Mobility Workx LLC v. DISH Wireless LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Mobility Workx, LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: Dish Wireless, LLC d/b/a Boost Mobile (Colorado)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Machat & Associates, PC; Zeisler PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:24-cv-01064, E.D. Tex., 12/03/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains regular and established places of business within the district, including retail stores in Sherman, Denison, and Plano.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless network services, which facilitate mobile device handovers, infringe patents related to the proactive allocation of network resources to predict and streamline this process.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses latency and data loss during mobile device handoffs between different network cells or access points by predicting a user's movement and pre-allocating resources.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417 was subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR), and that the asserted claims (3 and 6) were confirmed as "valid and enforceable." The cancellation of other claims during this proceeding may focus the scope of the remaining claims.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-07-31	Priority Date for '508 and '417 Patents
2010-04-13	U.S. Patent No. 7,697,508 Issues
2012-07-03	U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417 Issues
2018-06-01	Inter Partes Review (IPR2018-01150) filed for '417 Patent
2023-02-15	IPR Certificate issues, confirming claims 3 and 6
2024-12-03	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 conventional mobile networks (like Mobile IP), when a device moves from one network area (served by a "foreign agent") to another, there are "registration delays and associated information losses" ('508 Patent, col. 2:20-22). This delay occurs because the setup of a new connection must wait for the mobile device to physically arrive in the new coverage area, which can lead to dropped data packets ('508 Patent, col. 2:26-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "preemptive and predictive solution" using virtual entities called a "ghost-mobile node" and a "ghost-foreign agent" ('508 Patent, col. 2:41-48). The ghost-mobile node can predict the future location of the actual mobile device and proactively register it with the next foreign agent before the device physically arrives ('508 Patent, col. 3:60-64). This pre-allocation of resources is intended to create a seamless handoff without the conventional delay and data loss ('508 Patent, col. 4:8-12).
• Technical Importance: The approach aims to solve a fundamental problem of latency and reliability in mobile networking, particularly for devices moving at moderate or high speeds where handoff frequency is high ('508 Patent, col. 2:49-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 14 and dependent claim 7 (which depends on independent system claim 1) (Compl. ¶13).
• Independent Claim 1 (System): The core elements are:
  • a mobile node;
  • at least one foreign agent;
  • at least one "ghost mobile node" associated with the mobile node to announce its presence;
  • a "ghost-foreign agent" to announce the presence of the foreign agent;
  • "means for registering" the ghost or mobile node with the foreign agent while the mobile node is in its current state; and
  • "means for linking" the mobile node with the foreign agent when it enters the future state.
• Independent Claim 14 (Method): The core steps are:
  • identifying a mobile node;
  • determining a geographical current state of the mobile node;
  • "predicting one or more geographical future states" of the mobile node based on GPS data;
  • identifying at least one foreign agent for each future state;
  • creating at least one "ghost foreign agent" for each foreign agent;
  • registering the mobile node with the foreign agent while it remains in its current state; and
  • linking the mobile node with the foreign agent upon entering the future 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: As a continuation of the application leading to the '508 patent, the '417 Patent addresses the same problem of registration delays and data loss during mobile handoffs ('417 Patent, col. 2:20-34).
• The Patented Solution: The '417 Patent likewise discloses the use of "ghost" entities to proactively manage network resources based on a mobile node's predicted future location, as described in the shared specification ('417 Patent, col. 2:41-54). A visual in the complaint of a Boost Mobile retail store is used to allege Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district (Compl. p. 3).
• Technical Importance: This patent builds on the same technical approach as the '508 Patent, seeking to improve mobile network performance by replacing reactive handoff procedures with a predictive, proactive system ('417 Patent, col. 2:51-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 3 and 6, which survived an Inter Partes Review that cancelled original independent claim 1 ('417 Patent IPR Certificate; Compl. ¶21). As dependent claims, they now incorporate the limitations of the cancelled claim 1.
• Claim 3 (as effectively independent): A system including a mobile node, home agent, foreign agent, "ghost-foreign agent" (that advertises a foreign agent where it is not physically present), and a "ghost-mobile node" (that creates replica IP messages and triggers signals based on a predicted location), wherein the signaling further comprises:
  • at least one of a "tunnel" and a communication network to allocate resources, with signaling "triggered at a threshold distance" to one of the foreign agents.
• Claim 6 (as effectively independent): A system with the same base elements as claim 3, wherein:
  • the "ghost-foreign agent populates mobile IP Advertisement messages" with a care-of-address of neighboring foreign agents to "extend the range" of those agents.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint broadly identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Accused Handover Products/Services" offered by Defendant (Compl. ¶¶13, 22). It does not specify any particular network architecture, software, or hardware component.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant, through its website boostmobile.com and physical stores, provides wireless products and services that necessarily perform handovers for mobile users (Compl. ¶¶9-10). The allegations imply that the underlying network infrastructure that manages these handovers is the infringing instrumentality. The complaint does not provide technical details on how the accused network operates.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references "preliminary infringement claim chart[s]" (Exhibits 2 and 4) but does not attach them (Compl. ¶¶13, 22). The infringement allegations are therefore presented in a conclusory manner without specific factual mappings.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute will be whether the abstract concepts of a "ghost mobile node" and "ghost-foreign agent" can be read onto any component or function within Defendant's real-world network infrastructure. The patents describe these as virtual, predictive entities ('508 Patent, col. 3:60-64). The court will need to determine if standard network functions for managing handovers, even if efficient, meet the specific definitions and proactive nature of these claimed "ghost" entities.
  • Technical Questions: The claims require predicting a future state based on specific data (e.g., GPS data in '508 claim 14) and proactively registering the device or advertising a future agent before the device arrives ('508 Patent, col. 9:8-15). A key question is what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that the Accused Handover Products/Services perform these specific predictive and preemptive steps, rather than merely implementing a fast reactive handoff protocol. For example, does the Boost Mobile network create "replica IP messages on behalf of a mobile node" as required by asserted claim 3 of the '417 Patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '508 Patent

• The Term: "ghost mobile node"
• Context and Importance: This term is a neologism central to the invention's proactive nature. Its construction will determine what type of software, process, or network function can be accused of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the primary engine for the claimed predictive capabilities.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes it as a "virtual repeater" and notes it can be a "set of software instructions running on a device that is remote from the mobile node" ('508 Patent, col. 4:61; col. 6:23-26), suggesting it need not be a dedicated hardware component.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the ghost-mobile node performing specific, complex functions, such as using a "Kalman filter" to "predict future locations of the mobile node" ('508 Patent, col. 7:13-21). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific type of predictive algorithm.

For the '417 Patent

• The Term: "ghost-foreign agent"
• Context and Importance: This is the complementary "ghost" entity responsible for extending the virtual reach of an upcoming foreign agent. Its definition is critical to claims 3 and 6 of the '417 Patent, which survived IPR. The infringement analysis for the '417 patent hinges entirely on whether Defendant's network contains a component that meets this definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states it "acts as an extension of a foreign agent" and can "function as passive repeaters" ('417 Patent, col. 10:51; col. 11:29-31). This could support a reading on any function that relays network information ahead of a handoff.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the ghost-foreign agent "transmits an advertisement notifying the mobile node... from a foreign agent currently connected with the mobile node" ('417 Patent, col. 9:20-25). This suggests a specific architecture where one active agent advertises on behalf of a future agent, potentially narrowing the scope to exclude other forms of handoff preparation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. It claims Defendant "actively encourage[s] users" to infringe and that the accused services "have no substantial non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶¶14, 16, 23, 24). The factual basis for these allegations is not detailed beyond the general operation of the network.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents and infringement, acquired "at least through, the filing and service of this complaint" (Compl. ¶¶14, 17, 23, 25). This primarily raises the issue of potential post-filing willfulness.

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patents' central, abstract concepts of a "ghost mobile node" and "ghost-foreign agent" be construed to cover concrete components or software functions within a modern, commercial wireless network, or are they limited to the specific predictive architectures detailed in the specification?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: assuming a viable claim construction, what specific evidence will Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that Defendant’s network performs the proactive and predictive steps required by the claims (e.g., using GPS data to predict location, pre-registering a device, or extending an agent's range via advertisements), especially given the absence of such details in the initial complaint?
3. A further question, arising from the procedural history of the '417 Patent, will be how the cancellation of its original independent claim in an IPR proceeding narrows the scope of the surviving dependent claims (3 and 6), potentially creating a more stringent standard for infringement than what might be perceived from a casual reading of the patent.