DCT

2:25-cv-00716

CommWorks Solutions LLC v. Earthlink LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00716, E.D. Tex., 07/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a business location with numerous employees in Athens, Texas, has transacted business in the District, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s networking hardware and services, including internet gateways, routers, and switches, infringe six patents related to quality of service (QoS) management, wireless access provisioning, traffic detection, and packet classification.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to fundamental networking technologies for managing data flow, prioritizing traffic, and simplifying device connectivity, which are core functions for internet service providers and networking equipment manufacturers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant received a "Notice Letter" on April 17, 2020, identifying the asserted patents and putting Defendant on notice of its alleged infringement. This date is central to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-12-17 Priority Date for ’465 Patent & ’904 Patent
2000-05-19 Priority Date for ’249 Patent
2002-05-03 Priority Date for ’315 Patent
2003-01-13 Priority Date for ’807 Patent
2004-09-30 Priority Date for ’664 Patent
2004-12-14 ’249 Patent Issued
2005-05-10 ’807 Patent Issued
2006-04-11 ’465 Patent Issued
2010-07-20 ’664 Patent Issued
2012-02-14 ’315 Patent Issued
2014-05-20 ’904 Patent Reissued
2020-04-17 Defendant Allegedly Received Notice Letter
2025-07-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,832,249, "Globally Accessible Computer Network-Based Broadband Communication System with User-Controllable Quality of Information Delivery and Flow Priority," Issued Dec. 14, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, the public Internet suffered from congestion and latency, making it difficult to deliver high-quality, deterministic applications like rich media (Compl. ¶26; ’249 Patent, col. 1:32-44). Conventional routing systems did not adequately manage Quality of Service (QoS) across the different functional layers of a network (e.g., the physical, data link, and network layers of the OSI model) (Compl. ¶26; ’249 Patent, col. 6:53-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system that actively monitors network performance at one layer of the OSI model (e.g., the network layer, Layer 3) to detect a "quality of service event" (like high packet loss or latency). In response, the system changes the network provisioning at a lower layer (e.g., the physical layer, Layer 1, by allocating more fiber optic circuit bandwidth) to resolve the issue ('249 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4). This cross-layer control mechanism aims to bridge the typical separation between network layers to provide more responsive QoS management (Compl. ¶27; ’249 Patent, col. 6:53-63).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for network administrators and service providers to dynamically manage network resources across different protocol layers in response to real-time performance issues, an improvement over static, single-layer management techniques (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Essential elements of Claim 11 (a method claim) include:
    • monitoring at least one OSI reference model layer functioning in a multi-layered network;
    • determining that a quality of service event has occurred in the multi-layered network;
    • determining that the quality of service event occurred at a layer N in the OSI reference model;
    • responding to the quality of service event...by changing network provisioning at a layer less than N; and
    • signaling that the network provisioning at the layer less than N has been changed.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807, "Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning," Issued May 10, 2005

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional methods for adding a new wireless device to a secure network were often impractical. They required a user to manually transcribe device identification information (e.g., a MAC address) from the device to the network's access point, a process that was cumbersome, required technical proficiency, and was difficult for devices lacking a user interface (Compl. ¶46; ’807 Patent, col. 3:5-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a time-based method to simplify this process. A network access point tracks an operational parameter of a wireless device, such as when it is powered on. A user wanting to add that device then activates a provisioning mode on the access point (e.g., by pressing a button), which opens a temporary "activatable time interval." The access point grants network access only to the device whose operational parameter (e.g., being recently powered on) falls within that time interval, thereby preventing other unauthorized devices from connecting ('807 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3). This is described as a "major technological advance" for enabling provisioning without a user interface (Compl. ¶47; ’807 Patent, col. 3:29-33).
  • Technical Importance: This method provided a user-friendly and secure way to provision wireless devices without requiring manual entry of complex identifiers, lowering the technical barrier for setting up home and small office networks (Compl. ¶47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 17 (Compl. ¶48).

  • Essential elements of Claim 17 (a system claim) include:

    • A time based network access provisioning system between a wireless device and a network, comprising:
    • a network access point connected to the network, the network access point comprising logic for tracking operation of the wireless device; and
    • logic for provisioning the wireless device if the operation of the wireless device occurs within an activatable time interval.

  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
    Multi-Patent Capsules for remaining patents-in-suit:

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,027,465, "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection," Issued Apr. 11, 2006

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of efficiently identifying high-priority data traffic in wireless networks (like IEEE 802.11) without complex, slow processing of upper-layer protocols (Compl. ¶65; ’465 Patent, col. 1:53-59). The solution is a method where a network device extracts a specific "bit pattern" from a predetermined position (an "offset") in a data frame and compares it to a known search pattern to quickly identify it as priority traffic (Compl. ¶70; ’465 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶68).
    • Accused Features: Devices with Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) and/or 802.11-2007+ wireless QoS functionality, such as the EX2210-T0 Gateway, are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶59).

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,760,664, "Determining and Provisioning Paths in a Network," Issued Jul. 20, 2010

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inefficiencies in provisioning network paths where prior art systems modeled every port of every device as a separate "node" in a graph, creating large and complex models (Compl. ¶83; ’664 Patent, col. 1:27-36). The invention improves upon this by modeling interconnections created by devices like digital cross connects as a single "link" between network elements, rather than multiple nodes, thereby reducing processing overhead and simplifying routing decisions (Compl. ¶84, ¶88; ’664 Patent, col. 3:32-35).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 7 is asserted (Compl. ¶86).
    • Accused Features: The Cisco Nexus Switches Series products are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶79).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,116,315, "System and Method for Packet Classification," Issued Feb. 14, 2012

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of redundant packet classification in conventional routers, where classification had to be performed at both the ingress (entry) and egress (exit) points of the device, requiring duplicative hardware and adding delay (Compl. ¶101; ’315 Patent, col. 1:48-2:4). The solution involves determining classification parameters (like destination and QoS) once at the ingress unit, creating a "classification index" that travels with the packet, and using that index at the egress unit to forward the packet without reclassification (Compl. ¶106; ’315 Patent, col. 2:8-43).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 7 is asserted (Compl. ¶104).
    • Accused Features: Defendant's services and devices such as the EX2210-T0 and Titan 3000 are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶97).

  • U.S. Patent No. RE44,904, "Method For Contention Free Traffic Detection," Issued May 20, 2014

    • Technology Synopsis: This is a reissue of the ’465 patent and shares its core technology. It discloses a method for efficiently identifying and prioritizing network traffic by extracting and matching bit patterns at predetermined offsets within data frames, thereby avoiding computationally expensive analysis of higher-level protocols (Compl. ¶121, ¶126).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 7 is asserted (Compl. ¶124).
    • Accused Features: Devices with WMM and/or 802.11-2007+ wireless QoS functionality, such as the EX2210-T0 Gateway, are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶115).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies several categories of accused products and services:
    1. Devices with IEEE 802.3ah support, exemplified by the EX2210-T0 Dual-Band Wireless AX1800 Gigabit Ethernet Gateway (Compl. ¶17, ¶22).
    2. Devices with Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) functionality, including the Titan 3000, EX2210-T0, and Axon EL4000 (Compl. ¶17, ¶40).
    3. Devices with Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) and/or 802.11-2007+ wireless QoS functionality, again exemplified by the EX2210-T0 Gateway (Compl. ¶17, ¶59, ¶115).
    4. The Cisco Nexus Switches Series (Compl. ¶17, ¶79).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are networking hardware, including gateways, routers, and switches, that Defendant allegedly "developed, designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, offered to sell and/or sold" (Compl. ¶6).
  • The complaint alleges these products incorporate standardized technologies such as IEEE 802.3ah (Ethernet in the First Mile), WPS (a network security standard for simple device connection), and WMM (a Wi-Fi interoperability certification for QoS). These products form the core of Defendant's internet service offerings to consumers (Compl. ¶17).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits A and B) that are not provided. The infringement theories are therefore summarized below in prose based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

’249 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, such as the EX2210-T0 gateway with IEEE 802.3ah support, perform a method for providing broadband communications that meets the limitations of claim 11 (Compl. ¶31). The narrative theory asserts that these products operate over a multi-layered network, monitor at least one OSI layer, determine when a QoS event has occurred at a specific layer "N," and respond by changing network provisioning at a layer "less than N" (Compl. ¶31). The complaint does not specify which accused product features perform these distinct monitoring and responding steps or at which specific OSI layers these actions allegedly occur.

Identified Points of Contention (’249 Patent)

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the general QoS functionality in a standardized protocol like IEEE 802.3ah or WMM constitutes the specific cross-layer "monitor at layer N, respond at layer < N" architecture required by the claim. The analysis may focus on whether the accused functionality is merely a single-layer operation or if it truly involves distinct actions at different OSI layers as claimed.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that a QoS event detected at a specific network layer (e.g., Layer 3 packet loss) is directly and causally responded to by changing provisioning at a distinct lower layer (e.g., Layer 1 physical circuit bandwidth), as opposed to a response at the same layer?

’807 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary

  • The complaint alleges that Accused Products with Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) functionality, such as the Titan 3000 and EX2210-T0, constitute a "time based network access provisioning system" that infringes at least claim 17 (Compl. ¶40, ¶50). The infringement theory is that these products comprise a network access point with "logic for tracking operation of the wireless device" and "logic for provisioning the wireless device if the operation...occurs within an activatable time interval" (Compl. ¶50). The complaint appears to equate the standardized WPS push-button connection method with the claimed time-based provisioning logic.

Identified Points of Contention (’807 Patent)

  • Scope Questions: Does the standardized WPS protocol, which typically involves an exchange of credentials within a short window after a button press, meet the claim limitation of "tracking operation of the wireless device" (e.g., power-on time)? The dispute may center on whether WPS functionality inherently tracks a device's operational state or merely opens a temporary window for any compatible device to attempt connection.
  • Technical Questions: What specific "operation of the wireless device" do the accused products track, and what is the "activatable time interval" tied to that operation? Is the interval tied to a device's power-on state, as described in the patent's preferred embodiment, or is it merely a generic window of opportunity initiated by a user?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’249 Patent

  • The Term: "changing network provisioning at a layer less than N"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the claimed solution. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused QoS functionality involves a responsive action at a distinctly lower network layer than the layer where the problem was monitored. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires a specific cross-layer interaction, not just a general QoS response.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes responding to a quality of service event as potentially involving changes to "communication resources (e.g., network devices, programs, protocols, hardware, software, etc.)" which could be read broadly ('249 Patent, col. 4:25-28).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific examples focus on concrete, distinct layers, such as detecting a problem at Layer 3 (IP) and responding by provisioning additional circuits at Layer 1 (physical) or Layer 2 (ATM), suggesting a clear and substantial distinction between the layers of monitoring and action is required ('249 Patent, col. 15:45-50; col. 16:56-63).

For the ’807 Patent

  • The Term: "logic for tracking operation of the wireless device"
  • Context and Importance: This term distinguishes the invention from a simple system that opens a temporary connection window for any device. Infringement requires that the access point actively tracks some "operation" of the specific device to be provisioned, such as its power-on time. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the accused WPS systems perform this tracking function or a more generic function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is "tracking operation," which is not limited to "power on." This could potentially be argued to cover tracking of any device state, such as the initiation of a signal transmission ('807 Patent, col. 11:43-46).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures repeatedly emphasize tracking the "power on time" of a device as the key operational parameter that is monitored and used for qualification, suggesting the "operation" is a specific state change of the device itself ('807 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3, element 54; col. 5:29-32).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Defendant took active steps with specific intent by "advising or directing personnel, contractors, or end-users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner" and "distributing instructions that guide users" to do so (e.g., Compl. ¶32, ¶51). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the Accused Products having "special features...specially designed to be used in an infringing way" with "no substantial uses other than ones that infringed" (e.g., Compl. ¶33, ¶52).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents as of the April 17, 2020 Notice Letter (e.g., Compl. ¶34, ¶53). It further alleges willful blindness based on a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (e.g., Compl. ¶35, ¶54).

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

This case appears to center on whether the functionality of standardized networking protocols, as implemented in Defendant’s products, falls within the scope of Plaintiff’s patent claims, which describe specific, and arguably bespoke, methods for achieving network management goals. The central questions for the court will likely be:

  • A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: For the ’249 patent, does the QoS functionality in Defendant’s products operate using the specific cross-layer architecture claimed (monitoring at layer N, responding at a distinct layer < N), or does it perform QoS adjustments within a single protocol layer, which may fall outside the claim scope?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: For the ’807 patent, does the accused "Wi-Fi Protected Setup" (WPS) functionality perform the claimed step of "tracking operation of the wireless device" (such as power-on time) as a condition for its time-based provisioning, or does it perform a fundamentally different, more generic process of opening a temporary security window?
  • A central dispute across multiple patents will be the scope of standardized technology: Can claims directed at specific methods of traffic prioritization (’465/’904 patents) and packet classification (’315 patent) be read to cover the widely adopted implementations of industry standards like Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM)?