DCT
2:25-cv-01239
Epic Lane Networks LP v. Verizon Business Network Services LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Epic Lane Networks, LP (Texas)
- Defendant: Verizon Communications Inc., et al. (Delaware, New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01239, E.D. Tex., 12/18/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains established places of business, including retail stores, offices for network technology, and a distribution facility.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 5G wireless network, including its network function virtualization and network slicing products and services, infringes seven patents related to virtualizing and managing telecommunication network resources.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns network function virtualization (NFV) and software-defined networking (SDN), technologies that allow telecommunication providers to replace dedicated hardware with flexible software, enabling services like network slicing in 5G networks.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges providing Defendant with actual notice of infringement of six of the asserted patents via correspondence beginning on March 21, 2025, and notice for the remaining patent on June 30, 2025.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-11-02 | Earliest Priority Date for ’846, ’359, ’520 Patents |
| 2014-08-27 | Earliest Priority Date for ’588, ’092 Patents |
| 2018-06-29 | Earliest Priority Date for ’305, ’059 Patents |
| 2018-08-14 | ’846 Patent Issued |
| 2020-01-01 | Verizon vRAN deployment began "Since 2020" |
| 2021-02-16 | ’359 Patent Issued |
| 2021-08-17 | ’305 Patent Issued |
| 2022-09-12 | Verizon announced deployment of over 8,000 virtualized cell sites |
| 2023-07-04 | ’588 Patent Issued |
| 2023-12-12 | ’520 Patent Issued |
| 2024-03-05 | ’059 Patent Issued |
| 2024-10-15 | Asserted patents assigned to Epic Lane Networks |
| 2025-03-21 | Plaintiff alleges providing notice of infringement for six patents |
| 2025-06-17 | ’092 Patent Issued |
| 2025-06-30 | Plaintiff alleges providing notice of infringement for ’092 Patent |
| 2025-12-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,050,846 - "Device Abstraction Proxy"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the business and technical conflicts that arise when multiple competing Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) service "resellers" must use a common physical network infrastructure owned by a single "wholesaler." This creates friction, as the wholesaler controls the equipment while resellers need access to manage service quality for their respective customers. (’846 Patent, col. 1:42-2:4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Device Abstraction Proxy" (DAP), a system that creates "virtual access aggregation devices." The DAP represents physical hardware (like DSLAMs) as distinct virtual instances, allowing each reseller to manage a dedicated subset of physical ports as if it were their own hardware. This is done through a centralized management system that enforces operational constraints defined by the wholesaler, ensuring that resellers cannot interfere with each other or the underlying infrastructure. (’846 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1B).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for administrative delegation and competition among service providers on a shared physical network by creating a software abstraction layer between the physical hardware and the management systems of different commercial entities. (’846 Patent, col. 2:65-67).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 19. (Compl. ¶246).
- Claim 1, an apparatus claim, includes these essential elements:
- One or more virtual access aggregation devices.
- A centralized management system communicatively interfaced to multiple physical access aggregation devices.
- The system represents the physical ports of the devices to the virtual devices.
- The physical ports are to be allocated to the virtual devices and linked to corresponding logical ports.
- The system receives a request via a control interface to manage a logical port.
- The system sends a notification via a management interface that the request complies with operational constraints.
- The system manages the logical port in accordance with the request.
- The complaint explicitly reserves the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶¶ 242, 246).
U.S. Patent No. 10,924,359 - "Device Abstraction Proxy"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '846 patent family, the '359 patent addresses the same problem of managing a shared telecommunications infrastructure among different service providers. (’359 Patent, col. 1:50-2:6).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a network management apparatus with a "management entity" that creates virtual access aggregation devices related to physical ones. The key function is that these virtual devices perform functions to support "logical aggregation networks" (akin to network slices) that have specific network characteristics defined by "service definition rules." This allows for the creation of distinct, customized virtual networks on top of a common physical infrastructure. (’359 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a system for creating and managing multiple logical networks with varying service levels (e.g., for different customers or applications) that can be dynamically created and managed on shared hardware. (’359 Patent, col. 12:43-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶123).
- Claim 1, an apparatus claim, includes these essential elements:
- A plurality of physical access aggregation interfaces coupled to a plurality of physical access aggregation devices providing broadband services to remote terminals.
- A management entity coupled to the physical interfaces.
- The management entity creates a plurality of virtual access aggregation devices related to the physical devices.
- The virtual devices perform functions that support associated logical aggregation networks with network characteristics defined by service definition rules.
- The complaint explicitly reserves the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶123).
U.S. Patent No. 11,843,520 - "Device Abstraction Proxy"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the '846 family, claims an access aggregation virtualization system. It focuses on the components: a physical access aggregation device (e.g., a base station) and a remote virtualization device that establishes links to the physical device and associates logical ports with the physical ports to enable communication. (Compl. ¶¶ 52-53).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 17 and 20. (Compl. ¶128).
- Accused Features: Verizon's 5G virtualized radio access network (vRAN), including its gNodeB base stations (the physical devices) and its management system that represents physical resources as Network Slice Subnet instances (the virtualization device). (Compl. ¶¶ 128-129).
U.S. Patent No. 11,695,588 - "Systems, Methods, and Apparatuses for Implementing Persistent Management Agent (PMA) Functions for the Control and Coordination of DPU and DSLAM Components"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to an architecture for virtualizing functions in a radio access network (RAN). It claims a method where functions are processed on a virtualized structure, which is updated in response to operational data received from network elements through a "functions abstraction layer." Based on this data, control parameters (e.g., for QoS or resource allocation to a network slice) are generated and sent back to the network elements. (Compl. ¶¶ 58, 62).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 18, and 19. (Compl. ¶143).
- Accused Features: Verizon's 5G O-RAN implementation, where the 3GPP management system acts as the functions abstraction layer, analyzing performance data from gNBs and updating RRM policies for network slicing. (Compl. ¶¶ 151, 154, 157-158).
U.S. Patent No. 12,335,092 - "Systems, Methods, and Apparatuses for Implementing the Virtualization of Access Node Functions"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, a relative of the '588 patent, claims a virtualized cellular access node with distinct virtualized network functions for traffic allocation, bandwidth allocation, and quality of service assignment. These functions analyze different portions of data from the cellular network and generate instructions that a control plane interface transmits to a physical access node (e.g., a radio unit). (Compl. ¶¶ 59-60, 160).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 16, and 17. (Compl. ¶160).
- Accused Features: Verizon's 5G systems that virtualize gNB functions, splitting them into components like the gNB-CU-CP (traffic allocation), gNB-DU (bandwidth allocation), and gNB-CU-UP (QoS mapping), which generate instructions transmitted over the fronthaul interface to the radio units. (Compl. ¶¶ 161-162, 169, 177, 179).
U.S. Patent Nos. 11,924,059 & 11,082,305 - "Systems and Methods for Chaining Control-Plane Virtual Functions for Ensuring End-to-End Quality of Service (QOS) of Internet Services"
- Technology Synopsis: These patents address the problem of providing end-to-end QoS, which ad-hoc or monolithic systems failed to do effectively. The claimed solution is a "QoS chaining" architecture where control-plane Virtual Network Functions (VNFs) communicate with each other and an End-to-End orchestrator. This system operates on QoS data and configurations in the control plane (a higher abstraction layer than data-plane service chaining) to ensure service levels for network slices. (Compl. ¶¶ 64-68).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 16 for the ’059 Patent; independent claims 1 and 18 for the ’305 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 185, 195).
- Accused Features: Verizon's 3GPP Management System, which allegedly acts as an orchestrator chaining together logical management functions (MFs) in the control plane to create network slices with end-to-end service guarantees. (Compl. ¶¶ 186, 189, 195, 197).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Verizon’s 5G wireless networks and associated virtualization and network slicing products and services. This includes Verizon’s virtualized radio access network (vRAN), its implementation of Open RAN (O-RAN) standards, and services sold under brands like "Verizon Frontline." (Compl. ¶¶ 74, 76, 82, 91).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Verizon has adopted network function virtualization (NFV) and software-defined networking (SDN) to create a cloud-based, virtualized 5G network architecture. (Compl. ¶¶ 74, 93). This architecture allegedly "decouples RAN hardware from software" and moves the software to the cloud. (Compl. ¶92). A key accused feature is "network slicing," which allows Verizon to create multiple logical networks on top of a shared physical network, dedicating portions of its 5G network to meet specific customer needs for latency or throughput. (Compl. ¶¶ 83-84). An image in the complaint shows the marketing for "Verizon Frontline Network Slice," a product that dedicates part of the 5G network for public safety agencies. (Compl. p. 22). The complaint asserts these technologies are critical to Verizon's network expansion and enable Verizon to reduce capital expenditures while providing customized service offerings. (Compl. ¶¶ 78-79).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 10,050,846 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| one or more virtual access aggregation devices | Verizon’s 3GPP management system creates and maintains NetworkSliceSubnet instances, which are alleged to be the virtual devices that represent functions of gNBs. | ¶135 | col. 2:32-37 |
| a centralized management system communicatively interfaced to multiple access aggregation devices...at least one of which includes a plurality of physical ports | Verizon’s centralized 3GPP management system is allegedly interfaced with multiple gNodeB's (gNBs), which are alleged to be the physical access aggregation devices with physical ports (radio resources). | ¶136 | col. 2:27-32 |
| wherein the centralized management system is to: represent the plurality of physical ports at the multiple access aggregation devices...to the one or more virtual access aggregation devices | The management system allegedly represents the physical RAN resources (ports) allocated to a NetworkSliceSubnet instance as Radio Resource Management (RRM) policies associated with the gNBs. | ¶138 | col. 8:33-53 |
| receive a request via a control interface to manage a logical port within a first virtual access aggregation device | The management system allegedly receives requests from authorized Network Slice Subnet (NSS) management services (the control interface) to manage logical ports, which are represented by the resources allocated to a network slice subnet. | ¶139 | col. 2:40-42 |
| send a notification via a management interface that a management selection specified by the request complies with operational constraints | Verizon’s 3GPP management service allegedly sends a notification indicating whether a provisioning management selection complies with operational constraints. A diagram from ETSI standards illustrates the system replying to the Network Operator after assessing feasibility. | ¶142; Compl. p. 47 | col. 10:2-6 |
| and to manage the logical port in accordance with the request | The received requests allegedly include requests to consume performance data or modify a network slice subnet, which the management system then performs. | ¶140 | col. 10:7-9 |
U.S. Patent No. 10,924,359 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of physical access aggregation interfaces coupled to a plurality of physical access aggregation devices, the plurality of physical access aggregation devices provides one or more broadband communication services to a plurality of remote broadband terminals | Verizon’s 5G vRAN kit allegedly includes a plurality of gNodeB’s (gNBs), which are the physical devices, providing broadband services to remote User Equipments (UEs), which are the remote terminals. The NG-RAN architecture diagram illustrates this connectivity. | ¶123; Compl. p. 32 | col. 8:12-23 |
| a management entity coupled to the plurality of physical access aggregation interfaces | Verizon’s 3GPP management system is alleged to be the management entity. | ¶124 | col. 13:46-54 |
| the management entity creates a plurality of virtual access aggregation devices related to the plurality physical access aggregation devices | The management system allegedly creates a plurality of NetworkSliceSubnets, which are identified as the virtual access aggregation devices, related to the physical gNBs. | ¶124 | col. 8:24-32 |
| the plurality of virtual access aggregation devices performs functions that support associated logical aggregation networks with network characteristics defined by service definition rules | The NetworkSliceSubnet instances allegedly support logical networks (components of a network slice) and are created with specific characteristics (e.g., for priority, latency, or specific users) defined by service definition rules to provide customized networks. | ¶¶126, 127 | col. 8:54-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether terms from the patent, which has a 2009 priority date and is rooted in DSL technology, can be construed to cover modern 5G network components. For example, does a "remote broadband terminal" read on a 5G User Equipment (UE), and does a "physical access aggregation device" (like a DSLAM) read on a 5G gNodeB? The complaint's theory relies on an affirmative answer to these questions.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegations for both patents rely heavily on Verizon's alleged implementation of 3GPP and ETSI standards. A key technical question will be whether the functionality of Verizon's accused system, as implemented, maps directly onto the specific steps required by the claims. For the ’846 patent, a point of contention may be whether a "notification" generated by the 3GPP management system performs the specific claimed function of confirming compliance with "operational constraints" in the manner disclosed in the patent. For the '359 patent, it may be questioned whether a "NetworkSliceSubnet" is "created by" the management entity in the same way a virtual device is created in the patent's disclosure.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "virtual access aggregation device" (’846 Claim 1; ’359 Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute, as the complaint equates it with a "NetworkSliceSubnet" in Verizon's 5G architecture. The definition will determine whether the accused network slicing functionality falls within the scope of the patents' core concept. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely decide whether technology from the DSL era can be applied to modern 5G network slicing.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the virtual device is an "abstracted" representation of physical ports, allowing a reseller to have "administrative authority" over them. (’846 Patent, col. 8:45-53). This functional language may support an interpretation that is not limited to a specific technology like DSL.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly frames the invention in the context of DSL services, DSLAMs, and the business relationship between a DSL "wholesaler" and "reseller." (’846 Patent, col. 1:42-2:4; col. 13:20-33). The specific embodiments described are entirely DSL-based, which may support a narrower construction limited to that technological context.
The Term: "centralized management system" (’846 Claim 1) / "management entity" (’359 Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The complaint identifies Verizon's "3GPP management system" as this element. Modern telecommunication management systems are often highly distributed. The viability of the infringement allegation may depend on whether Verizon's system, despite its distributed nature, can be considered "centralized" or a single "entity" as contemplated by the patents.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents describe the system functionally as providing a single point of administrative authority and enforcing global rules, without mandating a specific physical architecture. The '846 patent describes it as a system that "deploys and operates the equipment" and "resells 'ports' to 'resellers'," focusing on the commercial and logical roles. (’846 Patent, col. 13:30-36).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patents depict a single "Device Abstraction Proxy" as the locus of control, interfacing with distinct DSLAMs. (’846 Patent, Fig. 1B, 140). This architecture could be argued to teach a physically or logically centralized component, potentially narrower than the distributed management functions in a 5G network.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that since at least March 2025, Verizon has actively induced infringement by third parties (e.g., customers, consumers). This allegation is based on Verizon's creation of advertisements promoting infringing use (e.g., for "Verizon Frontline Network Slice"), providing training and user manuals for its 5G services, and certifying products for use in the U.S. (Compl. ¶¶ 220, 250).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Verizon’s alleged knowledge of the patents since at least March 21, 2025, for six of the patents, and June 30, 2025, for the ’092 patent. This knowledge is allegedly derived from correspondence and claim charts provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The complaint alleges that despite this knowledge, Verizon has continued its infringing conduct, disregarding a high likelihood of infringement. (Compl. ¶¶ 219, 222, 279).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can key claim terms rooted in the 2009-era context of DSL network management, such as "access aggregation device" and "remote broadband terminal", be construed broadly enough to read on the functionally different components of a modern 5G network, such as gNodeB's and User Equipment?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: does the accused 3GPP-compliant management system, which operates as a complex and distributed set of functions, perform the specific, ordered steps required by the claims—particularly the "receive request," "send notification," and "manage logical port" sequence of '846 Claim 1—in a manner that corresponds to the patents' disclosure, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
- A third central question will be one of technological evolution: the case will likely examine whether the patents' claimed concepts of virtualization and abstraction are specific technical solutions tied to the problems of the DSL era, or if they represent a broader inventive principle that the inventors contributed to the field and which is applicable to subsequent technologies like 5G network slicing.