CommWorks Solutions LLC v. Marvell Technology Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CommWorks Solutions, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Marvell Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00354, W.D. Tex., Filed 08/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a business location with numerous employees in Austin, Texas, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s semiconductor chips, which support networking standards such as Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) and IEEE 802.3ah, infringe three patents related to network traffic management and Quality of Service (QoS).
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on methods for efficiently identifying and prioritizing data traffic in complex networks to ensure Quality of Service, a critical function for applications like video streaming and VoIP.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. RE44,904 is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,555,014, which is a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 7,027,465, indicating a shared specification and creating a connected prosecution history between two of the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-12-17	Priority Date for ’465 and ’904 Patents
2000-05-19	Priority Date for ’249 Patent
2001-05-18	Application Filing Date for ’249 Patent
2002-06-11	Application Filing Date for ’465 Patent
2004-12-14	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,832,249
2006-04-11	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,027,465
2014-05-20	Issue Date for U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,904
2025-08-18	Complaint Filing Date

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

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,027,465, "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection," issued April 11, 2006.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes that conventional wireless network systems (specifically under the IEEE 802.11 standard) lacked an efficient way to differentiate network traffic based on priority (Compl. ¶27). Identifying high-priority data required complex and slow analysis of high-level protocol headers, a process too resource-intensive for low-cost network hardware like Wireless LAN Access Points (APs) (’465 Patent, col. 1:53-2:4).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a lightweight method for an AP to identify priority frames at a low level (the MAC layer) without needing to understand upper-layer protocols (Compl. ¶28). It does this by extracting a specific "bit pattern" from a "predetermined position" within a data frame—a location defined by a simple offset from the start of the frame. This extracted pattern is then compared to a known "search pattern" that signifies priority traffic (’465 Patent, col. 2:24-32, col. 2:50-56).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to enable low-cost network devices to implement Quality of Service (QoS) features in a protocol-independent manner, allowing for easier updates and flexible configuration (’465 Patent, col. 2:63-66).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶30).
• Claim 1 requires a method with the following essential steps:
  • extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a frame;
  • comparing said extracted bit pattern with a search pattern;
  • identifying a received frame as a priority frame in case said extracted bit pattern matches with said search pattern;
  • wherein the predetermined position is defined by the offset of the bit pattern in the frame.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,904 - "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,904, "Method for Contention Free Traffic Detection," issued May 20, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’904 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’465 Patent: the complexity and inefficiency of identifying priority traffic in conventional wireless networks, which required deep inspection of frame headers and was ill-suited for low-cost APs (Compl. ¶41; ’904 Patent, col. 2:5-14).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is also a method for identifying priority traffic by extracting and comparing a bit pattern at a predetermined offset. However, the claims of the ’904 Patent add further steps for managing the identified priority traffic, such as forwarding it to a dedicated high-priority queue and dynamically adjusting the time allocated for sending such traffic based on statistical feedback (Compl. ¶46; ’904 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This invention builds on the detection method by adding a dynamic traffic management component, aiming to optimize network performance for priority data streams (’904 Patent, col. 3:50-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
• Claim 1 requires a method with the following essential steps:
  • extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a frame;
  • comparing the extracted bit pattern with a search pattern;
  • identifying the frame as a priority frame if the pattern matches;
  • forwarding the priority frame to a high priority queue during a special period for sending priority traffic;
  • adjusting the duration of that special period based on statistical information about sent priority frames.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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"

• Patent Identification: 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," issued December 14, 2004.
• Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges that at the time of invention, the Internet suffered from congestion and inconsistent Quality of Service due to its layered architecture (’249 Patent, col. 2:8-10; Compl. ¶53). The patented invention is a method for managing network performance by monitoring a QoS event at a higher layer (Layer N) of the Open System Interconnection (OSI) model and, in response, changing the network provisioning at a lower layer (a layer less than N) to resolve the issue (’249 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶58).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶56).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Marvell's chips with IEEE 802.3ah support of infringing the ’249 Patent (Compl. ¶49).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Marvell semiconductor chips and equipment incorporating them (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies two categories of accused functionalities:
  1. For the ’465 and ’904 patents, chips with "Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) and/or 802.11-2007+ wireless QoS functionality." These are industry standards designed to prioritize audio, video, and voice traffic on Wi-Fi networks (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 35).
  2. For the ’249 patent, chips with "IEEE 802.3ah support." This standard, also known as Ethernet in the First Mile, provides operations, administration, and maintenance (OAM) features for Ethernet networks (Compl. ¶49).
• The complaint alleges these chips are widely used in networking equipment, but does not provide specific details on their market positioning (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits A, B, and C) that are not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 44, 56). The infringement analysis is therefore based on the narrative summaries provided in the body of the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 7,027,465
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products perform a method for detecting priority of data frames that meets the limitations of claim 1. This method is alleged to include extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a frame (defined by an offset), comparing that pattern with a search pattern, and identifying the frame as a priority frame if a match occurs (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE44,904
The complaint alleges infringement of claim 1 by performing a method that includes the detection steps of the ’465 patent and adds further traffic management steps. Specifically, it alleges the Accused Products forward an identified priority frame to a high priority queue during a special period, and then adjust the duration of that special period based on statistics regarding the sent priority frames (Compl. ¶46).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the general QoS mechanisms of the WMM standard, which use predefined Access Categories, can be said to perform the specific claimed steps of "extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position" and "comparing said extracted bit pattern with a search pattern." The defense may argue that standardized packet classifiers operate differently from the specific bit-matching process described in the patents.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’904 patent, a point of contention may be whether the accused WMM-enabled products perform the claimed step of "adjusting the duration of the special period for sending priority traffic according statistic information." The analysis will question what evidence the complaint provides that the accused chips dynamically alter transmission windows based on traffic statistics, as required by the claim, versus using more static, pre-configured QoS parameters.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’465 and ’904 Patents:

• The Term: "bit pattern"

• Context and Importance: The scope of "bit pattern" is central, as it defines what the accused method must look for. A broad definition could cover any set of bits indicating priority (e.g., standard QoS flags), while a narrow definition might require a specific, non-standard sequence of bits. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation hinges on mapping this term to the standardized fields used in WMM/802.11 QoS.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not limit the pattern to a particular format, stating the method is "protocol-independent," which may support an interpretation that covers any bit-based priority indicator (’465 Patent, col. 2:63-64).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The examples in the specification describe identifying a pattern that indicates a "priority state" and defining it as a "search pattern," which could suggest a specific, pre-configured pattern rather than any generic priority field (’465 Patent, col. 4:8-10, Fig. 11).

• The Term: "predetermined position ... defined by the offset"

• Context and Importance: This term defines where the "bit pattern" is found. The infringement case requires showing that the accused products look for priority information at a location specified by a simple offset. This is critical to the patent's claimed advantage of avoiding complex header parsing.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the offset and search pattern can be included in an "information element" provided by an external program, suggesting flexibility in where the position is located, as long as it is defined by an offset (’465 Patent, col. 3:5-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description emphasizes extracting the pattern from a fixed position to avoid analyzing the frame or processing higher-level layers, which could imply the offset must be a static value relative to the start of the MAC frame, not a location found after some level of protocol parsing (’465 Patent, col. 2:46-50).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes general allegations that Defendant contributes to and induces infringement by third parties, but does not plead specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent for these claims (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 10, 18).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement or allege pre-suit knowledge of the patents. However, the prayer for relief requests that the court declare the case "exceptional" and award attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is a remedy often associated with findings of willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Compl. ¶61.d).

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

1. A core issue will be one of technical mapping: Can the standardized Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms in the accused Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) and IEEE 802.3ah products be shown to operate in the specific manner required by the patent claims? For instance, does a WMM traffic classifier perform the claimed method of "extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position defined by the offset," or does it use a fundamentally different technical process?
2. A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "bit pattern"? The case may turn on whether this term is broad enough to read on the predefined priority flags and fields within an industry standard, or if it is limited to more specific, arbitrary patterns as contemplated by the patent's "protocol-independent" design.
3. For the ’249 patent, a central evidentiary question will be one of cross-layer functionality: What evidence exists that the accused products, which support the IEEE 802.3ah standard, actually perform the complex claimed method of monitoring a quality of service event at a higher network layer (Layer N) and responsively changing network provisioning at a lower layer? The complaint provides no specific link between the 802.3ah standard and this multi-layered operational method.