DCT

4:25-cv-00853

Morris Routing Tech LLC v. Comcast Business Communications LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-853, E.D. Tex., 08/07/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas and have allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ networking products and services infringe seven patents related to segment-based routing for data packets.
  • Technical Context: Segment Routing is a network traffic engineering technology that directs data packets through a pre-determined path by encoding a list of "segments" in the packet header, aiming to simplify network management and improve efficiency over traditional hop-by-hop routing protocols.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the patented inventions are foundational to modern Segment Routing (SR-MPLS and SRv6) standards developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It further alleges that Defendants’ networks support the functionality specified in these standards and that Defendants participated in standards development and in the Open Networking Foundation’s “Trellis” project, which utilizes the accused technology.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-01-27 Comcast Business registered to do business in Texas
2011-11-10 Comcast Cable registered to do business in Texas
2012-12-27 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2019-08-13 U.S. Patent No. 10,382,327 issues
2019-08-20 U.S. Patent No. 10,389,625 issues
2019-08-27 U.S. Patent No. 10,397,100 issues
2019-09-03 U.S. Patent No. 10,404,582 issues
2019-09-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,419,334 issues
2020-05-12 U.S. Patent No. 10,652,133 issues
2021-05-18 U.S. Patent No. 11,012,344 issues
2025-08-07 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,652,133

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,652,133, entitled “ROUTING METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS,” issued May 12, 2020.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: Traditional IP and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks required intermediate routers to maintain extensive "per-flow state" information to direct traffic, which created scalability problems as network traffic grew (Compl. ¶¶18-19, 21). The patent’s background section also identifies network latency and the traditional approach to addressing and routing as limitations of the prior art (Compl. ¶31; ’133 patent, col. 2:7-59).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a source-routing method where the path a packet should take is encoded directly into the packet's header as a sequence of "segment identifiers" (Compl. ¶21). This allows intermediate network nodes to forward the packet based on the information it carries, rather than needing to maintain complex state information for every possible path, thereby simplifying the network control plane (Compl. ¶¶21, 25; ’133 patent, col. 18:55-20:45).
    • Technical Importance: This source-routing approach, now widely known as Segment Routing (SR), simplifies network architecture, enhances scalability, and is alleged to be a key enabling technology for 5G networks (Compl. ¶¶22, 30).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶55).
    • The complaint does not provide the text of the asserted claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,382,327

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,382,327, entitled “METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR ROUTING USING HEADERS INCLUDING A SEQUENCE OF NODE SCOPE-SPECIFIC IDENTIFIERS,” issued August 13, 2019.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that as the internet grew, traditional distinctions between names (what is sought), addresses (where it is), and routes (how to get there) created problems, including network latency (’327 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a routing method using a packet header that contains a sequence of "node scope-specific identifiers." Each identifier in the sequence is defined within the local context, or "scope," of a specific node along the path. When a node receives the packet, it reads the current identifier, which instructs that specific node where to forward the packet next. This creates a "path-based protocol address" from a series of locally meaningful instructions (’327 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:49-51).
    • Technical Importance: This technique allows for precise, pre-determined routing paths to be established without requiring complex signaling protocols between network nodes, which is a core concept of Segment Routing (Compl. ¶¶17, 21).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶63).
    • The complaint does not provide the text of the asserted claims.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,404,582: “ROUTING METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER PROGAM PRODUCTS USING AN OUTSIDE-SCOPE IDENTIFIER,” issued September 3, 2019.
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent appears to relate to routing methods where a network node uses an identifier defined in a different network region or scope ("outside-scope") to determine a packet's path.
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶71).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Comcast's networks that support functionality specified in SR RFCs (Compl. ¶¶50, 71).
  • U.S. Patent No. 10,389,625: “ROUTING METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR USING SPECIFIC IDENTIFIERS TO TRANSMIT DATA,” issued August 20, 2019.
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent appears to concern methods for transmitting data where the routing path is determined by "specific identifiers," consistent with the general principles of segment routing.
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶79).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Comcast's networks that support functionality specified in SR RFCs (Compl. ¶¶50, 79).
  • U.S. Patent No. 10,419,334: “INTERNET PROTOCOL ROUTING METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS,” issued September 17, 2019.
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent appears to be directed to general Internet Protocol routing methods that incorporate the inventor's segment-based routing concepts.
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶87).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Comcast's networks that support functionality specified in SR RFCs (Compl. ¶¶50, 87).
  • U.S. Patent No. 11,012,344: “ROUTING METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS,” issued May 18, 2021.
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent appears to be directed to general routing methods, likely building upon the segment-based routing concepts of the parent applications.
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶95).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Comcast's networks that support functionality specified in SR RFCs (Compl. ¶¶50, 95).
  • U.S. Patent No. 10,397,100: “ROUTING METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS USING A REGION SCOPED OUTSIDE-SCOPE IDENTIFER,” issued August 27, 2019.
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent appears to relate to routing methods using an identifier that is defined outside the immediate network region ("region scoped outside-scope"), similar to the '582 patent.
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶103).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Comcast's networks that support functionality specified in SR RFCs (Compl. ¶¶50, 103).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "Comcast's Networks," defined to include a wide range of offerings such as business and enterprise services, Ethernet, Broadband, 5G, SD-WAN, SDN, and LAN offerings, including those using MPLS (Compl. ¶49). The complaint alleges these networks support the functionality specified in various Segment Routing RFCs (SR RFCs) (Compl. ¶50).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Comcast has commercially deployed Trellis, an open-source networking fabric developed in part by the Open Networking Foundation (ONF), which utilizes SR-MPLS (Compl. ¶47). The complaint provides a feature list for Trellis, which explicitly includes "IPv4 & IPv6 Unicast routing with MPLS Segment-Routing" (Compl. p. 12). This feature list is presented in a slide from the Open Networking Foundation (ONF) detailing Trellis's capabilities (Compl. p. 12). The complaint further alleges that Segment Routing, particularly SRv6, is a key enabling technology for 5G networks, which Comcast provides (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement contentions for any of the Patents-in-Suit (Compl. ¶¶56, 64, 72, 80, 88, 96, 104). The infringement theory is therefore summarized in prose based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

The central infringement theory is that Comcast’s networks implement standardized Segment Routing technology as defined by IETF RFCs and ONF specifications (Compl. ¶¶48, 50). Plaintiff alleges that by implementing this functionality, Comcast's networks necessarily practice the methods claimed in the Patents-in-Suit, which are described as the "pioneering efforts" in segment-based routing (Compl. ¶17). The allegations connect Comcast’s use of SR-MPLS and SRv6 in its networks, including in its Trellis deployment, to the patented methods of encoding paths in packet headers using sequences of identifiers (Compl. ¶¶21, 47, 50).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether Comcast's implementation of SR standards necessarily infringes the specific claim limitations of the patents. Defendants may argue that their products practice the public standards, not the specific embodiments claimed in the patents, which have a 2012 priority date that may pre-date or differ from the final standardized versions of the technology. The complaint's assertion that Comcast contributed to the development of SR RFCs raises the question of what specific technology was contributed and how it relates to the patented inventions (Compl. ¶46).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint broadly accuses "Comcast's Networks" (Compl. ¶49). A key technical question will be which specific network hardware, software, and services within Comcast's vast infrastructure actually perform the steps required by the asserted claims. While the complaint points to the "Trellis" system as one example using SR-MPLS, the scope of its deployment and its precise method of operation will likely be a point of contention (Compl. ¶47).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide the text of any asserted claims, making a definitive analysis of key terms speculative. However, based on the patent titles, abstracts, and the technical descriptions in the complaint, the following term from the '327 Patent is likely to be central.

  • The Term: "node scope-specific identifier" (’327 Patent, Title).
  • Context and Importance: This term appears to be the core inventive concept of the '327 patent. Its construction will be critical for determining whether the MPLS labels or IPv6 addresses used in Comcast's standards-based SR implementation fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case appears to depend on mapping standardized identifiers to this potentially more specific patent term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification states that the invention may be embodied in a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) network (’327 Patent, col. 1:63-66). This could support an interpretation where a standard MPLS label used in SR-MPLS qualifies as a "node scope-specific identifier."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract states that each identifier is in one of a plurality of "node scope-specific identifier spaces that is specific to a corresponding one of a plurality of nodes" (’327 Patent, Abstract). Defendants may argue this requires a unique, local addressing space at each node that is distinct from the globally or regionally defined label spaces used in standardized SR.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include counts for indirect or contributory infringement. All seven counts allege direct infringement by Defendants (Compl. ¶¶55, 63, 71, 79, 87, 95, 103).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. However, in its prayer for relief, it requests a "declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" (Compl. Prayer ¶ C), which is a request for attorney's fees often associated with findings of willfulness or other inequitable conduct. The complaint does not allege that Comcast had knowledge of the patents prior to the lawsuit.

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

  • A core issue will be one of standards essentiality: Does Comcast's implementation of industry standards for Segment Routing (SR-MPLS and SRv6), which the complaint alleges Comcast helped develop, necessarily infringe the specific claims of the Patents-in-Suit, which claim priority from 2012? The case will likely test the boundary between practicing a public standard and infringing a foundational patent.
  • A key question for claim construction will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "node scope-specific identifier," as described in the context of the '327 patent, be construed to cover the standardized MPLS labels and IPv6 addresses used in Comcast's SR-enabled networks, or does the patent’s specification limit the term to a more particular, non-standard implementation?
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of proof and scale: Beyond high-level allegations against "Comcast's Networks," what specific evidence can Plaintiff produce to show that particular, widely deployed Comcast products and services perform each step of the asserted method claims?