DCT

4:24-cv-00799

Mobility Workx LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00799, E.D. Tex., 09/02/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business in Richardson, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified "Accused Handover Products/Services" infringe two patents related to proactively allocating resources for mobile devices during wireless network handoffs.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses latency and data loss that can occur when a mobile device, such as a smartphone, moves between different wireless network access points.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417 was subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR). Public records confirm that in IPR2018-01150, the asserted dependent claims (3 and 6) were found patentable, while the independent claim from which they depend (Claim 1) was cancelled. This history presents a significant legal question regarding the enforceability of the asserted claims of this patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-07-31 Priority Date for ’508 and ’417 Patents
2010-04-13 ’508 Patent Issued
2012-07-03 ’417 Patent Issued
2018-06-01 Inter Partes Review (IPR2018-01150) filed for ’417 Patent
2023-02-15 IPR Certificate Issued for ’417 Patent
2024-09-02 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,697,508 - "System, Apparatus, and Methods for Proactive Allocation of Wireless Communication Resources," issued April 13, 2010

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: In mobile communication networks, when a device moves from the coverage area of one access point (a "foreign agent") to another, there can be significant delays ("registration delays") and data loss while the new connection is established (’508 Patent, col. 1:20-38). This is because conventional systems typically begin the handoff process only after the mobile device has already arrived in the new coverage area (’508 Patent, col. 2:29-38).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "preemptive and predictive" system using "ghost entities" to manage handoffs proactively (’508 Patent, col. 2:41-44). A "ghost-mobile node" predicts the mobile device's future location and pre-registers it with the next foreign agent before the device physically arrives. Concurrently, a "ghost-foreign agent" can advertise the upcoming foreign agent's presence to the device while it is still connected to its current agent, ensuring resources are allocated in advance (’508 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-col. 3:17).
    • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to create seamless network handoffs, particularly for devices moving at moderate or high speeds, by eliminating the latency inherent in reactive, sequential registration processes (’508 Patent, col. 2:50-54).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least claims 7 and 14 (Compl. ¶12).
    • Independent Claim 7 is a system claim directed to a "wireless node pair" comprising:
      • A mobile node for communicating with a wireless network, having a current geographical state and one or more predicted future states.
      • A "ghost mobile node" associated with the mobile node, which can announce its own presence to a foreign agent and signal that agent based on the mobile node's predicted future states.
    • Independent Claim 14 is a method claim for handling mobile devices, comprising steps of:
      • Identifying a mobile node and determining its current geographical state.
      • Predicting future geographical states based on Global Positioning System (GPS) data.
      • Identifying a foreign agent for each future state.
      • Creating a "ghost foreign agent" for each foreign agent.
      • Registering the mobile node (or its ghost) with the foreign agent while the mobile node is still in its current state.
      • Linking the mobile node with the new foreign agent when it enters the new state.

U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417 - "System, Apparatus, and Methods for Proactive Allocation of Wireless Communication Resources," issued July 3, 2012

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The '417 Patent, a continuation of the application leading to the ’508 Patent, addresses the same problem of registration delays and data loss during mobile network handoffs (’417 Patent, col. 1:21-38).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention again describes a system of "ghost entities" to proactively manage network connections (’417 Patent, Abstract). The claims focus on a "ghost-foreign agent" that advertises a future access point to a mobile device before it is in range, and a "ghost-mobile node" that handles the necessary signaling by creating "replica IP messages" on behalf of the actual mobile device to pre-allocate network resources (’417 Patent, col. 12:48-67).
    • Technical Importance: As with the parent patent, this technology aims to improve the performance and reliability of wireless communications for mobile users by making handoffs faster and more efficient (’417 Patent, col. 2:50-54).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts claims 3 and 6, which it notes remain valid and enforceable after an Inter Partes Review (Compl. ¶¶20-21).
    • Both asserted claims are dependent claims that rely on independent Claim 1, which was cancelled during the IPR proceedings (’417 Patent, IPR Certificate).
    • Dependent Claim 3 adds a limitation to the system of cancelled Claim 1, wherein the proactive signaling is "triggered at a threshold distance to one of the foreign agents" and involves allocating resources via a "tunnel."
    • Dependent Claim 6 adds a limitation to the system of cancelled Claim 1, wherein the "ghost-foreign agent populates mobile IP Advertisement messages with at least one care-of-address of neighboring foreign agents" to extend their range.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities only as "Accused Handover Products/Services" (Compl. ¶12). No specific Cisco products, software, or services are named.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any technical details about the functionality or operation of the accused Cisco products. It makes only the general allegation that Defendant "derives substantial revenue from products and/or services" that it sells in the district (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the ’508 and ’417 Patents but provides no specific factual allegations or technical comparisons in the body of the complaint. Instead, it refers to preliminary claim charts attached as Exhibits 2 and 4, which were not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶¶12, 21). Therefore, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible based on the provided document.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Legal Question (’417 Patent): A threshold issue for the ’417 Patent is whether dependent claims 3 and 6 can be enforced when independent Claim 1, from which they depend, was cancelled during Inter Partes Review. The enforceability of a dependent claim without its original independent claim is a significant legal hurdle.
    • Evidentiary Question (Both Patents): A primary point of contention will be factual and evidentiary. Plaintiff will bear the burden of demonstrating that an unspecified Cisco product or service contains elements corresponding to the patents’ "ghost-mobile node" and "ghost-foreign agent." The court's analysis will focus on whether Cisco's technology for managing network handoffs operates in the specific manner required by the claims.
    • Pleading Sufficiency: The complaint’s failure to identify any specific accused product may give rise to early challenges under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, questioning whether the allegations meet the plausibility standard established by Twombly and Iqbal.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "ghost-mobile node" (e.g., ’508 Patent, Claim 7)
    • Context and Importance: This is a patent-coined term, and its construction will be central to determining infringement. Its definition will dictate what type of software or hardware functionality in an accused product can meet this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its "ghost" or "virtual" nature is the crux of the invention's proactive approach.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional description, stating the "ghost-mobile node can be configured to register the mobile node and allocate resources for communicating with the mobile node according to a predicted future state" (’508 Patent, col. 2:58-61).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes a specific embodiment as a "virtual node" that can be a "set of software instructions running on a device that is remote from the mobile node" (’508 Patent, col. 6:20-26). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to such remote software implementations.
  • The Term: "ghost-foreign agent" (e.g., ’417 Patent, cancelled Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: As a companion neologism, the scope of this term is also critical. It defines the mechanism by which the network proactively advertises future connection points.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes its function as making a "mobile node aware of a corresponding foreign agent's presence... before the mobile node actually arrives" (’508 Patent, col. 4:3-6).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the ghost-foreign agent "acts as an extension of a foreign agent" (’508 Patent, col. 10:51-52) and transmits an advertisement "from a foreign agent currently connected with the mobile node" (’508 Patent, col. 9:20-24), suggesting a specific architectural link that could narrow its scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes boilerplate allegations of induced and contributory infringement. It alleges inducement based on Defendant "actively encourag[ing] users" to infringe with knowledge and intent (Compl. ¶¶13-14, 22). It alleges contributory infringement by stating the accused products have "no substantial non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶¶15, 23). No specific supporting facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials, are provided.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patents "Prior to, or at least through, the filing and service of this complaint" (Compl. ¶¶13, 22). This allegation lacks factual support for pre-suit knowledge and appears to primarily assert post-filing willfulness.

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

This case presents several fundamental questions that will likely define its trajectory:

  1. A central legal question is one of claim enforceability: For the ’417 Patent, can dependent claims 3 and 6 provide a basis for an infringement claim when the independent claim from which they depend was cancelled by the Patent Office during an Inter Partes Review?
  2. A core issue will be one of technical and evidentiary mapping: Can the plaintiff produce evidence to show that a specific, identified Cisco product contains the "ghost-mobile node" and "ghost-foreign agent" functionalities, as those terms are defined by the patents and construed by the court?
  3. A threshold procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint’s failure to identify any accused product with specificity meet the federal pleading standard, or will it be deemed too vague to provide Defendant with fair notice of the claims against it?