DCT

2:26-cv-00027

Acer Inc v. Cellco Partnership

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00027, 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 place of business" in the district, including retail stores and cellular base stations, and has committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 4G/LTE and 5G wireless networks infringe six U.S. patents that Plaintiff has declared essential to the 3GPP standards governing those technologies.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to fundamental operations in modern cellular networks, including power management, network measurements for handovers, and data transmission protocols, which are critical for the performance and reliability of 4G and 5G services.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff states that the asserted patents are Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) declared to the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has made good-faith efforts to license the patents to Defendant on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms, but that Defendant has refused to negotiate in good faith, leading to the present litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-05-04 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,526,048
2010-11-08 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,737,333
2013-08-08 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,999,097
2014-03-27 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,237,791
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 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,252,641
2017-06-16 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,044,053
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 Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,737,333 - *"Method of Power Reporting and Communication Device Thereof,"* issued May 27, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In advanced wireless networks like LTE-Advanced, a mobile device must report its available transmission power ("power headroom") to the network's base station to allow for efficient scheduling of radio resources (’333 Patent, col. 1:31-38). The patent addresses the need for a clear method to determine when and how this reporting should occur, especially in complex scenarios involving multiple frequency bands ("carrier aggregation") or simultaneous data and control signal transmissions (Compl. ¶44; ’333 Patent, col. 2:9-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a network to handle power reporting by configuring a mobile device with maximum output power settings and then determining when to start and stop the reporting based on specific characteristics of the device or the network (’333 Patent, col. 2:24-33; Compl. ¶47). This allows for dynamic control over reporting, making it more efficient than a static or constant reporting mechanism.
  • Technical Importance: This dynamic approach to power headroom management allows the network to more effectively allocate resources, improving overall network performance and data speeds for users, particularly in spectrally complex environments (Compl. ¶44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 17 is asserted in the complaint (Compl. ¶47). Its essential elements 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 at least one uplink component carrier;
    • determining whether to start maximum output power reporting for the uplink component carrier in the mobile device according to a characteristic associated with the mobile device or the network; and
    • when reporting is started, determining whether to stop the 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,"* issued December 20, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Mobile devices in a cellular network must periodically pause communications to measure the signal quality of nearby cells or different frequencies, a process that occurs during "measurement gaps" (’048 Patent, col. 1:32-41). In networks using carrier aggregation (combining multiple frequency bands for higher speed), creating these gaps can disrupt data throughput if not managed efficiently (Compl. ¶65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where the network configures a single measurement gap configuration for a mobile device but applies different "gap offsets" to at least two different component carriers (’048 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶68). This staggering of offsets ensures that the device performs measurements on different carriers at different times, preventing a complete interruption of data flow (’048 Patent, col. 2:14-18).
  • Technical Importance: This method enables reliable mobility decisions like handovers without sacrificing data throughput, which is crucial for maintaining a seamless user experience in advanced wireless networks (Compl. ¶¶ 64-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 1 is asserted in the complaint (Compl. ¶68). Its essential elements include:
    • configuring one measurement gap configuration to a mobile device;
    • the configuration includes 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;
    • whereby the mobile device performs measurement on the first component carrier at a different time than it performs measurement on the second component carrier.

Multi-Patent Capsules

U.S. Patent No. 9,999,097 - *"Method of Radio Bearer Establishment in Dual Connectivity,"* issued June 12, 2018

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses methods for efficiently establishing or releasing radio bearers (logical channels for data) for a single mobile device that is simultaneously connected to two different base stations ("dual connectivity") (Compl. ¶86). The invention provides a framework for a primary base station to request and confirm the setup or release of bearers on a secondary base station (Compl. ¶¶ 87, 90).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶90).
  • Accused Features: Verizon's implementation of the 3GPP standards for SeNB (Secondary eNodeB) Modification, which allegedly involves a primary base station transmitting a request message to a secondary base station to establish or release a radio bearer and receiving a response (Compl. ¶¶ 91-96).

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,791 - *"Method of Updating Network Detection and Selection Information and Traffic Routing Information,"* issued March 19, 2019

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for efficiently updating a mobile device's network selection and traffic routing policies, particularly when moving between different types of networks (e.g., cellular and Wi-Fi) (Compl. ¶108). The invention uses Radio Access Network (RAN) assistance information to update these policies during procedures like handover or network attachment, preventing them from becoming outdated (Compl. ¶109). The complaint contains a screenshot from the 3GPP standard illustrating RAN-assisted WLAN interworking (Compl. p. 42).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 14 (Compl. ¶112).
  • Accused Features: Verizon's use of RRCConnectionReconfiguration messages during attach procedures to update a device's network detection and traffic routing information, which allegedly includes parameters of RAN assistance information as claimed (Compl. ¶¶ 113-117).

U.S. Patent No. 11,044,053 - *"Device and Method of Handling Code Block Group-Based Communication Operation,"* issued June 22, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to improving the efficiency of data retransmissions in a Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) process (’053 Patent, col. 1:16-20). The invention improves upon systems that retransmit an entire data block if any part fails by grouping smaller "code blocks" into a "code block group" (CBG), allowing for more granular retransmissions (Compl. ¶129). The network transmits a maximum limit of CBGs and a CBG field to the device to manage this process (Compl. ¶133).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 22 (Compl. ¶133).
  • Accused Features: Verizon's network infrastructure, which is alleged to perform CBG-based communication operations consistent with 3GPP standards by transmitting indications, a maximum CBG limit, and a CBG field in control information to a mobile device (Compl. ¶¶ 134-140).

U.S. Patent No. 11,252,641 - *"Method of System Information Transmission and Acquisition,"* issued February 15, 2022

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for managing the transmission of system information (SI) in a 5G network (’641 Patent, col. 1:16-20). It involves broadcasting "essential minimum SI" on a fixed channel, which includes scheduling and availability information for "non-essential minimum SI" that is broadcast on a dynamically scheduled shared channel (Compl. ¶¶ 152, 156). This allows a mobile device to efficiently determine if a cell is suitable to connect to ("camp on") and how to acquire further system information (Compl. ¶153).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶156).
  • Accused Features: Verizon's alleged broadcasting of essential minimum SI (e.g., in a Master Information Block) that includes scheduling and availability information for non-essential minimum SI (e.g., System Information Block 1), consistent with 3GPP standards (Compl. ¶¶ 157-164).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendant Verizon’s 4G/LTE and 5G mobile network infrastructure, including its cellular base stations and related telecommunications equipment (Compl. ¶35). The infringement allegations center on the operation of this network in accordance with various 3GPP standards, from Release 8 through at least Release 15 (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 40).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Verizon operates a mobile network that provides telecommunication and internet services to customers throughout the United States by communicating with mobile devices according to the 4G/LTE and 5G standards (Compl. ¶35). Plaintiff alleges Verizon publicly promotes its network as "market-leading," "America's most reliable 5G network," and an "industry-leading 4G LTE network" (Compl. ¶37). The complaint includes a screenshot of Verizon’s online coverage map, which visually represents the nationwide scope of the accused 4G/LTE and 5G network services (Compl. p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’333 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
configuring a plurality of uplink component carriers and/or parallel physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) and physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission Verizon’s base stations use radio resource control (RRC) signaling to configure uplink component carriers for carrier aggregation and to enable parallel PUCCH and PUSCH transmission, consistent with 3GPP standards (Compl. p. 14, § 7.5). ¶49 col. 2:9-16
providing information related to a maximum output power configuration for at least a uplink component carrier Verizon's base stations provide information element P-Max to the mobile device, which is used to limit the device's uplink transmission power and configure its maximum output power (Compl. p. 14, § 6.2.5). ¶50 col. 3:65-4:4
determining whether to start a maximum output power reporting...according to a characteristic associated to the mobile device or the network The network controls Power Headroom Reporting by configuring timers (periodicPHR-Timer, prohibitPHR-Timer) and signaling a path loss change threshold (dl-PathlossChange) that trigger a report (Compl. p. 15, § 5.4.6). ¶51 col. 5:2-12
when the maximum output power reporting is started, determining whether to stop...reporting...according to a characteristic associated to the mobile device or the network The network sets timers which, upon expiration, cause the maximum output power reporting to stop. For example, the expiration of the prohibitPHR-Timer is a condition that can stop a reporting event until path loss changes again (Compl. pp. 15-16, § 5.4.6). ¶52 col. 5:13-23

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether the term "characteristic associated to the mobile device or the network" can be construed to cover the specific triggers defined in the 3GPP standard, such as the expiration of pre-configured timers (periodicPHR-Timer) or a change in measured downlink pathloss (dl-PathlossChange) as alleged by the complaint.
  • Technical Questions: A key question will be whether Verizon's network, by complying with the cited 3GPP standards, necessarily performs every step of the claimed method. For example, the defense may question whether the standard's triggers for Power Headroom Reports also function as the triggers for maximum output power reporting as required by the claim.

’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 The accused network handles measurement gap configuration for mobile devices that use carrier aggregation to simultaneously receive or transmit on multiple component carriers (CCs), as defined in 3GPP standards (Compl. p. 21, § 5.4.1). ¶¶69-70 col. 1:23-28
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 measGapConfig to the mobile device that includes a first gap offset for Frequency Range 1 (gapFR1) and a second gap offset for Frequency Range 2 (gapFR2) (Compl. pp. 22-23). ¶¶71-72 col. 2:2-10
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 value gapOffset is defined in the standard as "the gap offset of the gap pattern," which shifts the timing of the measurement gap for the corresponding component carrier (Compl. p. 23, § 6.2.2). ¶73 col. 4:32-37
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. The standard specifies that when the measurement gaps for different component carriers are different (i.e., have different offsets via gapFR1 and gapFR2), the mobile device will perform measurements for each component carrier at a different time (Compl. pp. 24-25). ¶74 col. 2:14-18

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the standard's distinct configurations for different frequency ranges (gapFR1 and gapFR2) correspond to the claimed "one measurement gap configuration" with two different "gap offsets."
  • Technical Questions: The analysis will likely focus on whether the gapOffset parameter in the 3GPP standard functions identically to the "gap offset" described in the patent, specifically in causing measurements on different component carriers to occur at different times.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’333 Patent:

  • The Term: "a characteristic associated to the mobile device or the network" (Claim 17)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the conditions that trigger the start and stop of the claimed power reporting. The scope of this term is central to the infringement analysis, as the complaint maps it to timer expirations and path loss changes specified in the 3GPP standard (Compl. ¶¶ 51-52). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether these standard-based events are sufficient to meet the claim limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists numerous, non-limiting examples of such characteristics, including "estimated transmission power", "downlink and/or uplink channel quality", "number of configured and/or activated... component carriers", "timer based solution, or explicit signalling," suggesting the term is meant to be capacious (’333 Patent, col. 5:67-6:10).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly focuses on characteristics directly tied to power levels, such as when estimated power "is going to or may exceed the maximum output power value" or when a "negative power headroom value is reported" (’333 Patent, col. 6:11-20). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to such power-related conditions.

For the ’048 Patent:

  • The Term: "one measurement gap configuration" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The claim requires a single configuration that applies to multiple carriers via different offsets. The complaint alleges that the standard's measGapConfig, which contains separate setup parameters for gapFR1 and gapFR2, constitutes this "one configuration" (Compl. ¶71). The viability of the infringement theory may depend on whether these distinct standard-based setups can be considered part of a single, overarching configuration as claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "one measurement gap configuration," which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially encompassing a single message or information element from the network that contains parameters for multiple carriers.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments where "one measurement gap configuration" is applied, and then different offsets are introduced as distinct values (’048 Patent, col. 4:18-37). A defendant could argue this implies the core "configuration" is a singular entity, and that providing two separate setup routines in the standard constitutes two configurations, not one.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating that Verizon promotes its 4G/LTE and 5G networks and provides user-facing materials and instructions with the knowledge and intent that its customers' use of the network will directly infringe the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶ 54-55, 76-77, 98-99, 119-120, 142-143, 166-167). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging that Verizon's products and services are a material part of the inventions and not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶ 56, 78, 100, 121, 144, 168).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts willfulness based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. It claims Verizon knew of the patents and their infringement because (1) Acer declared the patents as essential to 3GPP, an organization of which Verizon is a member, and (2) Acer engaged in good-faith licensing negotiations with Verizon regarding its SEP portfolio, which included the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶ 58-59, 80-81, 102-103, 123-124, 146-147, 170-171). Willfulness is also alleged based on post-suit knowledge from the filing and service of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 60, 82, 104, 125, 148, 172).

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

  • A core issue will be one of standard essentiality and infringement: does compliance with the specific versions of the 3GPP 4G/LTE and 5G standards cited in the complaint necessarily require practicing the methods recited in the asserted claims? The outcome will likely depend on a detailed comparison of the claim language to the mandatory provisions of the technical specifications.
  • A second key question will be one of claim construction: can claim terms rooted in the patent's specific embodiments, such as "a characteristic associated to the...network" ('333 Patent) and "one measurement gap configuration" ('048 Patent), be construed broadly enough to read on the distinct, named parameters and procedures of the 3GPP standards (e.g., dl-PathlossChange, measGapConfig)?
  • A third determinative factor will be evidentiary: what evidence, beyond citations to the 3GPP standards themselves, can be presented to demonstrate that Verizon's network infrastructure actually operates in a manner that practices each and every element of the asserted claims?