DCT

4:25-cv-00752

Mobility Workx LLC v. Spectrum Mobile LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00752, E.D. Tex., 07/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants allegedly committing acts of infringement and having regular and established places of business in the district, including specific retail store locations in Plano and McKinney, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Spectrum Mobile service, which facilitates mobile device handovers, infringes patents related to proactively allocating wireless communication resources to predict and manage network transitions.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses reducing latency and data loss when a mobile device moves between different wireless access points (e.g., cell towers or Wi-Fi zones), a critical function for maintaining seamless connectivity in mobile networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417 was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR). The IPR certificate, attached to the patent exhibit, confirms that asserted claims 3 and 6 survived the proceeding, while several other claims, including the independent claim from which they depend, were cancelled. This history suggests the surviving claims have withstood PTO scrutiny on certain grounds, but also raises questions about the assertion of dependent claims whose original base claim is no longer valid.

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 filed for ’417 Patent (IPR2018-01150)
2023-02-15 IPR Certificate Issued for ’417 Patent
2025-07-11 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, a moving device must first physically enter the coverage area of a new base station ("foreign agent") before initiating a handoff. This process of registration and resource allocation creates "inevitable delay" and can lead to dropped data packets, disrupting the user experience (’508 Patent, col. 2:20-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "preemptive and predictive" system using "ghost entities" to prepare for a handoff before it occurs (’508 Patent, col. 2:41-42). A "ghost-mobile node" predicts the mobile device's future location and pre-registers it with the anticipated next foreign agent. Concurrently, a "ghost-foreign agent" can advertise the availability of the next foreign agent to the mobile device while it is still connected to its current agent (’508 Patent, col. 3:59-col. 4:8). This proactive setup aims to make the handoff process seamless to the network and user.
  • Technical Importance: The approach seeks to solve the fundamental problem of handoff latency in mobile IP networks, which is particularly acute for devices moving at high speeds where the time spent in any single cell is short (’508 Patent, col. 2:50-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 14 include:
    • Identifying a mobile node linked to a wireless network, with a current geographical state and one or more predicted future geographical states.
    • Identifying at least one foreign agent for each future state.
    • Creating at least one "ghost foreign agent" for each foreign agent, which can announce the presence of the ghost foreign agent to the mobile node.
    • Registering the mobile node (or a "ghost mobile node") with the future foreign agent while the mobile node is still in its current location.
    • Linking the mobile node with the new foreign agent when it enters the new geographical state.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claim 7 (Compl. ¶18).

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 ’508 Patent, the ’417 Patent addresses the same problem of registration delays and data loss during mobile network handoffs (’417 Patent, col. 2:20-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’417 Patent similarly describes a system using "ghost-mobile" and "ghost-foreign" agents to predict a mobile node's movement and proactively allocate network resources in anticipation of a handoff. The core mechanism involves pre-registration with a future foreign agent based on a "predicted future state" of the mobile node (’417 Patent, col. 5:26-42).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a framework for reducing handoff latency, which is a persistent challenge in designing efficient and reliable mobile communication systems (’417 Patent, col. 2:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent claims 3 and 6 (Compl. ¶27).
  • These claims depend from independent claim 1, which was cancelled during an Inter Partes Review (Compl. ¶26; ’417 Patent IPR Certificate, p. 2). For infringement to be found, the accused instrumentality must meet all limitations of the cancelled base claim plus the additional limitations of the asserted dependent claim.
  • Essential elements of claim 1 (reconstructed for analysis) include:
    • A system with a mobile node, a home agent, and a foreign agent.
    • A "ghost-foreign agent" that advertises messages on behalf of a foreign agent where the foreign agent is not physically present.
    • A "ghost-mobile node" that creates replica IP messages and handles signaling to allocate resources based on a "predicted physical location" of the mobile node.
  • Claim 3 adds the limitation that the signaling is "triggered at a threshold distance to one of the foreign agents." (’417 Patent, col. 13:12-19).
  • Claim 6 adds the limitation that the ghost-foreign agent "populates mobile IP Advertisement messages with at least one care-of-address of neighboring foreign agents." (’417 Patent, col. 13:26-30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products and services are identified as the "Accused Handover Products/Services," which encompasses the mobile services offered by the Spectrum-branded entities (Compl. ¶18, ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants, through their website and retail stores, provide mobile communication services that infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶14, ¶15). The core accused functionality is the handover process that allows Spectrum Mobile customers to maintain network connectivity as they move. The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how Spectrum’s network architecture performs these handovers, instead alleging that the functionality infringes claims as set forth in unprovided exhibits (Compl. ¶18, ¶27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Accused Handover Products/Services" infringe the asserted claims of the ’508 and ’417 patents (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). However, the complaint provides no specific factual allegations in its main body to support this conclusion. Instead, it states that the basis for infringement is "set forth in the preliminary infringement claim chart[s] attached as Exhibit 2" and "Exhibit 4" (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). As these exhibits were not provided with the complaint, the specific theory of how the accused Spectrum Mobile service meets each claim limitation is not detailed in the available document. A detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is therefore not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While the complaint lacks a detailed infringement theory, any dispute involving this patent portfolio will likely require construction of the following terms, which are central to the claimed invention.

For the ’508 Patent:

  • The Term: "ghost mobile node"
  • Context and Importance: This term is a neologism central to the patent's predictive mechanism. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the Plaintiff must show that some component or process within Spectrum's network functions as a "ghost mobile node" to pre-register devices. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a distinct software module or can be read more broadly on distributed network functions that collectively achieve the same result.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes it as a "virtual repeater" and a set of "software instructions running on a device that is remote from the mobile node," which could suggest a functional, non-structural definition (’508 Patent, col. 4:60-61, col. 5:22-25).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of the ghost-mobile node performing specific actions like using a Kalman filter to predict location and creating "spoofed" UDP packets could support a narrower construction requiring specific predictive and packet-crafting capabilities (’508 Patent, col. 7:13-21, col. 9:20-22).

For the ’417 Patent:

  • The Term: "predicted physical location"
  • Context and Importance: The entire preemptive handoff system depends on acting upon a "predicted" location. The required accuracy, timing, and method of this prediction will be a key issue. The dispute may turn on whether Spectrum’s standard network load-balancing and cell-transition mechanisms, which inherently involve some anticipation of user movement, meet the specific "prediction" required by the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests the prediction can be based on general factors like "the trajectory of the mobile node or upon its speed," which could allow for a less technically complex definition (’417 Patent, col. 5:44-46).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed examples of prediction using a Kalman filter, and the claims tie the prediction to triggering specific signaling and resource allocation, suggesting it must be a discrete, calculated state rather than a general network heuristic (’417 Patent, col. 7:9-col. 8:60).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants have knowledge of the patents and "actively encourage users" to use the infringing handover services, with the intent that users perform the infringing acts (Compl. ¶19, ¶28). It also alleges contributory infringement by asserting the "Accused Handover Products/Services" have "no substantial non-infringing uses" (Compl. ¶21, ¶29).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents "Prior to, or at least through, the filing and service of this complaint" and their continued infringement despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶19, ¶20, ¶22, ¶28, ¶30).

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

  1. Evidentiary Challenge: A primary question will be evidentiary: what proof can Plaintiff offer that the Spectrum Mobile network architecture implements the specific "ghost" entities and predictive mechanisms claimed? The complaint's reliance on unprovided exhibits suggests this will be a central focus of discovery, as Plaintiff will need to show that Spectrum’s system does more than perform conventional, reactive handoffs.
  2. Definitional Scope: The case will likely hinge on the construction of the patentee's neologisms, such as "ghost-mobile node" and "ghost-foreign agent". A key issue for the court will be whether these terms can be construed to read on the functions of a modern, distributed mobile network, or if they require a specific architecture that is demonstrably different from the accused system's operation.
  3. Impact of IPR History: A significant legal question involves the assertion of the ’417 Patent's dependent claims (3 and 6) after their independent base claim was cancelled in an IPR. While this is permissible, it will require Plaintiff to prove every element of the cancelled base claim plus the additional elements of the dependent claim. The court will have to consider how this procedural history affects the strength and scope of the asserted claims.