Dali Wireless, Inc. v

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Dali Wireless, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Corning, Inc. (New York) and Corning Optical Communications LLC (North Carolina)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Folio Law Group PLLC; Law Office of Joseph M. Abraham
• Case Identification: 6:20-cv-01108, W.D. Tex., 12/04/2020
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Corning maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including offices in Austin, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Optical Network Evolution (“ONE”) Distributed Antenna System products, specifically the Mid-Power Remote Unit, infringe a patent related to a modular and remotely reconfigurable neutral host architecture for such systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), which are used to extend and improve wireless network coverage in large venues like office buildings, stadiums, and campuses.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that from 2010 to 2014, the parties engaged in a series of meetings and due diligence reviews under a non-disclosure agreement, during which Plaintiff disclosed its patented technology to Defendant for purposes including a potential acquisition. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the asserted patent was the subject of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2021-00762), which concluded with a finding that all challenged claims (1-12) were patentable. This post-grant review outcome may strengthen the patent's presumption of validity.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,826,508 - "Neutral Host Architecture for a Distributed Antenna System," issued November 21, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art Remote Radio Units (RRUs) used in Distributed Antenna Systems as being "power inefficient, costly and inflexible" (’508 Patent, col. 2:24-26). It further notes the challenge of accommodating multiple wireless operators and multiple frequency bands on a single DAS platform, a need for which prior designs were not well-suited (’508 Patent, col. 2:30-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a modular RRU architecture designed for flexibility and scalability. The system is composed of a central "RRU Access Module" that manages high-speed data from the network and multiple, distinct "RRU Band Modules" that connect to it via a backplane interface (’508 Patent, Fig. 4). Each band module is dedicated to a specific frequency band and can be remotely and independently reconfigured, allowing a single "neutral host" system to support different wireless standards, carriers, and services simultaneously (’508 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:65 - col. 12:4).
• Technical Importance: This modular, software-reconfigurable approach was designed to reduce the capital and operational expenses for network operators by enabling a single, upgradable hardware platform to replace multiple, fixed-function legacy systems (’508 Patent, col. 2:12-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • At least one remotely reconfigurable access module adapted to receive reconfiguration parameters from a remote location;
  • A plurality of band modules, each having separately reconfigurable parameters and supporting a specific frequency band; and
  • An interface providing (1) electrical and mechanical mounting for the band modules, and (2) bidirectional digital communication between the access module and each band module.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused products are part of Corning's ONE Wireless Platform, specifically the Mid-Power Remote Unit or "MRU" (Compl. ¶25).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The complaint describes the MRU as a "fiber-fed, compact and scalable multi-service solution" used to provide RF coverage for large-scale public venues (Compl. ¶29).
  • The MRU system is alleged to be remotely managed and configured via a "headend control module (HCM)," which provides "centralized, single-source local and remote management of all system elements" (Compl. ¶29).
  • Technically, the MRU is alleged to contain multiple "Power Amplifier Modules (PAMs)" that each operate on different frequency bands (e.g., LTE, PCS, AWS) and have configurable parameters, such as gain (Compl. ¶¶30-31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides visual evidence from the accused product's documentation to support its allegations. This includes a diagram from the user manual labeled "Figure 2-1 MRU Main Modules," which illustrates the modular composition of the MRU system (Compl. ¶30).

’508 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Corning's "Power Amplifier Module (PAM)" falls within the scope of the claimed term "band module." The patent’s specification describes embodiments of a "band module" that include both a radio frequency section and a "Software Defined Digital...section" containing components like an FPGA (’508 Patent, Fig. 6). The dispute may turn on whether the accused PAMs contain comparable digital processing capabilities or are merely amplifiers, and whether the claim language requires such complexity.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the existence of an "interface" providing mechanical and electrical connections on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶32). The actual physical and logical architecture of the connection between the MRU's main chassis and its PAMs will be a key factual issue for discovery. The evidence required will need to show that this connection provides not just power but also the "bidirectional digital communication" required for individual module reconfiguration.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "band module"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement case hinges on mapping the accused "Power Amplifier Modules" to this claim term. The definition of "band module" will determine whether a component primarily performing RF amplification can satisfy the limitation, or if more extensive digital processing capability is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself does not explicitly require the "band module" to contain its own FPGA or digital processing section. It only requires the module to have "separately reconfigurable parameters" and to support a frequency band, which could arguably be met by a module with configurable RF settings.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s only detailed embodiment of a "band module" shows a complex device comprising a "Software Defined Digital (SDD) section 610 and an RF section 622" (’508 Patent, col. 11:19-21; Fig. 6). A party could argue this detailed disclosure limits the scope of the term to a module with both digital and RF processing subsystems.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶25) but does not plead specific, separate facts to support induced or contributory infringement theories. The factual allegations focus on Defendant's own acts of making, using, and selling the accused MRU.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology. It details a history of business discussions, technical due diligence, and patent portfolio reviews between the parties from 2010 to 2014, long before the patent issued but related to its parent applications (Compl. ¶¶20-23). The complaint alleges that "Corning proceeded to incorporate Dali's patented technology into its own products despite such knowledge" (Compl. ¶23).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "band module," as described in the patent's detailed embodiments which include significant digital processing hardware, be construed to read on the accused "Power Amplifier Modules"? The outcome of this definitional dispute will likely determine the viability of the infringement case.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what is the precise nature of the communication between the MRU's main unit and its constituent modules? Discovery will need to establish whether the alleged "interface" provides the specific "bidirectional digital communication" for individual module reconfiguration as required by Claim 1.
• The dispute will likely be influenced by the procedural history of the patent and the parties. The patent's survival of an IPR challenge strengthens its presumption of validity, while the complaint's detailed allegations of pre-suit interactions and knowledge will be central to the claims for willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.