DCT

6:22-cv-01313

Dali Wireless Inc v. Ericsson Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01313, W.D. Tex., 01/27/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because each defendant group has committed acts of infringement and maintains regular and established places of business within the district, including offices, data centers, and research facilities in cities such as Austin and Waco.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' Distributed Antenna System (DAS) products, deployed in Verizon's LTE and 5G networks, infringe four patents related to the dynamic and remote allocation of radio resources in wireless communication systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), which are critical for extending cellular coverage and dynamically managing network capacity in complex environments like large buildings, campuses, and stadiums.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation between the parties. However, subsequent to the filing of this complaint, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against all four patents-in-suit. These proceedings resulted in the cancellation of all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,026,232; 10,334,499; 11,006,343; and 8,682,338.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-09-14 Earliest Priority Date Claimed (’232, ’338 Patents)
2011-08-16 Earliest Priority Date Claimed (’499, ’343 Patents)
2014-03-25 ’338 Patent Issued
2015-10-28 Verizon announces use of CommScope ION-E platform
2017-09-12 Verizon announces use of Ericsson Radio Dot system
2019-06-25 ’499 Patent Issued
2021-05-11 ’343 Patent Issued
2021-06-01 ’232 Patent Issued
2022-01-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,026,232 - "Remotely Reconfigurable Distributed Antenna System and Methods"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,026,232, "Remotely Reconfigurable Distributed Antenna System and Methods," issued June 1, 2021. (Compl. ¶56).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency of conventional Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) where radio resources are fixed. This static allocation can lead to wasted capacity when user demand shifts dynamically within a location, such as a corporate campus during a lunch hour. (’232 Patent, col. 1:33-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for a DAS to dynamically reallocate radio resources. The system receives a pool of radio resources via a standard protocol (CPRI), assigns different amounts of these resources to various wireless access points, and critically, monitors the load on these points. When an access point becomes loaded beyond a set threshold due to user demand, the system responsively assigns additional resources to it from the pool. (’232 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:19-33).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a wireless network's capacity to follow user demand in real-time without manual intervention, improving efficiency and user experience in high-density or variable-traffic environments. (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 12. (Compl. ¶70).
  • The essential elements of Claim 12 include:
    • receiving a plurality of radio resources from an operator hub that operates using a Common Public Radio Interface (CPRI) protocol;
    • assigning a first subset of radio resources to a first access point and a smaller second subset to a second access point; and
    • in response to a change in need and the second subset being loaded beyond a threshold, assigning additional radio resources to the second access point.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶69).

U.S. Patent No. 10,334,499 - "Distributed Antenna System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,334,499, "Distributed Antenna System," issued June 25, 2019. (Compl. ¶59).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the need for DAS architectures that are not only flexible in allocating resources but are also resilient to failures, such as a break in a fiber optic cable, which can disrupt service and require costly emergency repairs. (’499 Patent, col. 1:31-2:19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system centered on a "baseband unit" (referred to as a Digital Access Unit or DAU in the specification) that interfaces with multiple signal sources (e.g., from different carriers) and multiple remote radio units. This central unit is configured to dynamically alter the number of radio resources sent to a given remote unit over time, allowing capacity to be shifted as needed. The architecture described, which includes ring configurations, inherently provides redundancy and fault tolerance. (’499 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-67).
  • Technical Importance: This system architecture enables centralized, dynamic, and fault-tolerant control over radio resources in a multi-operator, multi-band DAS environment. (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent system claim 1. (Compl. ¶221).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A baseband unit, a plurality of signal sources, and a plurality of remote units.
    • The baseband unit has interfaces to receive radio resources from the signal sources.
    • The baseband unit is configured to send a first set of radio resources to a first remote unit at a first time.
    • The baseband unit is configured to send a second, different-sized set of radio resources to the same first remote unit at a second time.
    • The baseband unit is configured to receive digital signals back from the remote units.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶220).

U.S. Patent No. 11,006,343 - "Distributed Antenna System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,006,343, "Distributed Antenna System," issued May 11, 2021. (Compl. ¶62).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a DAS architecture for flexible resource management. The claimed system comprises a "digital access unit" that receives radio resources from multiple signal sources and is configured to send different sets of these resources to remote units at different times, with the allocation based on dynamic load balancing and resource management. (’343 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent system claim 1. (Compl. ¶140).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Ericsson's Radio Dot System and Corning's Everon 6000 DAS of infringement, alleging their central baseband/digital units dynamically manage and distribute pooled radio resources to remote antennas based on network demand. (Compl. ¶¶139, 167).

U.S. Patent No. 8,682,338 - "Remotely Reconfigurable Distributed Antenna System and Methods"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,682,338, "Remotely Reconfigurable Distributed Antenna System and Methods," issued March 25, 2014. (Compl. ¶65).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for routing and reconfiguring RF signals in a DAS. The method involves determining a load percentage for each remote radio unit and then increasing or decreasing the number of carriers assigned to that unit based on the determined load, with a central digital access unit routing the signals accordingly. (’338 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 1. (Compl. ¶194).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Ericsson's Radio Dot System, alleging it performs this method by dynamically adjusting capacity for its remote units ("Dots") in response to real-time traffic demand. (Compl. ¶¶193, 208).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are three categories of DAS products deployed in Verizon's LTE and 5G networks: CommScope's ION®-E/ERA platform, Ericsson's Radio Dot System, and Corning's Everon™ 6000 DAS solutions. (Compl. ¶¶2-4).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that each accused system provides in-building cellular coverage by using a central hub to receive radio frequency signals from one or more carriers and distribute them digitally to a plurality of remote antenna units. (Compl. ¶¶73, 95, 120). A core accused functionality is the systems' ability to flexibly or dynamically allocate radio resources (such as channels or carriers) to different remote units to manage network capacity. The complaint cites a screenshot from a CommScope user manual showing an interface for assigning "Signal Sets" to different access points. (Compl. p. 17, ¶77). The products are positioned as key infrastructure components for major carriers like Verizon to deliver modern 4G and 5G services indoors. (Compl. ¶¶2-10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’232 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving a plurality of radio resources from an operator hub that operates using a Common Public Radio Interface (CPRI) protocol; CommScope's platform includes a "CPRI digital donor (CDD)" module that "receives CPRI digital signals from compatible operator baseband units (BBU)." ¶75 col. 2:21-24
assigning a first subset of the plurality of radio resources to a first access point...and a second subset...to a second access point..., the first subset including more radio resources than the second subset; The platform's software allows a user to define "Signal Sets" (subsets of channels) and assign different sets to different Universal Access Points (UAPs), thereby assigning different quantities of radio resources. ¶¶76-78 col. 2:25-30
and in response to a change in need of a number of wireless subscribers coupled to the second access point and which of the second subset is loaded beyond a threshold, assigning one or more additional radio resources...to the second access point. Marketing materials for the platform allegedly state the "system adapts to user movements" and that "sectors can be remapped to different coverage areas remotely" where resources are needed, which the complaint alleges meets this limitation. ¶¶79-81 col. 2:30-33
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's support for the "loaded beyond a threshold" limitation relies on marketing materials describing a general capability to "adapt" to user movement and "remap" sectors. (Compl. p. 19, ¶79; p. 20, ¶81). This raises the evidentiary question of whether the accused system actually performs the specific, conditional logic required by the claim—namely, monitoring a load, comparing it to a predefined threshold, and then reassigning resources in response—or if it merely offers a more general or manual resource allocation capability.

’499 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a baseband unit; Ericsson's Radio Dot System includes a "Baseband Unit[] (DU)." ¶225 col. 14:1
a plurality of signal sources, including at least a first signal source and a second signal source; The Radio Dot System is alleged to support multi-operator service, which involves receiving signals from multiple sources. A diagram from marketing materials shows options for both dedicated and shared basebands for multiple operators. ¶¶227, 232 col. 14:2-4
a plurality of remote units, including at least a first remote unit and a second remote unit; The system includes multiple "Radio Dots" and "Indoor Radio Unit(s) (IRU)" which serve as the remote units. ¶229 col. 14:5-6
wherein the baseband unit is configured to send a digital representation of a first set of radio resources to the first remote unit at a first point in time...[and] a second set of radio resources...at a second point in time...wherein a number of radio resources...is different... The system's Baseband Unit (DU) allegedly provides "pooled capacity" and is described as "dynamically meeting demand wherever it occurs in real time," which the complaint alleges satisfies the requirement to send different numbers of resources over time. ¶¶236-240 col. 14:15-29
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The term "baseband unit" is mapped to Ericsson's DU. A potential dispute may arise over whether the DU performs all functions required of the claimed "baseband unit" or if the claim term implies additional functionality not present in the accused component.
    • Technical Questions: The allegation that the system sends different numbers of radio resources to the same remote unit over time is supported by general statements about "pooled capacity" and "dynamically meeting demand." This raises the question of what specific evidence demonstrates that the quantity of resources allocated to a single remote unit is actively varied over time, as opposed to the system simply routing a fixed set of resources to different remote units based on demand.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’232 Patent

  • The Term: "in response to a change in need...and which of the second subset is loaded beyond a threshold"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's dynamic, automated nature. The entire infringement allegation for this element rests on this conditional, responsive action. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires an automated, software-driven process of load measurement, comparison to a threshold, and subsequent reallocation, as opposed to manual reconfiguration by a network operator.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (e.g., encompassing manual or semi-automated response): The claim language itself does not explicitly require the response to be fully automated without human intervention.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (e.g., requiring full automation): The patent's description of solving the problem of inefficient, static configurations suggests an automated solution that can react in "real time" to "ever-changing network conditions and subscriber needs." (’499 Patent, col. 1:52-54).

For the ’499 Patent

  • The Term: "baseband unit"
  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on mapping this term onto various components in the accused systems, such as Ericsson's "DU" and CommScope's "CPRI digital donor (CDD) module." (Compl. ¶¶225, 278). The definition of this term will determine if these components, which primarily manage digital radio signals over a transport network, meet the requirements of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 defines the "baseband unit" functionally by its required connections and capabilities (e.g., receiving resources from signal sources, sending digital representations to remote units). An argument could be made that any component performing these functions is a "baseband unit." (’499 Patent, Claim 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification refers to the component as a "Digital Access Unit ('DAU')" that operates "to control the packet traffic" and performs down-conversion and I/Q mapping. (’499 Patent, col. 2:25-36). A defendant could argue that an accused component must perform all these specific functions to qualify as a "baseband unit."

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint alleges that defendants CommScope, Ericsson, and Corning infringe by "selling, or offering for sale" the accused systems to Verizon. (Compl. ¶¶139, 167, 220, 247). This forms a basis for claims of induced infringement, particularly as the complaint also relies on user manuals and marketing materials that allegedly instruct customers like Verizon on how to use the infringing dynamic resource allocation features. (Compl. ¶¶77-81).

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

  • A dispositive issue, arising after the complaint was filed, is one of patent validity: All asserted claims across all four patents-in-suit have been cancelled in Inter Partes Review proceedings at the USPTO. The primary question for the case will be how the district court proceeds in light of the fact that the asserted patent rights have been invalidated by the patent office.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: Does the complaint's evidence, largely drawn from high-level marketing materials and diagrams, provide sufficient factual detail to plausibly allege that the accused systems perform the specific, conditional, and threshold-based logic required by the method claims, or does it only show a general capability for dynamic resource management?
  • A central legal question will be one of definitional scope: The viability of the infringement theories will depend on whether key claim terms like "baseband unit" and "radio resources" are construed broadly enough to read on the accused products' particular implementations, such as "CPRI digital donor modules" and configurable "signal sets."