DCT

2:25-cv-01162

CommPlex Systems LLC v. Asrock Incorp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01162, E.D. Tex., 11/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to communication systems for sending and receiving digital data using multiple orthogonal frequencies.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for high-rate digital data transmission, specifically using multiple narrow-band carrier frequencies in an orthogonal arrangement to increase data density and bandwidth efficiency.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-10-30 U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900 Priority Date (Application Filing)
2011-01-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900 Issues
2025-11-26 Complaint Filed

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

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

  • Patent Identification: 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's background section describes limitations in conventional Frequency Shift Keying (FSK) communication systems, where inaccuracies in determining the center frequency can lead to a "distorted mark/space ratio in the demodulated data," causing transmission errors. (’900 Patent, col. 1:61-col. 2:5). It also notes the hardware and power consumption burdens of prior art systems that used multiple parallel FSK channels. (’900 Patent, col. 4:18-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Multiple Orthogonal locked frequencies Narrow Band Frequency Shift Keying (Mary-NBFSK) system" that uses a plurality of orthogonal carrier frequencies to represent data. (’900 Patent, col. 4:9-11). Instead of transmitting a single frequency to represent a data bit (as in binary FSK), the system transmits a combination of frequencies selected from a larger set of available orthogonal frequencies to represent a larger block of data (e.g., transmitting two out of 32 available frequencies to represent 10 bits of data). (’900 Patent, col. 5:61-64; Fig. 7). This approach is intended to increase the "code density and data rate per Hz of bandwidth." (’900 Patent, col. 3:13-15).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method purports to achieve higher data rates within a given bandwidth compared to conventional systems by encoding more bits per symbol (i.e., per set of transmitted frequencies). (’900 Patent, col. 8:6-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims, referring only to "one or more claims" and "the exemplary claims." (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly identified in an attached exhibit. (Compl. ¶11). However, the referenced exhibit was not included in the provided documents.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement details are provided in "charts comparing the Exemplary '900 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" contained in Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶16). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible. The complaint’s narrative allegations are conclusory, stating that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '900 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '900 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Because the complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims, it is not possible to identify the key claim terms that will be central to the dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting 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 use the term "willful." However, it alleges that service of the complaint "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that despite this knowledge, Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" infringing products. (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). These allegations may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

Based on the initial pleading, the case presents several threshold questions before any substantive technical analysis can occur. The central issues for the early stages of this litigation will likely be:

  1. Identification of the Accused Technology: A primary question will be one of specificity: which of ASRock's products are accused of infringement, and what is the precise technical mechanism within those products that allegedly practices the patented method of using multiple orthogonal frequencies to encode and transmit data?
  2. Scope of Asserted Claims: A foundational issue will be the identification of asserted claims. Without this, no meaningful analysis of infringement or validity is possible. Once claims are identified, the dispute will likely turn on the construction of key terms defining the "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme."
  3. Basis for Inducement: An evidentiary question will concern the sufficiency of inducement allegations: what specific instructions in Defendant's product literature or website materials allegedly direct users to operate the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the method claims of the ’900 Patent?