content recovery by the user (Compl. ¶84, ¶86).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the '775 Patent may be whether the integrated SoC architecture in the Accused Products constitutes the distinct, partitioned "cable modem engine" and "data networking engine" described in the patent. The definition of a "DOCSIS controller" and whether it is truly "bypassed" in the accused devices will likely be a focus of dispute. For the '008, '826, '866, '206, and '275 patents, a key issue may be whether the term "channel," rooted in traditional television broadcast, can be construed to cover the DOCSIS data channels also present in the signal spectrum.
  • Technical Questions: For the '008 patent family, a technical question is whether the accused devices' diagnostic features perform the specific function of "concurrently" outputting signal portions to distinct "signal monitor" and "data processor" components as claimed. The defense may argue that any monitoring is performed sequentially or by a single processing unit in a manner different from that disclosed in the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’775 Patent

  • The Term: "DOCSIS controller"
  • Context and Importance: The inventive concept of the '775 Patent centers on bypassing this specific component to improve performance. The scope of this term is therefore case-dispositive. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the accused products' integrated architecture maps onto the patent's partitioned design.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the controller's functions generally, such as implementing "VoIP functionality" and handling "MAC management message (MMM) processing," which could support a functional definition not tied to a specific piece of hardware (’775 Patent, col. 3:1-24).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts the "DOCSIS Controller (ARM#1)" as a physically and functionally distinct block from the "DOCSIS MAC Processor (ARM#2)," which "implements real-time critical MAC functions" (’775 Patent, col. 3:1-3, Fig. 1). This could support an argument that the term requires a separate processor dedicated to non-real-time control-plane tasks.

’008 Patent

  • The Term: "concurrently output"
  • Context and Importance: This term dictates the temporal relationship required between providing the signal for monitoring and providing it for content recovery. Its construction is critical to determining if the accused devices' diagnostic operations, which may be time-multiplexed, meet the claim limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background section emphasizes the goal of monitoring without "interrupting normal service to customers," suggesting "concurrently" could mean operating in a way that is functionally simultaneous from the user's perspective, even if not strictly parallel in hardware (Compl. ¶84).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract states the channelizer is operable to "concurrently output the first portion to the signal monitor and the second portion to the data processor," which, when read with figures like Fig. 1B, could suggest two distinct, simultaneously active data paths emanating from the channelizer (’008 Patent, Abstract, Fig. 1B).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by end-users and MSO customers, citing Defendant's creation and distribution of user guides and technical support that instruct on the use of the accused functionality (Compl. ¶57-58). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Products have no substantial non-infringing uses and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶59).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all six patents. The complaint bases this on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge, asserting that Defendant learned of the patents and their relevance to its products through prior infringement lawsuits that Plaintiff filed against Sagemcom's customers (e.g., Charter, Comcast) (Compl. ¶61, ¶64-65, ¶80). The complaint alleges specific dates by which Sagemcom was aware of each patent, creating a detailed timeline for alleged willful blindness (Compl. ¶75, ¶90, ¶105, ¶121, ¶137, ¶153).

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

  • Architectural Equivalence: A core issue will be one of structural and functional mapping: do the highly integrated System-on-Chip (SoC) designs in the Accused Products embody the discretely partitioned "engines" and bypassable "controller" required by the '775 Patent, or does their integrated nature represent a non-infringing alternative architecture?
  • Operational Functionality: For the five spectrum monitoring and signal processing patents, a key evidentiary question will be one of operational mode: do the Accused Products' diagnostic and multi-tuner features operate by "concurrently" processing split digital signals as claimed, or do they employ a different technical method, such as time-slicing or resource sharing, that falls outside the scope of the claims?
  • Pre-Suit Knowledge and Intent: The case will likely feature a significant dispute over willfulness. A central question for the fact-finder will be whether the prior lawsuits against Defendant’s MSO customers, which expressly identified Defendant's products, provided sufficient notice to establish that any continued infringement was knowing and deliberate, or at a minimum, constituted willful blindness.