USTA Technology LLC v. Charter Communications Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: USTA Technology, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Operating, LLC, and Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00818, E.D. Tex., 07/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have a regular and established place of business in the district and have committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ 802.11ac-compliant routers and related networking products and services infringe a patent related to dynamic spectrum management in wireless networks.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for improving the efficiency of wireless networks by dynamically sensing and adapting to local radio-frequency interference, allowing devices to operate in otherwise crowded spectrum.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissued patent, which suggests a prior examination by the USPTO after the original patent granted. The complaint alleges that the patented technology is a required part of the 802.11ac standard's VHT beamforming protocols, framing the case as one of standard-essential patent infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-10-24	’720 Patent Priority Date (Provisional 60/420,930)
2013-12-01	Publication of IEEE 802.11ac Standard (approximate date)
2019-11-05	’720 Patent Issue Date
2025-07-29	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE47,720, "Spectrum-Adaptive Networking," issued November 5, 2019.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, increasing demand for wireless services was creating a "spectrum crisis" due to shrinking bandwidth availability. Managing interference was becoming more difficult with the rise of denser, more mobile "next generation" radio emitters. While policies were proposed to allow secondary users to operate in licensed bands, these policies did not specify how to design and build networks that could do so without causing harmful interference to primary users (Compl. ¶20, ¶22; ’970 Patent, col. 1:19-34, 1:54-62).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a "receiver-centric" system for adaptive spectrum management. A receiving node in a network continuously senses the local radio environment to characterize interference. Based on this real-time analysis, it generates an "optimal waveform profile" that specifies which frequencies and power levels its neighboring nodes should use to transmit to it. This profile is sent to the transmitting nodes, which then tailor their signals to "water-fill" unused portions of the spectrum, thereby avoiding interference with legacy users while maximizing throughput (’970 Patent, col. 12:25-41, Fig. 14). This approach aims to create an "underlay" network that can coexist with existing services (’970 Patent, col. 2:7-11).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided an integrated system concept for dynamic and adaptive radio frequency assignment, promising significantly greater spectrum efficiency than existing systems (’970 Patent, col. 2:1-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶57).
• Essential elements of independent claim 19 include:
  • A method for managing interference comprising: receiving at a first node an instruction from a second node to avoid using a plurality of frequencies.
  • Filtering a transmission signal to remove power from the frequencies to be avoided and transmitting the filtered signal to the second node.
  • Separately receiving compressed first feedback from the second node and compressed second feedback from a third node.
  • Decompressing both feedbacks.
  • Generating one or more data structures based on both decompressed feedbacks.
  • Transmitting a filtered first transmission signal to the second node using a first power based on the data structures, via an 802.11-based OFDM protocol.
  • Simultaneously transmitting a filtered second transmission signal to the third node using a second power based on the data structures.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶43).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Instrumentalities" are a broad category of 802.11ac-compliant products that Defendants make, sell, or use. This includes WiFi 5, WiFi 6, and WiFi 7 routers, modem/router combos, and WiFi pods, with specific models listed (Compl. ¶43-44). The allegations also extend to the managed Wi-Fi services and nationwide network of access points that use this equipment (Compl. ¶46, ¶52).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products incorporate the "wideband channel access features of the 802.11ac standard," including the "very-high throughput ('VHT') beamforming protocols" (Compl. ¶42, ¶49).
• Plaintiff’s core technical theory is that devices supporting the 802.11ac standard "necessarily meet the claim limitations of the '720 patent" (Compl. ¶42). The functionality described is performing a method of managing interference that allegedly tracks the steps of claim 19 (Compl. ¶50).
• The complaint alleges Defendants operate a network of over 43 million Wi-Fi access points in the United States, providing managed services to customers that use the Accused Instrumentalities (Compl. ¶45, ¶53). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE47,720 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a method for managing interference in a radio communications network, comprising the steps of: receiving at a first node...an instruction transmitted from a second node...to avoid using a plurality of frequencies to transmit to the second node;	The Accused Instrumentalities, being 802.11ac compliant, perform a method wherein a first node receives an instruction from a second node to avoid using certain frequencies. This is alleged to be part of the VHT beamforming protocols.	¶50	col. 29:1-5
filtering a transmission signal to remove power from the transmission signal at each frequency in the plurality of frequencies to be avoided;	The Accused Instrumentalities filter a transmission signal to remove power at the frequencies to be avoided.	¶50	col. 29:6-9
transmitting the filtered transmission signal to the second node;	The Accused Instrumentalities transmit the filtered signal to the second node.	¶50	col. 29:10
separately from the receipt of the instruction, receiving a compressed first feedback from the second node that is based on a received power and one or more frequencies of a first signal transmitted from the first node to the second node;	The Accused Instrumentalities receive a compressed first feedback from the second node based on a prior signal's power and frequency.	¶50	col. 29:11-15
separately from the receipt of the instruction, receiving a compressed second feedback from a third node that is based on a received power and one or more frequencies of a second signal transmitted from the first node to the third node;	The Accused Instrumentalities receive a compressed second feedback from a third node based on a prior signal's power and frequency.	¶50	col. 29:16-20
generating one or more data structures based on the decompressed first feedback and the decompressed second feedback;	The Accused Instrumentalities generate data structures after decompressing the first and second feedbacks.	¶50	col. 29:24-27
wherein the filtered transmission signal is a filtered first transmission signal that is transmitted using a first frequency and an 802.11-based orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) protocol...using a first power that is based on at least one of the one or more data structures;	The Accused Instrumentalities transmit a filtered signal to the second node using the 802.11-based OFDM protocol, with power based on the generated data structures.	¶50	col. 29:28-34
and further comprising: transmitting, using a second frequency and the 802.11-based OFDM protocol, a filtered second transmission signal, simultaneously with the filtered first transmission signal, to the third node, using a second power that is based on at least one of the one or more data structures.	The Accused Instrumentalities simultaneously transmit a second filtered signal to the third node, with power also based on the generated data structures.	¶50	col. 29:35-41

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute will likely be whether the operations of the 802.11ac standard's beamforming protocols constitute the specific "instruction...to avoid using a plurality of frequencies" as claimed. The defense may argue that the standard specifies protocols for channel estimation and beamforming, which is technically distinct from an explicit instruction to avoid frequencies as taught in the patent.
• Technical Questions: The complaint's assertion that 802.11ac compliance "necessarily" implies infringement will require significant technical evidence. A key question is whether the accused products actually perform the complex, multi-node method of claim 19, which requires separately receiving and processing feedback from both a "second node" and a "third node" to generate "data structures" that then control simultaneous transmissions to both of those nodes.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "instruction...to avoid using a plurality of frequencies"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the infringement theory. Its construction will determine whether the standard communications and feedback mechanisms in 802.11ac (e.g., channel state information requests/reports) can be considered an "instruction to avoid" frequencies. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff's case appears to depend on a broad reading that equates any adaptive frequency use protocol with the claimed "instruction."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a general purpose of filtering a signal to "remove power at frequencies that should be avoided" (col. 4:11-14). This framing could support an argument that any mechanism achieving this result meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly links the instruction to a specific, generated "optimal waveform profile" (OWP), which is calculated by a receiver after measuring local interference and then transmitted to other nodes (col. 3:59-64; col. 4:15-24). This could support a narrower construction requiring the instruction to be or be part of such a calculated profile, potentially distinguishing it from standardized 802.11ac protocols.

• The Term: "generating one or more data structures based on the decompressed first feedback and the decompressed second feedback"

• Context and Importance: This step requires a specific act of creation based on inputs from two different nodes. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the accused products perform this specific data synthesis. The defense will likely scrutinize whether the accused products' internal processing constitutes "generating a data structure" from two distinct feedback sources in the manner claimed.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define "data structure" narrowly, leaving room to argue that any organized set of parameters or values derived from the feedback would qualify.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 14 of the patent depicts distinct components for this process, including a "waveform profile generator" (1435) and a "network data processor" (1490), which receive inputs and create specific outputs. A party could argue the term should be limited to the outputs of such specifically described structures, which combine information to create an "optimal waveform profile" (col. 22:1-7).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing managed Wi-Fi services, operating a nationwide network, encouraging customers to use it, and providing installation, operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting services for the accused products (Compl. ¶52-55). This alleges both the requisite acts and intent to encourage the infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly plead facts supporting pre-suit willfulness, but it does request a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and an award of attorneys' fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief, C). The filing of the complaint establishes post-suit knowledge of the patent and allegations.

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

• A core issue will be one of standard-essentiality vs. technical reality: Does compliance with the VHT beamforming protocols of the 802.11ac standard, as a matter of technical fact, compel a device to perform every step of the asserted method claim? Or, do material differences exist between the patent's receiver-centric, OWP-generating method and the operation of the 802.11ac standard?
• A second key issue will be one of claim construction: Can the plaintiff persuade the court that terms like "instruction...to avoid using" frequencies and "generating...data structures" should be construed broadly enough to read on the standardized functions of the accused products? The case's outcome may hinge on whether the claim language is interpreted as describing a general concept or a specific, novel implementation detailed in the patent.
• A central evidentiary question will be one of proof of method steps: Can the plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products perform the specific sequence of receiving and processing separate, compressed feedback from two distinct nodes ("second" and "third") to control simultaneous, power-adjusted transmissions back to those same two nodes, as explicitly required by the claim?