DCT
6:23-cv-00060
Dali Wireless Inc v. Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dali Wireless, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless, et al.; CommScope Holding Company, Inc., et al.; Ericsson Inc., et al.; and Corning Inc., et al.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Folio Law Group PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00060, W.D. Tex., 01/30/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because each defendant has committed acts of infringement within the district and maintains regular and established places of business, including facilities, employees, and sales operations in cities such as Austin and Waco.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Distributed Antenna System (DAS) products manufactured by CommScope, Ericsson, and Corning, and deployed in Verizon's LTE and 5G networks, infringe four patents related to the dynamic allocation and management of radio resources in wireless communication systems.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), which are critical for extending wireless network coverage and dynamically managing capacity in complex environments like large buildings, a key component for deploying 4G/LTE and 5G services.
- Key Procedural History: Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, all asserted claims of the four patents-in-suit were cancelled in separate inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-09-14 | Earliest Priority Date (’232, ’338 Patents) |
| 2011-02-07 | Earliest Priority Date (’499, ’343 Patents) |
| 2014-03-25 | ’338 Patent Issued |
| 2019-06-25 | ’499 Patent Issued |
| 2021-05-11 | ’343 Patent Issued |
| 2021-06-01 | ’232 Patent Issued |
| 2023-01-30 | 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,” Issued June 1, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency of conventional Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) that are "fixed" and cannot adapt to changing subscriber locations and density within a facility, leading to either wasted capacity or poor quality of service ('232 Patent, col. 1:49-2:44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that intelligently monitors network usage and dynamically reallocates radio resources between different wireless access points. When a particular access point becomes overloaded (i.e., "loaded beyond a threshold") due to a concentration of users, the system can automatically assign it additional resources from a central pool or from less-utilized access points ('232 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-53).
- Technical Importance: This technology allows network operators to use their expensive radio resources more efficiently, allocating capacity precisely where and when it is needed, thereby improving user experience and reducing the total cost of ownership for in-building wireless systems ('232 Patent, col. 1:49-2:6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims, including at least claim 12" (Compl. ¶69).
- Independent Claim 12 (Method):
- 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 subscriber need at the second access point where its subset is "loaded beyond a threshold," assigning one or more additional radio resources to that second access point.
U.S. Patent No. 10,334,499 - “Distributed Antenna System,” Issued June 25, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for flexible and fault-tolerant DAS architectures. It notes that failures in transport media, such as optical fiber, are a significant cause of network failure, and it would be advantageous to have systems with built-in redundancy and self-healing features ('499 Patent, col. 2:5-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system architecture centered on a "baseband unit" that connects to multiple signal sources (e.g., from different mobile operators) and multiple remote antenna units. This central unit is configured to dynamically manage radio resources by sending different sets of resources to the same remote unit at different points in time, allowing it to adapt to changing network conditions ('499 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-47).
- Technical Importance: This architecture provides a flexible framework for multi-operator, multi-band DAS deployments that can dynamically adapt to changing traffic demands over time, enhancing both efficiency and reliability ('499 Patent, col. 3:59-4:4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "at least claim 1" ('499 Patent, ¶220, 247, 273).
- Independent Claim 1 (System):
- A system comprising 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 and is configured to receive radio resources from at least two different signal sources;
- The baseband unit is configured to send a digital representation of a first set of radio resources to a remote unit at a first point in time;
- The baseband unit is configured to send a digital representation of a second set of radio resources to the same remote unit at a second point in time;
- The number of radio resources in the first set is different from the number in the second set; and
- The baseband unit is configured to receive digital signals back from the remote units.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,006,343 - “Distributed Antenna System,” Issued May 11, 2021
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a DAS architecture for transporting wireless communications. The system features a "digital access unit" that receives radio resources from multiple signal sources and is configured to send different sets of resources to a remote unit at different times, with the difference in resource allocation being based on "dynamic load balancing and resource management" ('343 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶139, ¶167).
- Accused Features: Ericsson's Radio Dot System and Corning's Everon 6000 DAS solutions as used in Verizon's networks (Compl. ¶139, ¶167).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,682,338 - “Remotely Reconfigurable Distributed Antenna System and Methods,” Issued March 25, 2014
- Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for routing and switching RF signals in a DAS. The method involves configuring remote radio units to handle a specific subset of carriers, and then reconfiguring them by determining a "load percentage" for each unit and dynamically increasing or decreasing the number of carriers assigned to it based on that load ('338 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶193).
- Accused Features: Ericsson's Radio Dot System as used in Verizon's networks (Compl. ¶193).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are several models of Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), including 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 describes these products as "all-digital in-building wireless solution[s]" that serve to extend and manage cellular coverage for Verizon's LTE and 5G networks inside buildings and other venues (Compl. ¶73). Functionally, they are alleged to include central hubs that receive digital baseband signals from operator equipment via protocols like CPRI and distribute them to a series of remote antenna units (Compl. ¶75, ¶97, ¶122). The complaint alleges these systems possess software-based features that allow for the dynamic assignment and reallocation of radio resources to different coverage areas in response to user demand (Compl. ¶77, ¶103, ¶125). A screenshot in the complaint depicts a graphical user interface for assigning "Signal Sets" to different Universal Access Points (UAPs) in the CommScope system (Compl. p. 17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
11,026,232 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [12A] 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 operator baseband units. | ¶75 | col. 11:45-51 |
| [12B] 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 platform allows assignment of different, customizable "Signal Sets" with varying numbers of channels to different access points (UAPs). | ¶77-78 | col. 12:4-10 |
| [12C] 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. | The CommScope system allegedly "adapts to user movements" and allows sectors to be "remapped to different coverage areas remotely" where resources "are needed most." A marketing video still shows a coverage area expanding from classrooms during the day to residences at night. | ¶79, ¶81, p. 19 | col. 12:11-17 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the accused products' general capability to "remap" sectors or adapt to "user movements" meets the specific, two-part trigger of claim element [12C]: "in response to a change in need... and which of the second subset is loaded beyond a threshold." The complaint's evidence from marketing materials may not establish that the accused systems perform this precise logical operation.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused systems' resource allocation is automated and responsive in the specific manner claimed, rather than being a feature for manual or pre-scheduled reconfiguration by a network administrator? The complaint alleges this functionality "on information and belief" but relies on high-level marketing descriptions (Compl. ¶81).
10,334,499 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [1A] a baseband unit; | The Ericsson Radio Dot System is alleged to include "Baseband Units (DU) and Indoor Radio Unit(s) (IRU)." | ¶225 | col. 3:24-27 |
| [1B] a plurality of signal sources, including at least a first signal source and a second signal source; | The Ericsson system is alleged to support "multi-operator service," allowing it to receive RF sources from multiple operators. A diagram in the complaint illustrates various multi-operator deployment options. | ¶232, p. 39 | col. 4:40-45 |
| [1F]-[1H] wherein the baseband unit is configured to send a... first set of radio resources... at a first point in time, ...a second set... at a second point in time, wherein a number of radio resources... is different... | The system's "centralized radios provide pooled capacity and design flexibility, dynamically meeting demand wherever it occurs in real time," which the complaint alleges meets this limitation. | ¶236, ¶240 | col. 2:53-3:12 |
| [1I] wherein the baseband unit is configured to receive digital signals from each of the plurality of remote units. | The complaint alleges that the Baseband Unit (DU) is configured to send digital representations to remote units and, on information and belief, is also configured to receive digital signals from them. | ¶242 | col. 3:24-31 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the term "baseband unit" as used in the patent, which describes a "Digital Access Unit" (DAU), read on the "Baseband Units (DU)" and "Indoor Radio Units (IRU)" of the accused Ericsson system? Defendants may argue for a narrower construction limited to the specific DAU architecture disclosed in the patent specification.
- Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system actually sends different numbers of radio resources to the same remote unit at different points in time as required by elements [1F]-[1H]? The complaint's allegations rely on general statements about "pooled capacity" and "dynamically meeting demand," which may not prove the specific claimed functionality (Compl. ¶236).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’232 Patent:
- The Term: "loaded beyond a threshold" (Claim 12)
- Context and Importance: This phrase is the direct trigger for the claimed reallocation of radio resources. The definition is critical, as a narrow interpretation (e.g., requiring a specific, pre-set numerical value for user count or data traffic) would be more difficult to prove than a broader interpretation (e.g., any general state of network congestion or high demand). Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's evidence refers to general "user movements" rather than a specific threshold being met.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit numerical definition for "threshold," which may support an interpretation based on its plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background focuses on solving problems of quantifiable "subscriber loading" and "high data-traffic growth rates," suggesting the "threshold" is a measurable metric rather than a qualitative state ('232 Patent, col. 1:12-25).
For the ’499 Patent:
- The Term: "baseband unit" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This is the central processing hub of the claimed system. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the defendants’ accused components, such as Ericsson's "Baseband Unit (DU)" or CommScope's "CPRI digital donor (CDD)," are functionally and structurally equivalent to the claimed "baseband unit."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines the "baseband unit" by its functions: interfacing with signal sources and remote units, receiving resources, and sending digital representations to remote units. Any component that performs these functions could fall within the claim's scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "Digital Access Unit" or "DAU" as the component performing this role ('499 Patent, col. 3:24-27). A defendant could argue this linkage implies that the term "baseband unit" should be construed as being limited to the specific DAU architecture disclosed.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that equipment manufacturers such as Ericsson, CommScope, and Corning infringe by "selling, or offering for sale" the accused systems to Verizon (e.g., Compl. ¶139, ¶167, ¶273). These allegations suggest theories of induced or contributory infringement, but the complaint does not plead specific facts to establish the requisite elements of knowledge and intent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A foundational issue for the case is its viability, given that all asserted claims of all four patents-in-suit were cancelled in inter partes review proceedings that concluded after the complaint was filed. The invalidation of the asserted claims by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board presents a fundamental, and likely dispositive, challenge to the plaintiff's action.
- A central evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused systems' general capacity management features, described in high-level marketing materials, perform the specific, conditional, and automated functions required by the patent claims (e.g., reallocating resources only after a specific "subset is loaded beyond a threshold")?
- A key legal question will turn on claim construction: can terms rooted in the patents' specific embodiments, such as "baseband unit" and "loaded beyond a threshold," be construed broadly enough to encompass the potentially different architectures and operational logic of the accused commercial systems?