Mobility Workx LLC v. Intertek USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mobility Workx, LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: Intertek USA Inc. (Louisiana)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Machat & Associates, PC; Zeisler PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-01061, E.D. Tex., 11/29/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s alleged commission of infringing acts within the district and its maintenance of regular and established places of business in Plano and Longview, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s network emulation products and services infringe a patent related to a hybrid hardware-software system for emulating mobile wireless network conditions.
• Technical Context: The technology provides a method for testing mobile devices and applications in a repeatable, lab-based environment that simulates real-world mobility by manipulating wireless signals rather than physically moving the device under test.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit. The complaint contains a potential scrivener's error in paragraph 10, referencing a "'508 Patent" where the context suggests the '330 Patent was intended.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-07-31	'330 Patent Priority Date
2007-06-12	U.S. Patent No. 7,231,330 Issues
2024-11-29	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,231,330 - "Rapid Mobility Network Emulator Method and System"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,231,330, "Rapid Mobility Network Emulator Method and System," issued June 12, 2007.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for improved tools to test mobile computing networks. It notes that software-only simulators can be slow and impractical, while conventional hardware-based "wire-line emulators" fail to account for the unique characteristics of wireless mobility and complex signal propagation models (’330 Patent, col. 1:15-2:18).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hybrid system that uses fixed hardware components to simulate the motion of a mobile device. The system comprises multiple stationary wireless access points whose signal characteristics are dynamically adjusted by a controller. By varying the signal attenuation of these access points—for example, strengthening the signal from one while weakening another—the system can emulate a mobile node moving between them without the node itself or the access points physically moving (’330 Patent, col. 2:20-33; Fig. 1). This wireless emulation is combined with a network emulator that simulates conditions on the wired portion of the network, such as latency and packet loss (’330 Patent, col. 4:1-12).
• Technical Importance: This method allows for the testing of unmodified mobile devices and applications in a controllable and repeatable real-time environment, which the patent suggests is a more efficient and realistic alternative to pure software simulation (’330 Patent, col. 3:55-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-19, which include independent system claim 1 and independent method claim 11.
• Independent Claim 1 (System) recites:
  • A plurality of fixedly-located wireless network nodes configured to variably adjust wireless communication characteristics;
  • At least one mobile node configured to wirelessly communicate with the wireless network nodes;
  • A network emulator linked to the wireless network nodes, configured to emulate attributes of a packet-based wired network (e.g., packet-delay, congestion, bandwidth limitation); and
  • A controller linked to the wireless network nodes, configured to control their wireless communication characteristics to simulate different communication conditions experienced by the mobile node in actual operation, without changing the mobile node's operating parameters.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the assertion of claims 1-19 encompasses them.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "certain products and services ('Accused Emulation Products/Services')" offered for sale, sold, or imported by the Defendant (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide any specific details regarding the technical features, functions, or operation of the Accused Emulation Products/Services. It alleges that Defendant operates a website through which it offers for sale the accused products and services (Compl. ¶4). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the products' commercial importance or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that a "preliminary infringement claim chart" is attached as Exhibit 2; however, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶11). The complaint’s narrative theory alleges that Defendant’s "Accused Emulation Products/Services" directly infringe at least claims 1-19 of the '330 Patent (Compl. ¶11). Due to the absence of the claim chart and the lack of specific factual allegations describing the operation of the accused products, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "controller"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the component responsible for orchestrating the mobility simulation by adjusting the wireless nodes. Its construction is central because it will determine whether the accused system must have a discrete hardware or software component matching this element, or if the claimed functions can be distributed across various parts of a system.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, stating the controller "can be implemented as a programmable computer system or as a standalone, dedicated controller unit" (’330 Patent, col. 5:42-44).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts the controller (120) as a distinct block, separate from the emulator (110) and the home agent (115), which may support an argument that it must be a structurally distinct component.

• The Term: "simulate, without changing operating parameters of said at least one mobile node"

• Context and Importance: This negative limitation, appearing in independent claims 1 and 11, is a core feature of the invention, distinguishing it from testbeds that may require modifying the device under test. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on what constitutes "changing operating parameters."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background criticizes simulation approaches where "each component used by a software-based network simulator... would have to be developed and implemented as an object file within the simulator library," suggesting the invention is meant to work with an unmodified, native software stack on the mobile node (’330 Patent, col. 1:35-40).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that any configuration of the mobile node for the test environment (e.g., setting a network password or IP address) constitutes "changing operating parameters," thereby narrowing the claim's scope and potentially avoiding infringement.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a judgment that Defendant has infringed "directly and indirectly" (Compl. p. 4, ¶b). However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support the elements of either induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge or specific intent.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement after Defendant gained knowledge of the '330 Patent is "deliberate, knowing, and willful" (Compl. ¶12). This allegation appears to be based on post-suit knowledge, as no facts are alleged to support pre-suit awareness of the patent.

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

• A primary issue will be evidentiary and factual development: The complaint provides no technical details about the accused products. Consequently, a threshold question for the litigation will be to identify the specific "Accused Emulation Products/Services" and establish how they technically operate, as this information is necessary to conduct any meaningful infringement analysis.
• A second core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: The case may turn on the definition of key terms such as "controller" and, critically, the negative limitation "without changing operating parameters of said at least one mobile node." The court's interpretation of these terms will directly impact the scope of the patent and the subsequent infringement determination.
• A third question will be functional and architectural: Assuming an accused product is identified, a key dispute will likely concern the architectural mapping of the accused system onto the elements of claim 1. Specifically, the court will need to determine whether the functions of the claimed "controller" and "network emulator" are performed by corresponding components in the accused system, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation and structure.