DCT

2:26-cv-00025

Acer Inc v. AT&T Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00025, E.D. Tex., 01/09/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant's maintenance of "regular and established" places of business within the Eastern District of Texas, including retail stores, cellular base stations, and other facilities, and by citing prior cases where Defendant did not contest venue in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 4G/LTE and 5G mobile network infrastructure infringes six U.S. patents that Plaintiff has declared essential to the 3GPP wireless telecommunication standards.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to fundamental operational methods in 4G/LTE and 5G wireless networks, governing functions such as power management, network measurements, connectivity management, and data transmission efficiency.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff asserts that the patents-in-suit are Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) which it has committed to license on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The complaint states that prior to filing suit, Plaintiff engaged in good-faith licensing negotiations with Defendant throughout 2025, which included providing technical presentations and claim charts, but the parties were unable to reach an agreement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-05-04 U.S. Patent No. 9,526,048 Priority Date
2010-11-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,737,333 Priority Date
2013-08-08 U.S. Patent No. 9,999,097 Priority Date
2014-03-27 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,791 Priority Date
2014-05-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,737,333 Issued
2016-12-20 U.S. Patent No. 9,526,048 Issued
2017-02-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,252,641 Priority Date
2017-06-16 U.S. Patent No. 11,044,053 Priority Date
2018-06-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,999,097 Issued
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,791 Issued
2021-06-22 U.S. Patent No. 11,044,053 Issued
2022-02-15 U.S. Patent No. 11,252,641 Issued
2025-01-01 Start of Licensing Negotiations (approximate date)
2026-01-09 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,737,333 - *"Method of Power Reporting and Communication Device Thereof"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In advanced wireless standards like LTE-A, it was not clearly specified how a mobile device should report its maximum output power, particularly in complex scenarios involving multiple component carriers or simultaneous control and data channel transmissions (’333 Patent, col. 1:50-2:6). This ambiguity could lead to inefficient resource allocation by the network (’333 Patent, col. 1:36-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a network to manage power reporting by first configuring a mobile device with multiple uplink carriers, then providing it with maximum output power information, and crucially, determining when to dynamically start and stop the "maximum output power reporting" based on device or network characteristics (’333 Patent, col. 8:5-24, Claim 17). This allows for more adaptive and efficient power management than a static or continuous reporting scheme.
  • Technical Importance: The method provides a framework for dynamic and efficient power reporting, enabling networks to make better scheduling decisions and improve performance, particularly in networks utilizing advanced features like carrier aggregation (Compl. ¶49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 17 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Claim 17 essential elements:
    • configuring a plurality of uplink component carriers and/or parallel PUCCH and PUSCH transmission to a mobile device;
    • providing information related to a maximum output power configuration for at least one uplink component carrier;
    • determining whether to "start" a maximum output power reporting for the uplink component carrier according to a characteristic associated with the mobile device or the network; and
    • when the reporting is started, determining whether to "stop" the maximum output power reporting according to a characteristic associated with the mobile device or the network.

U.S. Patent No. 9,526,048 - *"Method of Handling Measurement Gap Configuration and Communication Device Thereof"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Mobile devices need to periodically pause communications to measure the signal quality of neighboring cells for potential handovers, creating "measurement gaps." In systems with carrier aggregation (using multiple frequency bands simultaneously), creating a measurement gap on all carriers at once would interrupt all data flow, degrading performance (’048 Patent, col. 1:41-52; Compl. ¶70).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a single measurement gap configuration that applies different time offsets to different component carriers (’048 Patent, Abstract). By applying a "first gap offset" to a first carrier and a "second gap offset" to a second carrier, the mobile device performs measurements for each carrier at different, staggered times, ensuring that at least one carrier can remain active for data transmission at any given moment (’048 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: This staggered approach allows mobile devices to perform necessary mobility measurements without completely halting data throughput, preserving network efficiency and user experience in carrier aggregation environments (Compl. ¶69-70).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
  • Claim 1 essential elements:
    • A method for a network handling measurement gap configuration for a mobile device capable of receiving on a plurality of component carriers;
    • configuring one measurement gap configuration to the device with a first gap offset for a first component carrier and a second gap offset for a second component carrier;
    • wherein each offset indicates a value for shifting a measurement gap in the respective carrier;
    • whereby the device performs measurement on the first carrier at a different time from when it performs measurement on the second carrier.

U.S. Patent No. 9,999,097 - *"Method of Radio Bearer Establishment in Dual Connectivity"*

The Invention Explained

The patent addresses methods for efficiently establishing or releasing radio bearers (data pathways) for a mobile device that is simultaneously connected to two different base stations (dual connectivity) (Compl. ¶91-92). The invention outlines a process where a primary base station determines the need for a change, requests the change from a secondary base station, and receives a response before reconfiguring the mobile device (Compl. ¶95).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶95).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement by AT&T's network procedures for managing radio bearers in dual connectivity scenarios, such as the "SeNB Modification procedure" defined in 3GPP Release 14 standards, which involves request and response messages between base stations to manage a user's data bearers (Compl. ¶96, ¶99-100). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating the accused SeNB Modification procedure signaling flow (Compl. p. 31).

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,791 - *"Method of Updating Network Detection and Selection Information and Traffic Routing Information"*

The Invention Explained

The patent describes a method for a mobile network to update a device’s network selection and traffic routing policies, particularly for offloading traffic to non-cellular networks like Wi-Fi (Compl. ¶113). The method involves using Radio Access Network (RAN) assistance information to efficiently update these policies during network procedures like handover or initial attachment (’791 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶114).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶117).

Accused Features

The accused functionality is AT&T's use of RRCConnectionReconfiguration messages containing wlan-OffloadInfo and RAN assistance parameters during an attach procedure (Compl. ¶118-119, ¶122). This process, defined in 3GPP Release 14, allegedly allows the network to update a device's Wi-Fi offloading rules.

U.S. Patent No. 11,044,053 - *"Device and Method of Handling Code Block Group-Based Communication Operation"*

The Invention Explained

The patent relates to improving the efficiency of data retransmissions (HARQ process) by grouping data into Code Block Groups (CBGs) (’053 Patent, col. 1:16-19). The invention allows the network to specify a maximum number of CBGs and use a field in the control information to indicate which specific CBGs were transmitted, enabling more granular retransmissions instead of resending an entire data block (Compl. ¶135, ¶138).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 22 (Compl. ¶138).

Accused Features

The complaint targets AT&T's implementation of CBG-based HARQ as defined in 3GPP Release 15, specifically the use of the maxCodeBlockGroupsPerTransportBlock parameter and the "CBG transmission information" (CBGTI) field in Downlink Control Information (DCI) to manage CBG transmissions and retransmissions (Compl. ¶141-144).

U.S. Patent No. 11,252,641 - *"Method of System Information Transmission and Acquisition"*

The Invention Explained

This patent describes a method for broadcasting system information (SI) in a 5G network by splitting it into two types: "essential minimum SI" with a fixed schedule on a broadcast channel, and "non-essential minimum SI" dynamically scheduled on a shared channel (’641 Patent, Abstract). The essential SI contains scheduling and availability information that tells a device how and whether to look for the non-essential SI, improving power efficiency (Compl. ¶157-158).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶161).

Accused Features

Infringement is alleged based on AT&T's 5G network broadcasting a Master Information Block (MIB) on a broadcast channel, where the MIB contains scheduling information (pdcch-ConfigSIB1) and availability information (ssb-SubcarrierOffset) that directs a device on how to acquire the System Information Block 1 (SIB1) on a shared channel, consistent with 3GPP Release 15 standards (Compl. ¶163-165).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as AT&T's mobile network infrastructure, including cellular base stations and related telecommunication equipment, that operate in accordance with 3GPP 4G/LTE and 5G standards (Releases 8-15 and later) (Compl. ¶39, ¶45).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that AT&T operates a "market-leading 4G/LTE and 5G mobile network" covering over 99% of the U.S. population (Compl. ¶41). The accused functionality is the network's implementation of various 3GPP standards that allegedly practice the methods claimed in the asserted patents. The complaint provides a screenshot of AT&T's wireless coverage map, which depicts the availability of 4G/LTE and 5G services within the judicial district and nationwide, as evidence of the network's operation and commercial scale (Compl. ¶44, p. 11). AT&T is alleged to sell access to this network, which provides telecommunication and internet services to customers using standard-compliant mobile devices (Compl. ¶39, ¶45).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’333 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of handling power reporting for a network...comprising: configuring a plurality of uplink component carriers and/or parallel...PUCCH and...PUSCH transmission to a mobile device... AT&T's network uses Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling to configure mobile devices for carrier aggregation (multiple uplink component carriers) and for PUCCH and PUSCH transmission, as defined by the 3GPP standard. ¶54 col. 8:7-10
providing information related to a maximum output power configuration for at least a uplink component carrier; AT&T's network provides the P-Max information element to mobile devices, which limits the UE's uplink transmission power on a carrier frequency and is used to configure maximum output power. ¶55 col. 8:11-13
determining whether to start a maximum output power reporting for the at least a uplink component carrier...according to a characteristic associated to the mobile device or the network; and AT&T's network sets triggers for starting a Power Headroom Report (PHR), such as the expiration of a prohibitPHR-Timer or a significant change in path loss, which are characteristics of the network and device conditions. ¶56 col. 8:14-19
when the maximum output power reporting is started, determining whether to stop a maximum output power reporting for the at least a uplink component carrier...according to a characteristic associated to the mobile device or the network. AT&T's network configures timers (periodicPHR-Timer and prohibitPHR-Timer) whose expiration, a network-defined characteristic, controls the cessation or prohibition of power headroom reporting. ¶57 col. 8:20-24

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the term "maximum output power reporting" as used in the patent is synonymous with the 3GPP standard's "Power Headroom Reporting (PHR)" procedure. The complaint's theory relies on this equivalence, while a defense could argue that the claimed reporting is a distinct, more specific process not mandated by the standard.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the standard triggers for PHR (e.g., timer expirations, path loss changes) meet the claim limitation of a "characteristic associated to the mobile device or the network." The breadth of this term and its support in the patent's specification will be central.

’048 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of handling measurement gap configuration for a network...comprising: configuring one measurement gap configuration to the mobile device with a first gap offset for at least a first component carrier...and with a second gap offset for at least a second component carrier... AT&T's network sends a measGapConfig to a mobile device (UE) that sets up measurement gaps for different frequency ranges, gapFR1 (a first gap offset) and gapFR2 (a second gap offset), which correspond to different component carriers. ¶76 col. 6:49-59
wherein each of the first and second gap offsets indicates a value for shifting a measurement gap in one of the at least a first and second component carriers... The gapOffset field within the 3GPP standard's measGapConfig defines the timing shift for the measurement gap for each respective component carrier (FR1 or FR2). ¶78 col. 6:59-63
whereby the mobile device...performs measurement by the at least a first component carrier according to the first gap offset at different time from the mobile device performs measurement by the at least a second component carrier according to the second gap offset. Because the gapOffset values for FR1 and FR2 are different, the UE performs measurements for each component carrier at different, staggered times, thereby avoiding a complete interruption of data transmission. ¶79 col. 6:63-67

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the construction of "one measurement gap configuration." A question for the court will be whether a single RRCReconfiguration message from the network containing separate setup parameters for gapFR1 and gapFR2 constitutes the claimed "one" configuration, or if it represents two distinct configurations.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory maps "first component carrier" and "second component carrier" to the 3GPP standard's Frequency Range 1 (FR1) and Frequency Range 2 (FR2). The factual analysis may examine whether this mapping is technically accurate in all accused inter-band carrier aggregation scenarios.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’333 Patent, Claim 17

  • The Term: "maximum output power reporting"
  • Context and Importance: This term's definition is critical because the entire infringement case for this patent rests on equating it with the 3GPP standard's "Power Headroom Reporting (PHR)" procedure. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the patent claims a specific type of reporting that is different from, or merely an embodiment of, the broader standard procedure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the need for the network to know the "allowed maximum output power for the UE on the configured/activated component carrier" to calculate power headroom, suggesting the terms are functionally linked (’333 Patent, col. 2:1-6).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires determining when to "start" and "stop" this specific reporting. A defendant may argue this implies a discrete, event-driven reporting session distinct from the more continuous, timer-based nature of the standard PHR procedure described in the complaint. The patent title itself, "Method of Power Reporting," could be argued to be broader than just headroom.

’048 Patent, Claim 1

  • The Term: "one measurement gap configuration"
  • Context and Importance: The claim requires a single configuration that sets up staggered gaps on multiple carriers. The infringement allegation relies on a single network message (RRCReconfiguration) being this "one configuration." The case may depend on whether this claim language requires a single, unified data structure for all offsets, or if it can read on a single message that contains multiple, separate offset parameters.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes "configuring at least a measurement gap configuration each for at least a component carrier," which could suggest that a single administrative act of configuring multiple carriers (e.g., in one message) satisfies the "one configuration" limitation when read in context.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites "configuring one measurement gap configuration... with a first gap offset... and with a second gap offset," which could be construed to require a single configuration object that contains multiple offset fields within it, potentially differing from a message that simply contains separate configuration objects for FR1 and FR2.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges active inducement across all asserted patents, based on AT&T's creation and dissemination of promotional materials, user manuals, and technical information that allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the 4G/LTE and 5G network in a manner that directly infringes (e.g., Compl. ¶59-60, 81-82, 103-104).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on three sources of knowledge. First, as a member of 3GPP, AT&T allegedly had notice of Acer's SEP declarations (e.g., Compl. ¶63, 85). Second, AT&T allegedly gained actual knowledge during the 2025 licensing negotiations where Acer provided technical presentations and claim charts mapping the patents to the standards (e.g., Compl. ¶64, 86). Third, AT&T is alleged to have knowledge from the filing and service of the complaint itself (e.g., Compl. ¶65, 87).

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

  • A central issue for all asserted patents will be one of essentiality and scope: Does the specific language of the patent claims, when properly construed, read directly onto the mandatory operations of the 3GPP standards? The case will likely involve a technical battle over whether compliance with the 4G/LTE and 5G standards necessarily results in infringement of every limitation of the asserted claims, or if non-infringing alternatives exist within the standard.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim construction: Can terms such as "maximum output power reporting" (’333 Patent) and "one measurement gap configuration" (’048 Patent) be defined to be coextensive with the functionality described in the cited 3GPP technical specifications? The outcome of claim construction will likely determine the viability of the Plaintiff's infringement theory, which equates standard-compliance with infringement.
  • The case also presents a foundational SEP/FRAND dispute: While pleaded as a straightforward patent infringement action, the background of failed licensing negotiations over declared-essential patents raises the question of whether the dispute is primarily about infringement or about the appropriate royalty rate under Plaintiff's FRAND commitment. This underlying issue may shape the litigation strategy and potential business resolutions.