DCT

2:25-cv-01165

CommPlex Systems LLC v. GL Tech HK Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: CommPlex Systems LLC v. GL Technologies (HK) Limited, 2:25-cv-01165, E.D. Tex., 11/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed products infringe a patent related to communication systems that use multiple orthogonal frequencies to transmit digital data.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for high-rate digital data transmission, a foundational element in modern wireless communication systems like Wi-Fi and cellular networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-10-30 U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900 Priority Date
2011-01-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900 Issued
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 background describes a need to improve upon conventional Frequency Shift Keying (FSK) modulation techniques for digital data transmission over narrow bandwidths, which can suffer from inaccuracies and distortion, particularly when center frequencies are not precisely determined (U.S. Patent No. 7,864,900, col. 1:15-2:62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communication system using a set of multiple orthogonal, locked frequencies to represent data, a technique described as a "Multiple Orthogonal locked frequencies Narrow Band Frequency Shift Keying (Mary-NBFSK) system" (’900 Patent, col. 4:9-12). This approach allows for a higher "code density and data rate per Hz of bandwidth" by transmitting multiple frequencies simultaneously, which are then decoded at the receiver using techniques like Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) (’900 Patent, col. 3:10-15; col. 8:15-24). The system may use a look-up table to map groups of bits to specific combinations of frequencies (e.g., mapping 10 bits to a combination of 2 out of 32 available frequencies) (’900 Patent, col. 6:61-64).
  • Technical Importance: The described approach of using multiple orthogonal carriers to increase data throughput within a given bandwidth is conceptually related to Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM), a technology fundamental to high-speed data communications standards.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '900 Patent Claims" identified in an incorporated exhibit not attached to the public filing (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains one independent claim.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A communication system for sending and receiving data, comprising: a transmitter and a receiver.
    • Wherein a general binary coded Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme is provided between the transmitter and receiver to increase code density and data rate per Hz of bandwidth.
    • A plurality of narrow band carrier frequencies, which are orthogonal and transmitted in a binary code to represent data.
    • Wherein the narrow band carrier frequencies include narrow band separation between orthogonal carriers.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts that were incorporated by reference but not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

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

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the ’900 Patent by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products (Compl. ¶11). The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an "Exhibit 2," which was not included with the filed document, to support its allegations (Compl. ¶17). Without this exhibit, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible based on the complaint alone. The complaint also alleges infringement based on internal testing by Defendant's employees (Compl. ¶12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific infringement contentions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

    • Context and Importance: This term appears central to defining the scope of the invention. The defendant may argue this term requires adherence to the well-established technical standard for OFDM, while the plaintiff may argue it covers a broader class of systems using orthogonal frequencies, including the patent's described "Mary-NBFSK" system. The outcome of this construction could determine whether the accused products, which may use standard communication protocols, fall within the claim's scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the phrase "a general binary coded Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme," which may suggest the claim is not limited to a specific implementation but to the general principle (’900 Patent, col. 8:61-63). The detailed description repeatedly refers to a "Multiple Orthogonal locked frequencies Narrow Band Frequency Shift Keying (Mary-NBFSK) system," suggesting the claim term may be read to encompass such systems (’900 Patent, col. 4:9-12).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing" has a specific, well-understood technical meaning in the art. A party could argue that the term should be limited to its conventional definition and that the patent’s use of other terms like "Mary-NBFSK" describes distinct, non-OFDM systems.

  • The Term: "narrow band carrier frequencies" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of "narrow band" will be critical for determining infringement. Whether the accused products operate using frequencies that qualify as "narrow band" under the patent's definition will be a key factual question.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit numerical definition for "narrow band," which may support a flexible interpretation based on the context of a given system.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself states that the "narrow band separation between orthogonal carriers" is "of the order of 0.1 MHz," providing a potential quantitative anchor for what "narrow band" means in the context of the invention (’900 Patent, col. 9:5-7). Embodiments describe carrier spacing of 100 KHz as an example (’900 Patent, col. 4:38-39).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '900 Patent" (Compl. ¶14). The specific content of these materials is purportedly detailed in the missing "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶14). The knowledge element for inducement is alleged to arise, at the latest, upon service of the complaint (Compl. ¶15).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is predicated on knowledge obtained through the service of the complaint itself. The complaint alleges that "Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" infringing products (Compl. ¶13-14). This frames the willfulness allegation as being based on post-filing conduct.

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

Based on the complaint and the patent, the resolution of this dispute may turn on the following questions:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Will the term "Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing carrier scheme" be construed narrowly to its standard technical meaning, or more broadly to encompass the "Mary-NBFSK" systems described in the patent's specification?
  • A key evidentiary question will center on the unspecified accused products and missing claim charts: What specific products are accused, and what evidence will be presented to show that their operation satisfies each element of the asserted claims, particularly the requirements for orthogonal, "narrow band" carriers?
  • A critical procedural question arises from the complaint's lack of specificity: Does the complaint, which fails to identify the accused products or provide the claim charts it incorporates by reference, meet the plausibility pleading standards required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8?