DCT

2:26-cv-00026

Acer Inc v. T-Mobile USA Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00026, E.D. Tex., 01/09/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a "regular and established" physical presence in the district, including retail stores, cellular base stations, a corporate office in Richardson, and a Network Operations Center in Frisco.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 4G/LTE and 5G mobile telecommunications network and services infringe six U.S. patents that Plaintiff has declared essential to the underlying 3GPP technical standards.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to fundamental operational methods in modern wireless networks, including power control, signal measurement for handovers, dual connectivity management, traffic offloading, data retransmission efficiency, and system information broadcasting.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that the patents-in-suit are Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) which Plaintiff has committed to license on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Plaintiff alleges it engaged in good-faith licensing negotiations with Defendant throughout 2025, but that Defendant was unwilling to take a license, leading to this infringement action.

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 Issues
2016-12-20 U.S. Patent No. 9,526,048 Issues
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 Issues
2019-03-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,237,791 Issues
2021-06-22 U.S. Patent No. 11,044,053 Issues
2022-02-15 U.S. Patent No. 11,252,641 Issues
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 networks (such as LTE-A), a mobile device must report its "Power Headroom" (the difference between its maximum and current transmission power) to the network to allow for efficient scheduling of radio resources (’333 Patent, col. 1:31-38). The patent addresses the challenge of managing this reporting efficiently in complex scenarios involving the aggregation of multiple frequency bands (carrier aggregation) or simultaneous transmission of control and data signals (’333 Patent, col. 1:50-2:33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where the network first configures uplink carriers for a mobile device and then uses specific device or network "characteristics" to determine when to start and stop the device's reporting of its maximum output power (’333 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:35-56). This avoids continuous, unnecessary reporting while ensuring the network has timely power information when needed.
  • Technical Importance: This dynamic control over power reporting enables more efficient allocation of network resources and better overall performance in 4G/LTE-A networks (Compl. ¶46).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 17 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Essential elements of claim 17 include:
    • 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 an uplink component carrier.
    • Determining whether to start maximum output power reporting for the carrier according to a characteristic associated with the mobile device or the network.
    • When reporting is started, determining whether to stop it according to a characteristic associated with the mobile device or the network.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: When a mobile device uses multiple component carriers (carrier aggregation), it must periodically pause communications to measure the signal quality of other nearby channels to facilitate seamless handovers. These pauses, called "measurement gaps," can disrupt data transmission and reduce throughput if not managed properly across all active carriers (’048 Patent, col. 1:32-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for configuring a single measurement gap scheme that uses different, staggered time offsets for different component carriers (’048 Patent, Abstract). By staggering the measurement gaps, the mobile device avoids having to pause data transmission on all carriers simultaneously, thereby preserving data throughput while still performing necessary mobility measurements (’048 Patent, col. 2:14-25).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables reliable mobility decisions in carrier aggregation networks without significantly degrading the user's data connection speed and efficiency (Compl. ¶66).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶70).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • 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 mobile device with a first gap offset for a first component carrier and a second gap offset for a second component carrier.
    • Each gap offset indicates a value for shifting a measurement gap in time.
    • The mobile device performs measurement on the first carrier at a different time than it performs measurement on the second carrier, according to their respective gap offsets.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses radio bearer establishment in "dual connectivity" scenarios, where a mobile device is served by two base stations simultaneously (Compl. ¶88). The invention provides a method for the primary base station to coordinate with a secondary base station, using request and response messages, to efficiently establish or release radio bearers (data pathways) on the secondary station, thereby improving resource control and data throughput (’097 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶89). A signaling diagram from the 3GPP standard, which the complaint alleges practices the invention, illustrates the message flow between the UE and two base stations (MeNB and SeNB) to modify the connection (Compl. ¶94).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶92).

Accused Features

T-Mobile's implementation of the 3GPP Release 14 (and later) "SeNB Modification procedure," which is used to manage radio bearers in a dual connectivity environment (Compl. ¶¶93-95).

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

Technology Synopsis

The patent relates to methods for keeping a mobile device's network selection and traffic routing policies (e.g., for Wi-Fi offloading) up to date (Compl. ¶110). When a device moves to a new radio access node, its existing policies may become outdated. The invention provides a method for updating this information using Radio Access Network (RAN) assistance information transmitted during network procedures such as a handover or an initial attach procedure, ensuring more efficient network selection and routing decisions (’791 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶111).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶114).

Accused Features

T-Mobile's network operations compliant with 3GPP Release 14 (and later) standards, specifically the use of an RRCConnectionReconfiguration message containing wlan-OffloadInfo during an attach procedure to update a device's network information (Compl. ¶¶115-116).

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

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses inefficiencies in data retransmission. Previously, if even a small part of a large data "transport block" was received with errors, the entire block had to be re-sent (’053 Patent, col. 1:53-65). This invention describes a method for grouping smaller "code blocks" into Code Block Groups (CBGs), which allows the network to retransmit only the specific group that failed, improving HARQ process efficiency (Compl. ¶132). The asserted claim involves the network transmitting a maximum limit of CBGs and a CBG field to manage the operation.

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 22 (Compl. ¶135).

Accused Features

T-Mobile's implementation of 3GPP Release 15 (and later) standards for CBG-based communication, which involves transmitting higher-layer parameters (e.g., maxCodeBlockGroupsPerTransportBlock) and using a "CBG transmission information" (CBGTI) field in the Downlink Control Information (DCI) to manage retransmissions (Compl. ¶¶138-141).

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

Technology Synopsis

The patent relates to the transmission and acquisition of system information (SI) in 5G networks. It addresses the problem of a mobile device consuming excess power and time trying to determine if a cell is usable ("campable") and how to acquire all necessary SI (’641 Patent, col. 1:52-61). The solution is a method where the network broadcasts "essential minimum SI" that includes scheduling and availability information for the "non-essential minimum SI," allowing the device to more efficiently determine campability and acquire further system details (Compl. ¶155).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶158).

Accused Features

T-Mobile's 5G network operation compliant with 3GPP Release 15 (and later), specifically the broadcasting of a Master Information Block (MIB) that contains scheduling information for the System Information Block 1 (SIB1), which constitutes the non-essential minimum SI (Compl. ¶¶160-163).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Instrumentalities are T-Mobile's mobile network infrastructure, including its cellular base stations, and the telecommunication and data services provided over that network (Compl. ¶36).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that T-Mobile operates a "market-leading 4G/LTE and 5G mobile network" that provides services across the United States in accordance with 3GPP technical standards, including Releases 8 through 15 (Compl. ¶¶36, 38). Plaintiff supports these allegations by referencing T-Mobile's public marketing, which claims it operates "America's Best Network" with the "largest, fastest 5G network" and 4G LTE coverage for 99% of Americans (Compl. ¶¶38-39). The complaint provides a screenshot of a T-Mobile coverage map, which alleges to show extensive 4G/LTE and 5G network coverage throughout the United States, including within the judicial district (Compl. ¶41).

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 in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: configuring a plurality of uplink component carriers and/or parallel...transmission to a mobile device... T-Mobile's base stations use Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling to configure uplink component carriers and PUCCH/PUSCH transmissions for mobile devices. ¶51 col. 6:35-39
providing information related to a maximum output power configuration for at least a uplink component carrier; The network provides maximum output power information for serving cells to the mobile device through the P-Max information element. ¶52 col. 6:39-42
determining whether to start a maximum output power reporting for the at least a uplink component carrier in the mobile device according to a characteristic associated to the mobile device or the network; The network sets triggers, such as the expiration of a prohibitPHR-Timer or a significant change in path loss (dl-PathlossChange), to start power headroom reporting. ¶53 col. 6:42-49
when the maximum output power reporting is started, determining whether to stop a maximum output power reporting...according to a characteristic associated to the mobile device or the network. The network configures timers, such as periodicPHR-Timer, which control the reporting periods. Reporting implicitly stops or is not triggered again until the next event. ¶54 col. 6:52-56

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The core of the infringement theory rests on mapping 3GPP standard procedures to the claim language. A potential point of contention may be whether the standard's event-based triggers (e.g., timer expirations, path loss changes) qualify as a "characteristic associated to the mobile device or the network" as recited in the claim. The defense may argue this claim term requires an intrinsic device property rather than a network-configured, event-driven parameter.
  • Technical Questions: A key question for the court will be whether the 3GPP standard's procedure for starting power headroom reporting, as depicted in the complaint's screenshot of TS 36.321 § 5.4.6, also constitutes a method for "determining whether to stop" reporting, as required by the final claim element (Compl. ¶50).

’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 a mobile device capable of receiving on a plurality of component carriers... T-Mobile's network and compatible mobile devices use carrier aggregation to operate on multiple component carriers simultaneously and handle measurement gap configurations per 3GPP standards. ¶¶71-72 col. 2:26-31
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... The network provides a measurement gap configuration (measGapConfig) that can include settings for a first frequency range (gapFR1) and a second frequency range (gapFR2), each with a gapOffset. ¶73 col. 2:38-46
wherein each of the first and second gap offsets indicates a value for shifting a measurement gap... The gapOffset value specified in the 3GPP standard defines the timing offset for the measurement gap pattern, effectively shifting its start time. ¶75 col. 2:46-49
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. By configuring different gapOffset values for different component carriers (e.g., in FR1 vs. FR2), the mobile device is caused to perform measurements for each carrier at different, non-overlapping times. ¶76 col. 2:50-57

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The claim recites "one measurement gap configuration" with first and second offsets. The complaint's infringement theory relies on the 3GPP standard's distinct configurations for gapFR1 and gapFR2. A central question will be whether providing these two separate configurations for different frequency ranges constitutes "one" configuration as claimed, or two separate configurations falling outside the claim's scope.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that T-Mobile's network actually configures devices with distinct gapOffset values for both FR1 and FR2 carriers simultaneously in a manner that causes staggered measurements, as opposed to configuring only one type of gap at a time?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’333 Patent

  • The Term: "characteristic associated to the mobile device or the network"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the start/stop limitations of claim 17. Its construction will determine whether the 3GPP standard's reliance on network-configured timers and path-loss thresholds falls within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint maps it to operational parameters, whereas the patent specification also discusses more intrinsic hardware properties.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states, "the characteristic may be related to a specific configuration configured by the network" (’333 Patent, col. 6:49-51), which may support Plaintiff's argument that network-configured timers and thresholds are covered.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of characteristics such as "mapping information between the uplink component carrier and a corresponding power amplifier" and "uplink MIMO enabled and/or configured" (’333 Patent, col. 6:40-41, 6:66-67), which could support an argument that the term is limited to hardware or capability-related features rather than dynamic operational triggers.

For the ’048 Patent

  • The Term: "one measurement gap configuration"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement reading for claim 1 depends on whether the 3GPP measGapConfig procedure, which can set up distinct gapFR1 and gapFR2 gaps, constitutes "one" configuration. If construed to require a single, unitary data structure containing both offsets for arbitrary carriers, the infringement allegation could be challenged.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "configuring one measurement gap configuration... with a first gap offset... and with a second gap offset" could be interpreted as a single network action that results in two offsets being active, regardless of how they are specified in the standard's message structure. The patent's abstract describes the invention as a singular "method of handling measurement gap configuration."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the singular "one... configuration" could be argued to imply a single configuration entity that applies to multiple carriers via different offsets. The defense may argue that the 3GPP standard's use of separate gapFR1 and gapFR2 setups constitutes two distinct configurations, not one.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges active inducement under § 271(b). The allegations are based on T-Mobile manufacturing, supplying, and selling the Accused Instrumentalities (its network and compatible devices) while also creating and disseminating promotional materials, product manuals, and technical information that instruct and encourage customers to use the network in a manner that directly infringes the patents (Compl. ¶¶56-57, 78-79, 100-101).

Willful Infringement

For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges willful and deliberate infringement. The basis for willfulness includes allegations of: (1) pre-suit knowledge stemming from T-Mobile's membership in 3GPP, where Acer declared the patents as essential to the 4G/5G standards; (2) pre-suit knowledge from direct communications during licensing negotiations in 2025, in which Acer allegedly provided T-Mobile with evidence of use and claim charts; and (3) knowledge from the filing and service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶60-62, 64, 82-84, 86).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope versus standard implementation: For each asserted patent, can the specific terminology of the claims be construed to read on the operations of the 3GPP technical specifications as alleged? For instance, does the standard's use of separate gap types for different frequency ranges constitute the "one measurement gap configuration" required by the ’048 Patent, or does it represent a technically distinct, non-infringing approach?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of essentiality: Beyond alleging the patents are SEPs, the case will require proof that practicing the specific versions of the 4G/LTE and 5G standards implemented in T-Mobile's network necessarily infringes the asserted claims. The dispute may focus on whether non-infringing alternatives for compliance with the standards exist, which would challenge the patents' essentiality and the complaint's core infringement theory.
  • A framing issue for the litigation will be the FRAND context: While the complaint pleads direct, indirect, and willful infringement, the underlying dispute concerns the licensing of a portfolio of declared-essential patents. The proceedings will likely involve questions regarding whether Acer's license offers were FRAND and whether T-Mobile negotiated in good faith, which may influence remedies even if infringement is established.