DCT
2:25-cv-00386
Peninsula Tech LLC v. DISH Wireless LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Peninsula Technologies, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: DISH Wireless L.L.C. D/B/A Boost Mobile (Colorado)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00386, E.D. Tex., 04/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains "regular and established" places of business, including retail stores and cellular base stations, within the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 5G cellular network, which provides Boost Mobile services, infringes four patents related to power management, resource configuration, and signal timing in wireless networks utilizing carrier aggregation and dual connectivity.
- Technical Context: The patents address technical challenges in advanced wireless standards (LTE-A, 5G) for managing device power and network resources efficiently when multiple communication channels are aggregated to increase data speeds.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patents and infringement allegations, including claim charts, via a letter delivered on April 4, 2025, one week prior to filing the complaint. This pre-suit notice is cited as the basis for willful infringement allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-04-15 | Earliest Priority Date for ’009 Patent |
| 2015-04-16 | Earliest Priority Date for ’810 Patent |
| 2016-01-29 | Earliest Priority Date for ’743 Patent |
| 2016-05-09 | Earliest Priority Date for ’549 Patent |
| 2017-12-12 | ’009 Patent Issued |
| 2020-07-01 | DISH acquires Boost Mobile |
| 2022-06-15 | DISH deploys its native 5G network |
| 2023-10-17 | ’743 Patent Issued |
| 2023-11-21 | ’810 Patent Issued |
| 2024-02-27 | ’549 Patent Issued |
| 2025-04-04 | Plaintiff provides pre-suit notice to Defendant |
| 2025-04-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,844,009 - "Power headroom report in a wireless device with carrier aggregation"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In wireless systems using carrier aggregation (combining multiple frequency bands), a mobile device must report its available transmission power—its "power headroom"—to the base station for each carrier to ensure efficient network operation. As the number of aggregated carriers grows, the overhead required for these reports can become inefficient. (’009 Patent, col. 2:30-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a base station that receives a Power Headroom Report (PHR) from a mobile device where the report's structure adapts to the number of configured carriers (secondary cells). The PHR contains a "presence field" that uses a more compact format (one octet) for a smaller number of secondary cells (up to seven) and a larger format (four octets) when more cells are involved, making the reporting process more efficient. (’009 Patent, Abstract; col. 20:57-65).
- Technical Importance: This adaptive reporting mechanism reduces signaling overhead, conserving network resources in complex LTE-Advanced and 5G networks that rely on aggregating many carriers to achieve high data rates.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶25).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A base station transmitting configuration parameters for one or more secondary cells.
- The base station receiving a "power headroom report media access control control element (PHR MAC CE)" from a wireless device.
- The PHR MAC CE comprises a "presence field" with a size that is fixed at one octet when up to seven secondary cells are configured, and fixed at four octets when more than seven secondary cells are configured.
- The base station transmitting one or more control commands that employ the received PHR MAC CE.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶25, n.1).
U.S. Patent No. 11,792,743 - "Transmit power priority based on cell types in wireless devices"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: When a wireless device simultaneously transmits over multiple cell groups (e.g., in a dual connectivity scenario), the combined power required can exceed the device's maximum transmission capability. This requires a method for intelligently reducing power without dropping critical connections. (’743 Patent, col. 13:20-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where uplink signals are assigned a "transmit power priority" based on the "cell type" on which they are transmitted. When total power exceeds a limit, the transmission power of a lower-priority signal is scaled down or dropped. The specification provides examples where licensed spectrum cells have a higher priority than unlicensed (Licensed-Assisted Access, or LAA) cells. (’743 Patent, Abstract; col. 16:30-50).
- Technical Importance: This priority-based power scaling provides a structured method for managing power budgets in heterogeneous networks, ensuring that more reliable or critical transmissions are preserved when power is constrained.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 15. (Compl. ¶36).
- Essential elements of claim 15 include:
- A base station transmitting configuration parameters for "one or more first cells of a first cell type" and "one or more second cells of a second cell type."
- The base station receiving a first uplink signal via the first cells and a second uplink signal via the second cells during the same time interval.
- A transmission power of the first uplink signal is "scaled, based on a transmit power priority of the first uplink signal," when the total transmit power exceeds a value.
- The transmit power priority is "based on a cell type of the one or more first cells."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,824,810 - "Restarting a deactivation timer of a secondary cell in a wireless network"
Technology Synopsis
The patent addresses power management for secondary cells (SCells) in carrier aggregation. To conserve power, SCells have a deactivation timer that powers them down after a period of inactivity. The invention restarts this timer in response to communication (an uplink or downlink packet) occurring on the SCell during a scheduled time interval, thereby keeping the SCell active only when necessary. (’810 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts at least claim 17. (Compl. ¶47).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Defendant's base stations (gNBs) restart an sCellDeactivationTimer for a secondary cell when a downlink packet is communicated with a user device during a configured downlink assignment. (Compl. ¶¶48-49).
U.S. Patent No. 11,917,549 - "Scaling transmission power of uplink signals of a wireless device"
Technology Synopsis
The patent describes a method for managing device transmission power in a dual connectivity environment where a device communicates with cell groups in two different frequency bands. The base station sends separate maximum total transmit power parameters for each group. The device then scales the transmission power on each group's signals independently to ensure neither exceeds its respective configured maximum. (’549 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts at least claim 16. (Compl. ¶57).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Defendant's base stations, operating in an NR-DC environment, transmit RRCReconfiguration messages containing separate maximum power parameters (p-NR-FR1 and p-NR-FR2) for a master cell group and a secondary cell group. The base station then receives signals where the power is scaled based on these parameters. (Compl. ¶¶58-59).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant's 3GPP-compliant 5G mobile network, which offers Boost Mobile-branded services. This includes the network's cellular base stations (e.g., Next Generation Node Bs, or gNBs) and the mobile phones (user equipment) that operate on the network. (Compl. ¶¶13, 25, 36).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused network is alleged to operate as a full Mobile Network Operator (MNO) providing 5G services to over 7 million subscribers via more than 20,000 active cell sites. (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The complaint alleges the network implements advanced features of the 5G standard, including carrier aggregation and NR-NR dual connectivity (NR-DC), to manage network resources and device power. (Compl. ¶¶26-28, 37-39). The complaint includes a diagram from a 3GPP technical specification illustrating the RRC Reconfiguration message flow between a user device (UE) and the network, which is central to configuring the accused features. (Compl. p. 8, Figure 5.3.5.1-1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
9,844,009 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base station comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the base station to: | Defendant’s network includes Next Generation NodeB (gNB) base stations. | ¶26 | col. 5:8-16 |
| transmit at least one message comprising configuration parameters of one or more secondary cells. | The gNB transmits an RRCReconfiguration message to configure secondary cells for a user device. |
¶26 | col. 10:60-64 |
| receive a power headroom report media access control control element (PHR MAC CE) comprising a presence field comprising a plurality of presence bits, wherein: the presence field is of a fixed size of one octet when up to seven secondary cells are configured… and the presence field is of a fixed size of four octets when the one or more secondary cells comprise more than seven secondary cells with configured uplinks. | The gNB receives a PHR MAC CE containing a bitmap that indicates power headroom presence. The bitmap is one octet if the highest cell index is less than 8, and four octets otherwise. | ¶27 | col. 20:57-65 |
| transmit one or more control commands employing at least the PHR MAC CE. | The gNB uses the received PHR MAC CE to perform power-aware packet scheduling by transmitting Downlink Control Information (DCI) commands to the user device. | ¶28 | col. 21:1-5 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A potential point of contention may be whether the 3GPP standard's condition for selecting the bitmap size, which the complaint cites as "when the highest ServCellIndex of Serving Cell with configured uplink is less than 8," is equivalent to the claim's requirement of "when up to seven secondary cells are configured." (Compl. ¶27, p. 9). The analysis may question if scenarios exist where these two conditions do not align perfectly.
- Technical Question: What evidence does the complaint provide that the DCI commands transmitted by the gNB specifically "employ" the PHR MAC CE in the manner required by the claim? The complaint alleges this is for "power-aware packet scheduling," which may require further technical evidence to link the received report to the specific transmitted commands. (Compl. ¶28).
11,792,743 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base station comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the base station to: | Defendant’s network includes gNB base stations. | ¶37 | col. 5:48-54 |
| transmit configuration parameters of: one or more first cells of a first cell type; and one or more second cells of a second cell type. | The gNB transmits an RRCReconfiguration message to configure a secondary cell group (SCG) using NR radio access and a master cell group (MCG) using NR radio access in an NR-DC environment. |
¶37 | col. 15:30-40 |
| receive: a first uplink signal, during a time interval, via the one or more first cells; and a second uplink signal, during the time interval, via the one or more second cells. | The gNB receives overlapping uplink transmissions on the SCG and the MCG during the same time interval. The complaint provides a screenshot of a 3GPP specification describing this overlapping transmission scenario in NR-DC. | ¶38; ¶39, p. 14 | col. 14:15-22 |
| wherein a transmission power of the first uplink signal is scaled, based on a transmit power priority of the first uplink signal... and wherein the transmit power priority is based on a cell type of the one or more first cells. | The complaint alleges that the transmission power of the SCG signal is scaled down because SCG signals have a lower priority than MCG signals when the total transmission power exceeds the maximum allowed. | ¶39 | col. 16:30-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: The central issue for this patent will likely be the construction of the term "cell type". The patent specification frequently uses licensed versus unlicensed (LAA) cells as the prime example of different cell types. The complaint alleges infringement in an NR-NR dual connectivity environment, where both the MCG and SCG may use licensed spectrum. This raises the question of whether the distinction between an MCG and an SCG constitutes a difference in "cell type" as the term is used in the patent.
- Technical Question: Does the complaint provide sufficient detail to establish that the alleged power scaling of the SCG signal is based on a "transmit power priority" derived from its "cell type" (i.e., being an SCG), as opposed to being scaled for other reasons inherent in the 3GPP standard's power control mechanisms?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- Patent: ’743 Patent
- The Term: "cell type"
- Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the claimed power-scaling priority system. The infringement allegation hinges on construing this term to encompass the distinction between a Master Cell Group (MCG) and a Secondary Cell Group (SCG) in an NR-DC environment. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's infringement theory appears to extend beyond the patent's primary example of licensed versus unlicensed cells.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The independent claim itself uses the generic term "cell type" without express limitation to spectrum licensing. Claim 7 refers to cell types operating in different frequency bands, and claim 8 refers to cell types operating based on different radio technologies, suggesting the patentee contemplated distinctions beyond licensed status. (’743 Patent, col. 33:7-14).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures repeatedly and explicitly use "licensed type cells" and "LAA type cells" as the exemplary embodiments. The abstract frames the invention in this context. This consistent focus could support an interpretation that limits the term to distinctions based on spectrum licensing rules. (’743 Patent, Abstract; col. 15:30-40).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The basis is Defendant's alleged provision of the accused 5G network and services along with instructions, user manuals, marketing materials, and technical assistance that encourage and direct customers and end-users to use the network in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶29, 40, 50, 60).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint bases this on Defendant’s alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from a notice letter and claim charts delivered on April 4, 2025. (Compl. ¶¶32, 43, 53, 63).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "cell type" in the ’743 patent, which is heavily exemplified in the specification by the licensed vs. unlicensed spectrum distinction, be construed to cover the alleged distinction between a Master Cell Group and a Secondary Cell Group, both of which may operate in licensed 5G spectrum? The outcome of this claim construction will likely be critical to the infringement analysis for this patent.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: for all asserted patents, the case will examine whether the functionality described in the 3GPP standards, which the complaint relies on heavily, corresponds directly to the specific limitations recited in the patent claims. This will involve a nuanced comparison of how the standards operate versus what the claims specifically require, such as whether the 3GPP conditions for adaptive PHR message sizing in the '009 patent are legally equivalent to the claimed conditions.