DCT

3:25-cv-02477

Vision Sphere Labs LLC v. Draytek Corp

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-02477, N.D. Tex., 01/05/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because Defendants commit acts of infringement in the district, Defendants' U.S. master distributor (A.B.P. International, Inc.) is headquartered there, and Defendant Draytek is a foreign corporation subject to the alien-venue rule.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s networking routers, switches, and platforms equipped with Quality of Service (QoS) features infringe two patents related to adaptive, rule-based data prioritization and network traffic management.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves Quality of Service (QoS) for computer networks, a field focused on managing network traffic to ensure adequate performance for different types of data by prioritizing them, which is particularly significant in networks with limited or variable bandwidth.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 7,769,028 expired on September 5, 2022, which may limit the damages period for that patent to infringing acts that occurred prior to its expiration.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-06-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,990,860 Priority Date
2006-06-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,769,028 Priority Date
2010-08-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,769,028 Issued
2011-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,990,860 Issued
2022-09-05 U.S. Patent No. 7,769,028 Expired
2026-01-05 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,990,860 - *Method and system for rule-based sequencing for QoS*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,990,860, "Method and system for rule-based sequencing for QoS," issued August 2, 2011 (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that existing Quality of Service (QoS) systems do not scale well because they require significant state information to be maintained at every network node and are often unable to provide QoS based on the actual message content at the transport layer (’860 Patent, col. 4:36-50, 5:2-3).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this by providing a QoS system that operates at the "edge" of a network. This system analyzes network status to select an operating "mode," which in turn uses a "user defined sequencing rule" to prioritize and sequence data at the transport layer before communication (’860 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:19-22). The system is also described as metering inbound and outbound data based on link speed and proportion (’860 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach was intended to provide a more adaptive and configurable QoS solution for networks with volatile or limited bandwidth, without requiring modification of all nodes within the network (Compl. ¶¶15, 17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of at least Claim 15, which is an independent system claim (Compl. ¶38).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 15 include:
    • A network analysis component to determine network status, effective link speed, and link proportion.
    • A mode selection component to select a mode that includes a user-defined sequencing rule.
    • A data prioritization component operating at the transport layer, which includes a sequencing component to sequence data based on the selected rule.
    • A data metering component to shape inbound data and police outbound data.
    • A data communication component to communicate the data based on its priority and the determined link characteristics.
  • The complaint reserves the right to modify its infringement contentions (Compl. ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 7,769,028 - *Systems and methods for adaptive throughput management for event-driven message-based data*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,769,028, "Systems and methods for adaptive throughput management for event-driven message-based data," issued August 3, 2010 (Compl. ¶22).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies similar problems as the ’860 Patent, noting that conventional QoS approaches do not scale well, require support from every network node, and cannot differentiate between messages based on their content at the transport layer (’028 Patent, col. 4:35-49, 4:61-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is described as a method for communicating data by prioritizing it at or on top of the transport layer, analyzing the network to determine its status, selecting an operational "mode" based on that status, and then dynamically "changing rules for assigning priority" based on the selected mode. The data is then communicated at a rate metered according to the network status (’028 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aimed to provide a dynamic and unconventional solution for data prioritization that could adapt its own rules in response to changing network conditions, thereby improving performance in constrained network environments (Compl. ¶¶29, 31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of at least one claim and describes functionality that tracks independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶32, 49).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Prioritizing data at or on top of the transport layer.
    • Analyzing a network to determine a status.
    • Selecting a mode based on the network status.
    • Changing rules for assigning priority based on the selected mode.
    • Communicating the data at a transmission rate metered based on the network status.
  • The complaint incorporates by reference a preliminary claim chart exhibit (Exhibit C), though it is not attached to the filed complaint, and reserves the right to modify its allegations (Compl. ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Draytek routers, switches, and other platforms that include a “Traffic Shaping” feature (accused of infringing the ’860 Patent) and/or a “QoS Configuration” feature (accused of infringing the ’028 Patent) (Compl. ¶¶37, 49).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these are Quality of Service features designed to manage and prioritize network traffic on Defendant’s networking hardware (Compl. ¶¶37, 49). The products are marketed and sold in the United States for use in computer networks, with distribution in the North American market managed by Defendant A.B.P. International, Inc. (Compl. ¶¶8, 43).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an Exhibit C containing exemplary infringement evidence and preliminary claim charts, but this exhibit was not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶¶38, 50). Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’860 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that Defendant’s “Traffic Shaping” feature infringes at least Claim 15 of the ’860 Patent (Compl. ¶38). The infringement theory appears to be that this feature constitutes a communication system that embodies the claimed components. The complaint alleges that the accused products provide a technological solution for prioritizing data at the transport layer by sequencing it based on a user-defined rule, which aligns with the functions claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶17). The narrative suggests the accused feature performs the claimed functions of analyzing the network, selecting a mode with a sequencing rule, prioritizing and metering data based on that rule, and communicating the data accordingly (Compl. ¶18).

’028 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that Defendant’s products with “QoS Configuration” features infringe one or more claims of the ’028 Patent (Compl. ¶49). The narrative theory alleges these features implement the claimed method by prioritizing data at the transport layer, analyzing the network, selecting a mode based on network status, and dynamically changing priority rules based on that mode (Compl. ¶¶31, 32). The allegation is that these features control jitter and latency by communicating data at a transmission rate that is metered based on the determined status of the network (Compl. ¶32).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused “Traffic Shaping” and “QoS Configuration” features operate “at a transport layer” of a protocol stack, as required by the asserted claims, or if their functionality is implemented at a different layer of the networking stack.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify how the accused features technically operate. A key factual question will be whether the accused systems perform the claimed adaptive functions, such as determining a "network status" and automatically "selecting a mode" or "changing rules" in response, or if they merely provide a set of static, user-selectable QoS settings.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "selecting a mode... based upon the status of the network" (’028 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the allegation of adaptive QoS. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused products automatically change their operational "mode" in response to measured network "status," or if they simply offer manual configuration options. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine the level of automation and dynamic responsiveness required to infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides broad examples of network status, such as "BANDWIDTH CHALLENGED" or "MAXIMUM BANDWIDTH," which could support an argument that the "mode" selection can be based on simple, high-level network conditions (’028 Patent, col. 10:54-57).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes "dynamic, 'on-the-fly' reconfiguration of modes" and "commanded profile switching," which may support an interpretation requiring an automated, system-driven response to changing network conditions rather than user-initiated changes (’028 Patent, col. 7:29-31).

The Term: "user defined sequencing rule" (’860 Patent, Claim 15)

  • Context and Importance: The patent presents rule-based sequencing as an improvement over conventional QoS. The scope of what qualifies as a "sequencing rule" will be central to determining if standard QoS algorithms found in commercial routers meet this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification provides common queuing algorithms like "starvation, round robin, relative frequency, etc." as examples of a "user-configured sequencing rule," which could support a broad reading that covers standard, widely available QoS options (’860 Patent, col. 8:7-9).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The invention is framed as an "unconventional solution" providing an "improved technique" (Compl. ¶17). This framing, combined with the patent's emphasis on adaptive systems, might support an argument that the "rule" must be part of a more complex and configurable system than typical off-the-shelf routers provide (’860 Patent, col. 5:19-22).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For both patents, the complaint alleges inducement on the theory that Defendant’s customers directly infringe by using the accused products as intended (Compl. ¶¶40, 51-52). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the accused software components are a material part of the inventions, are specially made for an infringing use, and lack substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶41, 52).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint includes placeholder allegations for willfulness, stating that evidentiary support for Defendant's knowledge of the patents will likely arise during discovery (Compl. ¶¶42, 53). The complaint does not allege specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what evidence will demonstrate that the accused "Traffic Shaping" and "QoS Configuration" features perform the specific, adaptive processes required by the claims—particularly the dynamic selection of an operational "mode" based on a determined "network status"—as opposed to simply providing a static set of user-configurable options?
  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "selecting a mode based upon the status of the network" be construed to cover standard QoS profiles that a user manually selects, or does it require a system that automatically and dynamically reconfigures its own behavior in response to measured changes in network conditions?
  • A significant question for damages will be apportionment and timing: given that the ’028 patent expired before the suit was filed, how will damages be calculated for the distinct infringement periods of the two patents, and how will the value of the accused features be apportioned between the teachings of each patent?