DCT

2:25-cv-01163

CommPlex Systems LLC v. Barco NV

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01163, 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 infringes a patent related to communication systems for sending and receiving digital data using multiple frequencies.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for increasing the data rate and spectral efficiency of digital communications by using combinations of orthogonal frequencies to encode information.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-10-30 '900 Patent Priority Date
2011-01-04 '900 Patent Issue Date
2025-11-26 Complaint Filing Date

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 (“the ’900 Patent”), "Communication system for sending and receiving digital data," issued January 4, 2011. (Compl. ¶8-9).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges in conventional Frequency Shift Keying (FSK) data transmission, where inaccuracies in determining the center frequency can lead to a "distorted mark/space ratio in the demodulated data," causing errors. (’900 Patent, col. 2:61-64). The patent also seeks to improve data capacity and transmission rates within a given bandwidth. (’900 Patent, col. 3:4-8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communication system, termed "Multiple Orthogonal locked frequencies Narrow Band Frequency Shift Keying" (Mary-NBFSK), that uses combinations of multiple orthogonal frequencies to represent data. (’900 Patent, col. 4:9-12). Instead of transmitting a single frequency to represent a bit, the system transmits multiple frequencies simultaneously from a larger set of available frequencies (e.g., two frequencies out of a possible 32) to represent a larger block of data (e.g., 10 bits). (’900 Patent, col. 5:62-67; FIG. 7). This mapping of data to frequency combinations is managed by encoders and decoders using a look-up table. (’900 Patent, col. 8:51-60).
  • Technical Importance: This approach is designed to increase "code density and data rate per Hz of bandwidth" compared to traditional binary FSK systems, offering a way to transmit more data within a limited radio frequency spectrum. (’900 Patent, col. 3:13-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and references "Exemplary '900 Patent Claims" in an exhibit not attached to the publicly filed complaint, without specifying any particular claims in the body of the complaint. (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is the broadest system claim.
  • Claim 1 Elements:
    • A communication system comprising a transmitter and a receiver.
    • A "general binary coded Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme" is provided between the transmitter and receiver to increase code density and data rate.
    • The system uses a plurality of narrow band carrier frequencies that are orthogonal and "transmitted in a binary code to represent data."
    • 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."
    • This configuration allows the bandwidth to transmit "at least 6 Mbps in a 2 of 32 Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing" scheme.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in an external "Exhibit 2," which was not included with the filed complaint document. (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market position. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '900 Patent." (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in an external Exhibit 2, which is not provided. (Compl. ¶17). A summary of the infringement theory must therefore be drawn from the complaint's narrative allegations and the patent's claims. The core allegation is that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe by practicing the claimed technology, satisfying all elements of certain exemplary claims. (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the scope of the term "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme." The question for the court could be whether this term, as used in the patent, is limited to the specific combinatorial "Mary-NBFSK" system described in the specification (e.g., selecting 2 of 32 active carriers) or if it can be read more broadly to cover other modern modulation schemes that also use orthogonal frequencies.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations linking any product feature to the quantitative limitations of claim 1. Key technical questions will be whether discovery shows that an accused product operates with (1) 32 carriers, (2) a carrier separation "of the order of 0.1 MHz," (3) a total bandwidth "of the order of 3.2 MHz," and (4) a data transmission rate of "at least 6 Mbps." The complaint provides no evidence on these points.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental technology of the claimed system. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the accused products, which may use standardized communication protocols, fall within the scope of the claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent itself uses the term in its broadest claim and also refers to a "general binary coded Orthogonal Frequency Data Modulated carrier scheme," which may suggest the patentee viewed the term as encompassing its specific implementation. (’900 Patent, col. 3:11-13; col. 8:61-62).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification heavily details a specific "Mary-NBFSK" system where a small subset of available frequencies is transmitted to represent a block of data. (’900 Patent, col. 4:9-15). A party could argue the claim term should be limited to this disclosed embodiment, particularly given the specific "2 of 32" example recited in the final clause of Claim 1.

  • The Term: "transmitted in a binary code to represent data" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation describes how information is encoded onto the carrier frequencies. The dispute will turn on whether the accused products' encoding method matches this description.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This phrase could be interpreted to cover any system where a block of binary data is mapped to a specific state of the carrier frequencies.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links this concept to the use of a look-up table that maps a group of bits to a specific combination of two or more discrete frequencies. (’900 Patent, col. 5:58-67). Interpretation could be narrowed to require this specific type of combinatorial encoding, as distinct from methods that modulate data onto the phase or amplitude of each individual carrier.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating on "information and belief" that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶14). The knowledge element for inducement is alleged to arise "at least since being served by this Complaint." (Compl. ¶15).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the service of the complaint itself "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement," which could form a basis for post-filing willful infringement, though the term "willful" is not explicitly used. (Compl. ¶13). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

  • A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: given the complaint's failure to identify specific accused products or provide any factual detail on their operation—relying instead on an unattached exhibit—a threshold question is whether the allegations satisfy the plausibility standard required to proceed to discovery.
  • The case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope: can the claim term "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme," as defined and used within the ’900 Patent, be construed to read on the potentially standardized communication technologies used in modern commercial products, or is it limited to the specific combinatorial "Mary-NBFSK" architecture described in the patent's specification?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of quantitative matching: does discovery reveal evidence that any accused product meets the specific numerical performance metrics recited in claim 1, such as the number of carriers (32), carrier separation (0.1 MHz), bandwidth (3.2 MHz), and data rate (>=6 Mbps)? These limitations provide clear, falsifiable criteria for infringement.