DCT

6:22-cv-01314

Dali Wireless Inc v. Corning Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01314, W.D. Tex., 01/27/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants having regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas, including facilities and personnel in Austin, Waco, and other locations, and having committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and related components, as deployed in Verizon’s LTE and 5G networks, infringe four patents related to the dynamic and remote reconfiguration of radio resources.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is Distributed Antenna Systems, which are essential for providing reliable in-building and dense-area wireless coverage and capacity for modern 4G and 5G mobile networks.
  • Key Procedural History: Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, all asserted claims of the four patents-in-suit (U.S. Patent Nos. 11,026,232; 10,334,499; 11,006,343; and 8,682,338) were cancelled in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. These cancellations, finalized in 2024, are dispositive of the claims as originally asserted in this litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-09-14 ’232 and ’338 Patent Priority Date
2011-02-07 ’499 and ’343 Patent Priority Date
2014-03-25 ’338 Patent Issue Date
2015-10-20 CommScope ION-E/ERA Platform deployment with Verizon announced
2017-11-02 Ericsson Radio Dot System deployment with Verizon announced
2019-06-25 ’499 Patent Issue Date
2021-05-11 ’343 Patent Issue Date
2021-06-01 ’232 Patent Issue Date
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, titled “Remotely Reconfigurable Distributed Antenna System and Methods,” issued on June 1, 2021 (Compl. ¶56).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency of conventional Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that have a fixed allocation of radio resources, leading to wasted capacity in areas with low user demand while other areas may be underserved during peak usage (e.g., a corporate campus during lunchtime) (’232 Patent, col. 1:44-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a central hub dynamically assigns and re-assigns subsets of radio resources to different wireless access points based on real-time demand. Specifically, if an access point becomes loaded beyond a certain threshold due to a high number of users, the system can automatically assign additional radio resources to it to meet the increased need (’232 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:40-47).
  • Technical Importance: This dynamic allocation allows network operators to use their available spectrum and hardware resources more efficiently, routing capacity to where users are physically located without requiring manual reconfiguration or over-provisioning of the entire system (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 12 (Compl. ¶69).
  • Claim 12 includes the following essential elements:
    • Receiving a plurality of radio resources from an operator hub using a Common Public Radio Interface (CPRI) protocol;
    • Assigning a first, larger subset of radio resources to a first access point and a second, smaller subset to a second access point; and
    • In response to the second access point being loaded beyond a threshold due to subscriber need, assigning additional radio resources to that second access point.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶69).

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the need for DAS architectures that are not only flexible and cost-effective but also highly reliable. A key problem is the risk of network failure due to a break in the transport media, such as an optical fiber cable, which can require costly emergency restoration (’499 Patent, col. 2:5-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a digital DAS architecture centered on a "baseband unit" (also called a Digital Access Unit or DAU) that controls multiple "remote units." The baseband unit digitizes RF signals and sends digital representations of different sets of radio resources to a remote unit at different points in time, allowing for dynamic capacity management. The system can be configured in a ring topology, which provides redundancy and self-healing capabilities in the event of a connection failure (’499 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-58).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture provides a system for managing radio resources efficiently while simultaneously improving network resilience against physical failures, a critical consideration for carrier-grade deployments.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 (Compl. ¶220).
  • Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • A baseband unit, a plurality of signal sources, and a plurality of remote units;
    • The baseband unit has interfaces to couple to the signal sources;
    • The baseband unit is configured to receive radio resources from the signal sources;
    • The baseband unit sends a digital representation of a first set of radio resources to a remote unit at a first point in time;
    • The baseband unit sends a digital representation of a second set of radio resources to the same remote unit at a second point in time, where the number of resources in the first and second sets is different; and
    • The baseband unit is configured to receive digital signals from the remote units.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶220).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,006,343

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,006,343, titled “Distributed Antenna System,” issued on May 11, 2021 (Compl. ¶62).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’343 patent describes a system for transporting wireless communications comprising a "digital access unit" that receives radio resources from multiple signal sources and distributes them to multiple remote units. The technology centers on the digital access unit’s configuration to send a different number of radio resources to a remote unit at different points in time, based on dynamic load balancing and resource management (’343 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶140).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent system claim 1 (Compl. ¶139).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Ericsson’s Radio Dot System and Corning’s Everon 6000 DAS of infringing by allegedly incorporating a digital access unit that dynamically allocates different sets of radio resources to remote units over time to manage network traffic (Compl. ¶¶158-160, 185-186).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,682,338

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,682,338, titled “Remotely Reconfigurable Distributed Antenna System and Methods,” issued on March 25, 2014 (Compl. ¶65).
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’338 patent discloses a method for routing and switching RF signals in a DAS by packetizing signals corresponding to multiple carriers. A key step of the method is reconfiguring each remote radio unit by determining its load percentage and then increasing or decreasing the number of carriers assigned to it based on that load. The system then routes the packetized signals according to the new configuration (’338 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶194).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶193).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Ericsson’s Radio Dot System of practicing the claimed method by allegedly determining the load on its remote radio units and dynamically adjusting the number of carriers assigned to them to meet demand (Compl. ¶¶207-208).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the Distributed Antenna Systems provided by CommScope (ION®-E/ERA platform), Ericsson (Radio Dot System), and Corning (Everon™ 6000 DAS), as deployed and operated by Verizon in its LTE and 5G networks (Compl. ¶¶2-10).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint describes the accused products as "all-digital in-building wireless solution[s]" that use a central unit to receive signals from carrier baseband units and distribute them digitally to remote antenna access points throughout a venue (Compl. ¶¶73, 97, 120).
    • The central functionality alleged to be infringing is the systems' software-driven ability to dynamically allocate and re-allocate capacity. The complaint cites documents suggesting these systems can assign different "signal sets" to different access points and can remap "sectors... to different coverage areas remotely" based on changing user demand (Compl. ¶¶77, 80). A marketing video for the CommScope ERA system, for instance, shows how the "system adapts to user movements for example between University classrooms" and "residences at night" (Compl. p. 19).
    • These systems are presented as key infrastructure components for delivering 4G and 5G service in venues where traditional macro cell towers cannot provide adequate coverage or capacity (Compl. ¶13).

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; The CommScope ION-E/ERA platform includes a "CPRI digital donor (CDD)" module that "receives CPRI digital signals from compatible operator baseband units (BBU)." ¶75 col. 4:47-49
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 CommScope system allows an operator to create customizable "signal sets" with different numbers of channels and assign different sets to different "UAPs" or access points. A screenshot from a user manual shows this assignment interface. (Compl. p. 17). ¶¶77-78 col. 5:6-14
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 allegedly show that the system "adapts to user movements" and that "sectors can be remapped to different coverage areas remotely where resources are needed most." A video still depicts this capability. (Compl. p. 20). ¶¶79-81 col. 6:40-47
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention may be the definition of "radio resources." The infringement theory appears to equate this term with the accused system's "channels" or "signal sets." The defense may argue that "radio resources" in the context of a CPRI protocol has a more specific technical meaning that is not met.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of the "loaded beyond a threshold" element by citing marketing materials about adapting to user movement. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused systems perform this specific function by detecting a load that crosses a "threshold" to trigger the reassignment, as opposed to employing a more general load-balancing algorithm that does not rely on a discrete threshold.

’499 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a baseband unit; The CommScope ION-E/ERA platform is alleged to include a baseband unit, which comprises a "CPRI digital donor (CDD)" module and a "central area node (CAN)" that digitizes and processes signals. ¶¶278, 280 col. 4:39-42
a plurality of signal sources, including at least a first signal source and a second signal source; The platform's CAN "combines signals from different operators," which function as the plurality of signal sources. ¶280 col. 4:63-67
a plurality of remote units, including at least a first remote unit and a second remote unit; The platform includes a range of remote access points, such as the "carrier access point (CAP)" and "universal access point (UAP)." ¶282 col. 4:42-45
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... at a second point in time... Marketing materials allegedly describe how "radio resources can be assigned to remote units when the majority of users move from one place... to a second place," such as from a university classroom to residences. A video still shows the system adapting to user movements. (Compl. p. 83). ¶289 col. 5:4-10
wherein a number of radio resources in the first set of radio resources is different from a number of radio resources in the second set of radio resources; The complaint alleges that when resources are re-allocated as described above, the number of resources sent to a given remote unit changes over time. ¶293 col. 5:58-6:2
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "baseband unit." Defendants may argue that their central hubs, which receive digital signals from a carrier’s actual Baseband Unit (BBU), are merely digital routers or transport interfaces, not "baseband units" as that term is understood in the art and defined by the patent's functions of down-conversion and digitization.
    • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires sending different numbers of resources to the same remote unit at two different points in time. The complaint's evidence primarily shows resources moving between different remote units (e.g., from a classroom UAP to a residence UAP). A factual question is whether the evidence supports the specific claim requirement of altering the resource count at a single remote unit over time.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1 (from the ’232 Patent)

  • The Term: "loaded beyond a threshold"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the triggering condition for the dynamic resource allocation step in claim 12. The definition of this phrase is critical because it determines whether a general-purpose load-balancing feature infringes, or if infringement requires a specific mechanism where a predefined load level must be crossed to initiate the reallocation. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a specific, pre-set value or can be interpreted more broadly as a dynamic condition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to define a specific numerical threshold, instead describing the reallocation as a response to "ever-changing network conditions and subscriber needs" (’232 Patent, col. 1:50-53). This may support an interpretation where the "threshold" is a dynamic condition rather than a fixed value.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the specific word "threshold" could imply a discrete, predetermined trigger point that must be exceeded. The patent mentions reconfiguring "based on traffic," which could be argued to require a measurable traffic level that meets or exceeds a set limit before reallocation occurs (’232 Patent, col. 6:40-47).

Term 2 (from the ’499 Patent)

  • The Term: "baseband unit"
  • Context and Importance: This is the foundational element of system claim 1. If the accused central hubs in the CommScope, Ericsson, and Corning systems are not "baseband units," there can be no literal infringement. The case may turn on whether this term is defined by its function within the patented system or by its conventional meaning in the broader field of cellular technology.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification refers to the "Digital Access Unit functionality 105 (hereinafter 'DAU')" as the central component and describes its functions as receiving RF signals, down-converting, digitizing, and converting them to baseband (’499 Patent, col. 4:39-42, col. 4:65-5:4). Plaintiff may argue that any component performing these functions within the system is the claimed "baseband unit," regardless of its name.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint itself acknowledges that the accused systems receive signals from "operator baseband units (BBU)" (Compl. ¶75). Defendants could argue that the "baseband unit" is a term of art referring to the carrier's BBU, and that their accused components are merely digital interface or transport devices that sit between the true BBU and the remote antennas, and thus do not perform the claimed baseband processing functions themselves.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While the primary counts are for direct infringement by Verizon's use of the systems, the complaint also includes allegations against CommScope, Ericsson, and Corning for "selling, or offering for sale" the accused systems to Verizon (Compl. ¶¶139, 167, 220, 247, 273). These allegations may support claims for indirect infringement, as they involve providing the technology that, when operated by Verizon, allegedly infringes the patents.

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

  • Dispositive Impact of IPR Cancellations: The most significant issue is extrinsic to the complaint itself: the subsequent cancellation of all asserted claims in Inter Partes Review. The central question is whether this litigation can proceed in any form. The cancellations appear to render the infringement allegations in the original complaint moot, and the case will likely turn on whether Plaintiff has any legal basis to continue, for example through surviving or amended claims not asserted here, or if the case will be dismissed.
  • Definitional Scope: Assuming the claims were valid, a core issue would be one of definitional scope: can the term "baseband unit" (’499 patent), which has a specific meaning in cellular architecture, be construed to cover the accused systems’ central digital hubs, which function as interfaces to a carrier's pre-existing baseband unit?
  • Functional Equivalence: A key evidentiary question would be one of functional equivalence: do the accused products' general load-balancing and capacity-sharing features, described in marketing materials, perform the specific, multi-step functions required by the claims, such as reallocating resources only after a load is detected to be "beyond a threshold" (’232 patent)?