DCT

6:22-cv-01268

CommWorks Solutions LLC v. Frontier Communications Parent Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01268, W.D. Tex., 12/08/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a "regular and established place" of business in Georgetown, Texas, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s core network equipment, customer-premises Wi-Fi routers, and network management platforms infringe eight patents related to multi-layer network quality of service, traffic prioritization, and time-based wireless device provisioning.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational challenges in modern telecommunications: ensuring service quality across complex, multi-layered networks and simplifying the process for securely connecting wireless devices to a network.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the patents-in-suit and allegations of infringement via letters dated February 21, 2020, and April 17, 2020, over two years prior to filing the complaint. These allegations may form the basis for the willfulness claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-12-17 Priority Date for ’465 and RE44,904 Patents
2000-05-19 Priority Date for ’249 Patent
2003-01-13 Priority Date for ’807, ’285, ’596, and ’979 Patents
2004-09-30 Priority Date for ’664 Patent
2004-12-14 ’249 Patent Issued
2005-05-10 ’807 Patent Issued
2006-04-11 ’465 Patent Issued
2007-02-13 ’285 Patent Issued
2008-12-09 ’596 Patent Issued
2010-07-20 ’664 Patent Issued
2011-03-22 ’979 Patent Issued
2014-05-20 RE44,904 Patent Reissued
2020-02-21 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of Patents-in-Suit
2020-04-17 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement and identifies products
2022-12-08 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,832,249 - “Globally Accessible Computer Network-Based Broadband Communication System With User-Controllable Quality of Information Delivery and Flow Priority”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the public internet as being “plagued with user problems such as congestion (too many users) and latency (long pauses and delays),” making it an unreliable platform for applications requiring deterministic, high-quality service delivery (’249 Patent, col. 1:32-36). It further notes that the different functional layers of the network (e.g., physical, network, application) are typically managed in isolation, creating inefficiencies and a lack of end-to-end quality control (’249 Patent, col. 6:53-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a network control system that monitors performance across multiple layers of the Open System Interconnection (OSI) model. When the system detects a “quality of service event” (such as packet loss or high latency) at a higher layer (e.g., Layer 3, the Network Layer), it is configured to respond by changing the network’s provisioning at a lower layer (e.g., Layer 2, the Data Link Layer, or Layer 1, the Physical Layer), for instance by provisioning additional circuits to handle the traffic (’249 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-60). This creates a cross-layer feedback mechanism to dynamically manage network quality.
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to bridge the management gaps between different network layers, enabling more reliable and deterministic service quality over a best-effort public internet, a key requirement for the growth of streaming media and other demanding applications (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least claim 15, which depends from independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶42). Claim 11 was cancelled during a 2022 ex parte reexamination, but claims 12-21 were confirmed, which may raise questions about the asserted claim's final form and dependencies (’249 Patent, Reexam. Cert.). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core method.
  • The essential elements of independent method claim 1 include:
    • monitoring at least one OSI reference model layer functioning in the multi-layered network;
    • determining that a quality of service event has occurred in the multi-layered network;
    • determining that the quality of service event occurred at a layer N in the OSI reference model;
    • responding to the quality of service event in the multi-layered network by changing network provisioning at a layer less than N; and
    • signaling that the network provisioning at the layer less than N has been changed.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807 - “Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the impracticality of provisioning new wireless devices onto a secure network, particularly devices that lack a user interface for communicating identification information like a MAC address (’807 Patent, col. 3:13-18). Such processes often required a user to be "technically proficient to properly initiate and complete a provisioning process" (’807 Patent, col. 3:25-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a network access point tracks an "operation of the wireless device," such as the time it is powered on. A user then activates a provisioning mode on the access point (e.g., by pressing a button), which opens a limited "activatable time interval." The access point will only provision devices whose tracked operation (e.g., power-on) occurred within that recent time window, thus simplifying the process for the user while preventing unauthorized, long-running devices from connecting (’807 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:29-46). This method is foundational to what is now commonly known as Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS).
  • Technical Importance: This invention created a user-friendly and secure method for onboarding new wireless devices, which was a critical step in enabling the widespread adoption of wireless networking in homes and small offices (Compl. ¶18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent system claim 17 (Compl. ¶48).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 17 include:
    • A time based network access provisioning system between a wireless device and a network, comprising:
    • a network access point connected to the network, the network access point comprising logic for tracking operation of the wireless device; and
    • logic for provisioning the wireless device if the operation of the wireless device occurs within an activatable time interval.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 7,027,465 - “Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the difficulty and high processing cost of identifying high-priority data frames in a network, which conventionally required analyzing all fields and headers (’465 Patent, col. 1:53-59). The invention provides a more efficient method where a device extracts a specific "bit pattern" from a predetermined position in a data frame and compares it to a known search pattern to determine if the frame has priority, enabling low-cost devices like Wi-Fi access points to perform this function (’465 Patent, col. 2:19-23).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Accused Features: Frontier’s Wi-Fi routers (e.g., Arris NVG468MQ) that support Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM), which allegedly detects the priority of data frames by mapping an Access Category based on information in the QoS Control field of a frame (Compl. ¶¶53-54).

U.S. Patent No. 7,177,285 - “Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning”

  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the technology in the ’807 Patent, this patent further details a process for time-based wireless provisioning. It focuses on tracking an "operating parameter" of a wireless device, which comprises the "onset of a signal transmission," and initiating provisioning if that signal occurs within a specified time interval (’285 Patent, col. 4:51-60). This refines the concept of monitoring device activity for secure and simplified network access.
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Accused Features: Frontier’s Arris NVG468MQ routers supporting WPS, which allegedly monitor for a Probe Request signal from a device and initiate provisioning if that signal occurs within a 120-second time period (Compl. ¶59).

U.S. Patent No. 7,463,596 - “Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning”

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the same family as the ’807 Patent, describes a process for associating devices. The system tracks an operating parameter of a first device (such as power-on or onset of signal transmission) and automatically associates it with a second device if the parameter occurs within a defined time interval (’596 Patent, Abstract). This claims the core logic of simplified, time-windowed device pairing.
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶65).
  • Accused Features: Frontier’s Arris NVG468MQ routers using the WPS Push-Button Configuration (PBC) method, which allegedly tracks a signal initiated by a button press and automatically associates the device if it occurs within a 120-second window (Compl. ¶65).

U.S. Patent No. 7,760,664 - “Determining and Provisioning Paths in a Network”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the complexity and inefficiency of prior art network path provisioning systems, which modeled every port of every network element as a node in a graph (’664 Patent, col. 1:27-36). The invention improves on this by modeling interconnections between network elements (such as a digital cross connect) as a single "link" rather than multiple nodes, reducing processing overhead and simplifying routing decisions (’664 Patent, col. 3:32-35, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 7 (Compl. ¶71).
  • Accused Features: Frontier's use of network management platforms like Ciena Blue Planet and Juniper Contrail, which allegedly route traffic by determining interconnections (e.g., MPLS Tunnels or VXLAN) between network elements and representing those interconnections as a link (Compl. ¶¶70-71).

U.S. Patent No. 7,911,979 - “Time Based Access Provisioning System and Process”

  • Technology Synopsis: Also from the ’807 patent family, this patent claims a network access device with access control logic. The logic is configured to track an operating parameter of a first device (power-on or signal onset) and send a signal to initiate provisioning if the parameter occurs within a designated time interval (’979 Patent, Abstract). This patent focuses on the access point device itself and its internal logic for performing the time-based method.
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 19 (Compl. ¶77).
  • Accused Features: Frontier’s Arris NVG468MQ routers with WPS access points, which contain access control logic that allegedly tracks an onset of a Probe Request and sends a Probe Response to initiate provisioning if the request occurs within a 120-second window (Compl. ¶77).

U.S. Patent No. RE44,904 - “Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection”

  • Technology Synopsis: A reissue of a patent related to the ’465 Patent, this patent also describes a method for efficiently identifying priority traffic. It details detecting a priority frame based on information in the frame, extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position, comparing it to a search pattern, and then transmitting the frame in a reserved transmit period (a "Contention Free Period"), with the duration of that period adjusted based on traffic statistics (RE44,904 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 7 (Compl. ¶83).
  • Accused Features: Frontier’s Arris NVG468MQ routers with WMM support, which allegedly detect priority frames by mapping information in the QoS Control field, extract a bit pattern, compare it to a search pattern, and transmit high-priority frames during a Transmission Opportunity (TXOP) interval (Compl. ¶¶83, 31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies three main categories of accused instrumentalities:
    1. Core network equipment used by Frontier, including Ciena devices running Service Aware Operating System (SAOS) and Juniper devices running Junos OS (e.g., Ciena DN 7200, Juniper Network M40E Router) (Compl. ¶41).
    2. Customer-premises equipment (CPE) provided to Frontier customers, specifically Wi-Fi enabled routers, access points, and gateways, with the Arris NVG468MQ cited as an exemplary product (Compl. ¶¶47, 53, 59).
    3. Network management platforms, including the Ciena Blue Planet Manage, Control and Plan (MCP) platform and the Juniper Contrail platform (Compl. ¶70).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused Ciena and Juniper networking equipment allegedly performs broadband communications over multi-layered networks using protocols like Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Fast Reroute to manage traffic and respond to network failures (Compl. ¶42).
  • The accused Arris NVG468MQ router provides Wi-Fi capabilities to Frontier's internet customers and allegedly implements both Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) for simplified device connection and Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) for traffic prioritization (Compl. ¶¶48, 54).
  • The Ciena and Juniper management platforms are accused of routing network traffic between different networks by determining and representing interconnections as links (Compl. ¶71).
  • The complaint alleges that these products and services are central to the operations of Frontier, which it characterizes as one of the largest internet service providers in the United States (Compl. ¶7). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

6,832,249 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
monitoring at least one OSI reference model layer functioning in the multi-layered network The accused Ciena and Juniper devices monitor and detect failures of nodes and/or links at OSI model layer 3 (the IP layer). ¶42 col. 12:29-31
determining that a quality of service event has occurred in the multi-layered network The accused devices determine the occurrence of a quality of service event, described as a failure condition such as packet loss or latency. ¶42 col. 10:4-13
determining that the quality of service event occurred at a layer N in the OSI reference model The accused devices determine that a node/link associated with an IP address has failed in OSI model layer 3. ¶42 col. 11:57-67
responding to the quality of service event in the multi-layered network by changing network provisioning at a layer less than N The accused devices respond to the layer 3 failure by changing provisioning at OSI model layer 2, by switching the routing of packets to a pre-established backup LSP detour or tunnel. ¶¶42, 15-16 col. 12:43-52
signaling that the network provisioning at the layer less than N has been changed The accused devices send messages and/or notifications signaling that the data traffic path has changed to the backup LSP tunnel at OSI model layer 2. ¶16 col. 14:3-10
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question for claim construction may be the scope of "quality of service event." The complaint equates this with a "failure condition, such as packet loss and/or latency" (Compl. ¶42), while the defense might argue that a simple link failure detected by a protocol like MPLS is a binary operational state change, not the more nuanced performance degradation metrics (e.g., jitter, error seconds) described in the patent (’249 Patent, col. 10:7-13).
    • Technical Questions: The analysis will likely focus on whether the automated rerouting performed by MPLS Fast Reroute constitutes "changing network provisioning" as contemplated by the patent. The patent describes provisioning additional circuits or fiber (’249 Patent, col. 15:46-51), which raises the question of whether a purely logical path change within existing infrastructure meets this limitation.
    • Legal Questions: As noted, the complaint asserts claim 15, which depends on claim 11. The cancellation of claim 11 during reexamination while claim 15 was confirmed creates a potential issue regarding the claim's final scope and legal status that will require analysis of the reexamination file history.

6,891,807 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a time based network access provisioning system between a wireless device and a network, comprising: a network access point connected to the network... Frontier’s Arris NVG468MQ router acts as a network access point that supports Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) to provision wireless devices onto a WLAN. ¶48 col. 4:51-54
...the network access point comprising logic for tracking operation of the wireless device... The WPS access point logic tracks the operation of a wireless device seeking to join the network, such as by tracking requests to join. ¶48 col. 5:29-32
...and logic for provisioning the wireless device if the operation of the wireless device occurs within an activatable time interval. The WPS access point includes logic to provision a wireless device if its WPS button is pressed within 120 seconds of the WPS button press on the access point (the activatable time interval). ¶48 col. 5:39-46
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may be the construction of "tracking operation of the wireless device." The patent specification heavily emphasizes tracking the "power on" time of a device (’807 Patent, col. 5:29-32, Fig. 3). The complaint’s theory is based on the WPS protocol, which tracks a "request to join" signal initiated by a button press (Compl. ¶48). The court will have to determine if the broader term "operation" in the claim is limited by the specification's primary embodiment.
    • Technical Questions: The case may turn on whether the accused WPS functionality, an industry standard, is technically equivalent to the specific system described in the patent. Evidence will be needed to show how the accused routers technically track the "operation" and define the "activatable time interval" and whether this maps to the claim limitations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’249 Patent:

    • The Term: "changing network provisioning"
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement analysis. Plaintiff's theory relies on equating this term with the automated traffic rerouting of MPLS Fast Reroute. Defendant may argue for a narrower definition requiring the allocation of new physical or logical resources, not just changing the path traffic takes over existing ones.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims respond to a quality of service event by "changing network provisioning at a layer less than N," which is facially broad language (’249 Patent, col. 17:61-64). A logical rerouting at Layer 2 could be argued to be a change in how the network is "provisioned" for that traffic.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples such as "provisioning additional fiber optic circuits" or "provisioning additional ATM virtual circuits" (’249 Patent, col. 17:49-51, 18:4-6). This language may support an interpretation that requires adding or activating new capacity, rather than just redirecting traffic.

  • For the ’807 Patent:

    • The Term: "operation of the wireless device"
    • Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the entire family of wireless provisioning patents may depend on this term's scope. Plaintiff requires this term to be broad enough to cover the "request to join" signal in the WPS protocol, whereas Defendant may argue the patent limits it to the "power on" event.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The independent claim uses the general term "operation," without explicit limitation to "power on." The plain meaning of "operation" could encompass any action taken by the device, including transmitting a signal.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract, summary, and detailed description consistently use "power on" as the primary and often sole example of the tracked "operation" (’807 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:30-46; Figs. 3-4). An argument could be made that the specification defines the invention by this specific embodiment.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all asserted patents. The allegations are based on Frontier providing the accused products and services to its partners, customers, and end users along with "specifications, instructions, manuals, advertisements, marketing materials, and technical assistance relating to the installation, set up, use, operation, and maintenance" of the products (Compl. ¶¶43, 49, 60, 66, 72, 78).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is Frontier's alleged knowledge of the patents-in-suit and the infringing nature of its products following pre-suit notice letters sent by Plaintiff on February 21, 2020, and April 17, 2020 (Compl. ¶¶38-39, 45, 51, 56, 62, 68, 74, 80, 85).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical and legal scope: For the ’249 Patent, can the automated, logical rerouting of traffic by a standard protocol like MPLS be construed as "changing network provisioning" in response to a "quality of service event" as those terms are defined by the patent? Furthermore, the reexamination history of the asserted claim 15 will present a threshold legal question for the court.
  • A second key issue will be one of protocol mapping: For the series of wireless provisioning patents (’807, ’285, ’596, ’979), does the functionality of the industry-standard Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) protocol, as implemented in the accused routers, fall within the scope of the claims, which are described in the patents primarily through the specific embodiment of tracking a device’s "power-on" time?
  • A final central question will be one of intent and knowledge: The complaint makes specific allegations of pre-suit notice dating back more than two years before the lawsuit was filed. A key focus of discovery and trial will likely be on what Frontier knew about the patents and when, which will be dispositive for the claims of willful infringement and the potential for enhanced damages.