Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No.
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (“MTel”), by and through its
`
`undersigned counsel, files this complaint against Cox Communications, Inc. (“Cox” or
`
`“Defendant”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,590,403 (the “’403 Patent”), 5,659,891 (the
`
`“’891 Patent”), and 5,915,210 (the “’210 Patent”), (collectively, the “Asserted Patents” or the
`
`“Patents-in-Suit”) in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271 and alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff MTel is a Delaware limited liability company having a principal place of
`
`business at 1720 Lakepointe Drive, Suite 100, Lewisville, TX 75057.
`
`2.
`
`MTel is a wholly owned subsidiary of United Wireless Holdings Inc. (“United
`
`Wireless”). In 2008, United Wireless, through another of its wholly owned subsidiaries,
`
`Velocita Wireless LLC, purchased the SkyTel wireless network, including assets related to
`
`SkyTel’s more than twenty-year history as a wireless data company. Velocita Wireless LLC,
`
`continued to operate the SkyTel wireless data network after the acquisition. As a result of that
`
`transaction, United Wireless gained ownership and control over the intellectual property
`
`portfolio,
`
`including patents,
`
`that
`
`several SkyTel-related entities,
`
`including Mobile
`
`Telecommunication Technologies Corp. (“MTel Corp.”), Destineer Corp., and SkyTel
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2
`
`Communications, developed over the years. United Wireless subsequently assigned certain
`
`patent assets, including the Patents-in-Suit, together with all rights of recovery related to those
`
`patent assets, to its wholly owned subsidiary, MTel, which is the plaintiff here.
`
`3.
`
`In a widely publicized November, 2014 jury trial, MTel was awarded favorable
`
`infringement and validity verdicts against Apple Inc. on the ’403, ’210, and ’891 Patents.
`
`4.
`
`MTel alleges, upon information and belief, that Cox is a corporation organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 1400
`
`Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, Georgia.
`
`5.
`
`MTel alleges that Cox made, used, sold, and offered to sell, infringing wireless
`
`equipment and services, during the terms of the ’403 Patent, the ’210 Patent, and the ’891 Patent
`
`(the “Relevant Period,”) within the United States.
`
`6.
`
`MTel alleges that Cox operated Wi-Fi networks within its customers’ premises
`
`and at thousands of hotspots during the Relevant Period.
`
`https://www.cox.com/residential/internet/internet-features.html
`
`7.
`
`Cox provided to its customers with customer-premises equipment, such as cable
`
`modems, wireless routers, and modem/wireless router gateways, which support IEEE 802.11 a,
`
`g, n or ac standards (“Wi-Fi Enabled CPE.”)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 3
`
`8.
`
`MTel alleges that examples of Wi-Fi Enabled CPE that Cox provided to its
`
`customers include models made by ARRIS, Motorola, Ubee, Netgear, and Cisco (now
`
`Technicolor).
`
`9.
`
`Cox leased for a monthly fee (or bundled into its monthly charge for Internet
`
`service) Wi-Fi Enabled CPE to customers.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Cox sold Wi-Fi Enabled CPE to customers.
`
`Cox’s specially trained technicians set up Wi-Fi Enabled CPE, created the
`
`network, and enabled the best settings for Wi-Fi Enabled CPE leased by customers. Cox also
`
`provided full support for Wi-Fi Enabled CPE leased by customers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
`
`12. MTel alleges that Cox directed its customers who wished to purchase, as opposed
`
`to lease, Wi-Fi Enabled CPE to a list of Wi-Fi Enabled CPE that it authorized for use on its
`
`systems.
`
`13.
`
`Cox controlled the features and functionality of Wi-Fi Enabled CPE used in the
`
`delivery of its high speed data service, regardless as to whether such Wi-Fi Enabled CPE was
`
`purchased or leased by the customer.
`
`14.
`
`Cox controlled the features and functionality of Wi-Fi Enabled CPE used in the
`
`delivery of its high speed data service by, for instance, causing software (e.g. firmware or
`
`updates) to be downloaded to Wi-Fi Enabled CPE and otherwise making configuration changes
`
`to Wi-Fi Enabled CPE.
`
`15.
`
`Cox provisioned and used Wi-Fi Enabled CPE in order to distribute to its
`
`customers its high speed data service, which it sold to its customers.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 4
`
`16.
`
`Cox sold wireless Internet service to its customers, including a service called “In-
`
`Home WiFi,” which enabled its customers to enjoy Cox’s wireless Internet access for all the Wi-
`
`Fi enabled devices in their homes.
`
`17.
`
`Cox used Wi-Fi Enabled CPE in order to provide home security and automation
`
`service (e.g. Cox Homelife), which required customers also to subscribe to Cox high speed data
`
`service.
`
`18. MTel alleges that Cox operated a public Wi-Fi service at tens of thousands of
`
`locations across the United States.
`
`https://www.cox.com/aboutus/wifi-hotspot-map.html
`
`19. MTel alleges that Cox’s used wireless access points that support IEEE 802.11 a,
`
`g, n or ac standards (“Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points”) in the operation of its public Wi-Fi service,
`
`such as Cox WiFi Hotspots.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 5
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, Cox was party to an agreement among Bright House
`
`Networks, Cablevision, Comcast, and Cox Communications that allowed each other’s high-
`
`speed Internet customers to access hotspots that have the wireless network name “CableWiFi.”
`
`See www.cablewifi.com.
`
`21.
`
`Cox used its Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points to extend Wi-Fi service using the
`
`wireless network names: CoxWiFi and CableWiFi.
`
`22. MTel alleges, upon information and belief, that during the Relevant Period, Cox
`
`used Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points to provide Wi-Fi service to customers within the range of at
`
`least 50,000 hotspots.
`
`23.
`
`Cox used Wi-Fi Enabled CPE and Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points in order to
`
`provide its streaming TV service, known as Cox TV Connect, to customers’ wireless devices,
`
`such as Apple and Android smartphones, on which Cox’s applications ran.
`
`24.
`
`Cox designed, delivered, tested, and installed both in its facilities and on its
`
`customers’ networks, applications designed for Wi-Fi access networks, Wi-Fi Enabled CPE, and
`
`Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points.
`
`25. MTel alleges that, during the Relevant Period, Cox made, used, sold, and offered
`
`to sell, wireless equipment and services, including In-Home WiFi, Cox WiFi, Wi-Fi Enabled
`
`CPE, and Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points, which directly infringed the claims of the ’403 Patent,
`
`the ’210 Patent, and the ’891 Patent, within the United States.
`
`26. MTel alleges that Cox made, used, sold, and offered to sell, systems and products
`
`that embodied the claimed methods of the Patents-in-Suit because, for instance, such systems
`
`and products employed certain subcarrier frequency structures in the IEEE 802.11 orthogonal
`
`frequency-division multiplexing (“OFDM”) scheme or techniques consistent with the MIMO
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 6
`
`aspects of IEEE 802.11 n or ac standards (e.g., as described in “Wi-Fi CERTIFIED n: Longer-
`
`Range, Faster-Throughput, Multimedia-Grade Wi-Fi Networks” at 5-6, available at
`
`http://www.wi-fi.org/file/wi-fi-certified-n-longer-range-faster-throughput-multimedia-grade-wi-
`
`fi-networks-2009):
`
`A MIMO system has some number of transmitters (N) and receivers (M) ...
`Signals from each of the N transmitters can reach each of the M receivers via a
`different path in the channel. A MIMO device with multiple antennas is capable
`of sending multiple spatial streams – spatially distinct data streams within the
`same channel. A MIMO device with multiple antennas is capable of receiving
`multiple spatial streams. Multipath helps decorrelate the received signals
`enabling transmission of multiple data streams through the same MIMO channel –
`a technique called spatial multiplexing. MIMO can multiply data rate through a
`technique called spatial multiplexing - dividing a data stream into several
`branches and sending it as multiple parallel data streams simultaneously in the
`same channel.
`
`MIMO can also be used to improve the robustness and range of 802.11n
`communications through a technique called spatial diversity. When the same data
`stream is transmitted across multiple spatial streams error rate can be reduced. An
`additional technique improving range and reliability called Space Time Block
`Coding (STBC) is also incorporated into Wi-Fi CERTIFIED n.
`
`A copy of this webpage is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`27.
`
`In addition to its allegations concerning Wi-Fi networks, MTel alleges, on
`
`information and belief, that Cox, in order to provide wireless backhaul services, operated
`
`microwave networks, which infringed the ’403, ’210, and ’891 Patents because, for instance,
`
`such networks employed certain subcarrier frequency structures and MIMO techniques (“MIMO
`
`Microwave Equipment.”)
`
`28.
`
`Cox has voluntarily and purposely placed these and other products and services
`
`into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they would be offered for sale and sold in
`
`the United States.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 7
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`29.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United
`
`States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
`
`matters pleaded in this complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Venue is proper under
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`30.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Cox, a business incorporated in the State
`
`of Delaware.
`
`31.
`
`As detailed above, Cox regularly and deliberately engaged in activities that
`
`resulted in the making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing of infringing products or
`
`processes in the United States, including this district, where Cox services its Wi-Fi customers.
`
`These activities violate the United States patent rights MTel has under the Asserted Patents
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Infringement of Claims 1, 10, and 11 of United States Patent No. 5,590,403)
`
`32. MTel incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if
`
`set forth here in full.
`
`33.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) duly and lawfully
`
`issued the ’403 Patent, entitled “Method and System for Efficiently Providing Two Way
`
`Communication between a Central Network and Mobile Unit,” on December 31, 1996. MTel is
`
`the assignee of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’403 Patent and possesses the exclusive
`
`right of recovery, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement. Each and every
`
`claim of the ’403 Patent is valid and enforceable and each enjoys a statutory presumption of
`
`validity separate, apart, and in addition to the statutory presumption of validity enjoyed by every
`
`other of its claims. 35 U.S.C. § 282. A true and correct copy of the ’403 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 8
`
`34. MTel alleges that, during the Relevant Period, Cox directly infringed one or more
`
`claims of the ’403 Patent by making, using, selling, and offering to sell Wi-Fi Enabled CPE, Wi-
`
`Fi Enabled Access Points, MIMO Microwave Equipment, and associated services (e.g. Cox
`
`WiFi, In-Home WiFi, and Cox Homelife) and applications relying on Wi-Fi networks (e.g. Cox
`
`TV Connect).
`
`35. MTel alleges that Cox’s use of Wi-Fi Enabled CPE infringed one or more claims
`
`of the ’403 Patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by, among other things,
`
`using MIMO functionality and dynamically reassigning transmitters due to changing conditions
`
`within the network in order to allow roaming between wireless access points.
`
`36.
`
`Cox implemented through its Wi-Fi networks, services, and equipment the IEEE
`
`802.11 standard versions n and ac, which employed MIMO technology in several variations to
`
`significantly increase data rates and coverage relative to the previous versions of the standard.
`
`The different MIMO configurations implemented by Cox provided facilities to dynamically
`
`optimize system transmission for a desired level of robustness and diversity or capacity gain,
`
`depending on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and channel conditions.
`
`37.
`
`The main relevant MIMO techniques that Cox used included (i) Spatial
`
`Multiplexing (SM); (ii) Space Time Block Coding (STBC); (iii) Spatial Expansion (SE); (iv)
`
`Beam Forming (BF); and (v) HT Duplicate mode (MCS 32).
`
`38. MTel alleges that Cox’s use and operation of Wi-Fi Enabled CPE, through which
`
`Cox distributed its high speed data service to customers, directly infringed the ’403 Patent, at
`
`least because such equipment employed MIMO techniques described above.
`
`39. MTel alleges that Cox’s use of the Wi-Fi Enabled CPE listed in attached Exhibit
`
`E directly infringed the ’403 Patent at least because Cox’s use of such equipment embodied the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 9
`
`asserted method claims of the ’403 Patent. This list is non-limiting and will be supplemented
`
`after appropriate discovery.
`
`40. MTel alleges that Cox infringed the ’403 Patent each time it leased for a monthly
`
`fee Wi-Fi Enabled CPE to its high speed data service customers in order to wirelessly distribute
`
`the service throughout their homes or businesses.
`
`41. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed the ’403 Patent when its field service
`
`technicians installed and tested Wi-Fi Enabled CPE.
`
`42. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed the ’403 Patent when, for example, its
`
`technicians tested the maximum throughput that such Wi-Fi Enabled CPE achieved through, for
`
`example, causing a speed test to occur over a wireless data connection extending from an IEEE
`
`802.11 n or ac device (e.g. a computer, tablet, television, media streaming device, or
`
`smartphone) through Wi-Fi Enabled CPE to Cox’s speed test server.
`
`43. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed the ’403 Patent by Cox’s use and
`
`operation of Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points, through which Cox distributed high speed data
`
`service (e.g. Cox WiFi) to customers in locations, such as parks and shopping centers, at least
`
`because Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points employed MIMO techniques described above.
`
`44. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed the ’403 Patent when its field service
`
`technicians installed and tested transmissions from Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points.
`
`45. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed the ’403 Patent when Wi-Fi service was
`
`used by customers through Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points that provided service under the wireless
`
`network name “CableWiFi” because, even if the operator of any such Wi-Fi Enabled Access
`
`Point is not itself Cox, upon information and belief, such operator was directed and controlled by
`
`Cox, pursuant to the collaboration agreement among Bright House Networks, Cablevision,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 10
`
`Comcast, Cox Communications, and Time Warner Cable so that such operator’s use of Wi-Fi
`
`Enabled Access Points was attributable to Cox.
`
`46. MTel alleges that Cox’s use of microwave networks during the Relevant Period
`
`directly infringed the ’403 Patent at least because such microwave networks employed MIMO
`
`techniques that are consistent with the MIMO techniques described above.
`
`47.
`
`As a result of Cox’s unlawful infringement of the ’403 Patent, MTel has suffered
`
`damage. MTel is entitled to recover from Cox damages adequate to compensate for such
`
`infringement.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Infringement of Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of United States Patent No. 5,659,891)
`
`48. MTel incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if
`
`set forth here in full.
`
`49.
`
`The USPTO duly and lawfully issued the ’891 Patent, entitled “Multicarrier
`
`Techniques in Bandlimited Channels,” on August 19, 1997. MTel is the assignee of all right,
`
`title, and interest in and to the ’891 Patent and possesses the exclusive right of recovery,
`
`including the exclusive right to recover for past, present, and future infringement. Each and
`
`every claim of the ’891 Patent is valid and enforceable and each enjoys a statutory presumption
`
`of validity separate, apart, and in addition to the statutory presumption of validity enjoyed by
`
`every other of its claims. 35 U.S.C. § 282. A true and correct copy of the ’891 Patent is attached
`
`as Exhibit B.
`
`50. MTel alleges that, during the Relevant Period, Cox directly infringed one or more
`
`claims of the ’891 Patent by making, using, selling, and offering to sell Wi-Fi Enabled CPE, Wi-
`
`Fi Enabled Access Points, MIMO Microwave Equipment, and associated services (e.g. Cox
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 11
`
`WiFi, In-Home WiFi, and Cox Homelife) and applications (e.g. Cox TV Connect) relying on
`
`Wi-Fi networks.
`
`51. MTel alleges that Cox’s use of Wi-Fi Enabled CPE in attached Exhibit E
`
`infringed one or more claims of the ’891 Patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`by among other things, having used certain subcarrier frequency structures of the IEEE 802.11
`
`orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (“OFDM”) scheme.
`
`52.
`
`OFDM systems contain individual subcarriers that are orthogonally spaced apart
`
`in the frequency domain such that they do not interfere with each other as shown in the figure
`
`below. To illustrate this concept, the power spectrum for four modulated subcarriers is shown in
`
`the below figure, with solid, dotted, dash-dotted, and dashed lines, respectively. It can be seen
`
`that, at the center frequency of each subcarrier, the power spectra of the other subcarriers have
`
`nulls in the spectrum and thus do not produce interference.
`
`53. MTel alleges, for example, that Cox directly infringed claims of the ’891 Patent
`
`in regards to the 802.11 systems that its Wi-Fi Enabled CPE and Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points
`
`implemented. For instance, when such equipment was using the 20 MHz channel bandwidth
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 12
`
`option, 64 subcarriers could fit into the available bandwidth of 20 MHz because 20 MHz = 64 x
`
`312.5 kHz. In the 802.11 systems of interest, the orthogonal subcarrier spacing (ΔF) is 312.5
`
`kHz. However, because of spectral band limitations, several subcarriers on each side of the band
`
`are not employed to minimize interference to adjacent channels and meet the transmit spectrum
`
`mask imposed by regulatory requirements. Since in the 20 MHz channel there are 10 MHz on
`
`both sides of the center frequency, the frequency separation from the outermost used subcarrier
`
`to the band edge is 1,250 kHz which corresponds to 4x ΔF, i.e. four times the inter-subcarrier
`
`frequency separation. Thus, by avoiding transmission on the outermost subcarriers, a guard-
`
`band is created that allows meeting the frequency mask restriction and enables the power spectral
`
`density to drop from 0 dBr at 9 MHz from the center frequency to -20 dBr at 11 MHz from the
`
`center frequency. Beyond 11 MHz, we have active subcarriers on the adjacent 20 MHz channel
`
`and this guard band arrangement provides reduced levels into adjacent channels. When
`
`operating using a 20 MHz channel for example, each subcarrier is spaced 0.3125 MHz apart.
`
`Using 52 subcarriers at a frequency spacing of 0.3125 MHz occupies 16.25 MHz for data
`
`transmission. The remaining 3.75 MHz of the 20 MHz channel is used as a guard on the upper
`
`and lower edge of the band—1.875 MHz at each edge. Therefore, the claimed frequency
`
`difference between the center frequency of the outer most subcarrier and the band edge (here,
`
`1.875 MHz) is more than half the frequency difference between the center frequencies of each
`
`adjacent subcarrier (here, 0.3125 MHz / 2 or 0.15625 MHz).
`
`54. MTel alleges that Cox’s use and operation of Wi-Fi Enabled CPE, through which
`
`Cox distributed its high speed data service (e.g. In-Home WiFi) to customers, directly infringed
`
`the ’891 Patent, at least because such Wi-Fi Enabled CPE operated according to the IEEE 802.11
`
`OFDM scheme.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 13
`
`55. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed the ’891 Patent when its field service
`
`technicians installed and tested Wi-Fi Enabled CPE. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed
`
`the ’891 Patent when, for example, its technicians tested the maximum throughput that such Wi-
`
`Fi Enabled CPE achieved.
`
`56. MTel alleges that Cox infringed the ’891 Patent each time it leased for a monthly
`
`fee Wi-Fi Enabled CPE to its high speed data service customers in order to wirelessly distribute
`
`the service throughout their homes or businesses.
`
`57. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed the ’891 Patent by Cox’s use and
`
`operation of Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points, through which Cox distributed high speed data
`
`service (e.g. Cox WiFi), to customers in locations, such as parks and shopping centers, at least
`
`because Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points operated according to the IEEE 802.11 OFDM scheme.
`
`58. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed the ’891 Patent when its field service
`
`technicians installed and tested Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points.
`
`59. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed the ’891 Patent when Wi-Fi service was
`
`used by customers through Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points that provided service under the wireless
`
`network name “CableWiFi” because, even if the operator of any such Wi-Fi Enabled Access
`
`Point is not itself Cox, upon information and belief, such operator is directed and controlled by
`
`Cox, pursuant to the collaboration agreement among Bright House Networks, Cablevision,
`
`Comcast, Cox Communications, and Time Warner Cable, so that such operator’s use of Wi-Fi
`
`Enabled Access Points was attributable to Cox.
`
`60. MTel alleges that Cox’s uses microwave networks directly infringed the ’891
`
`Patent at least because such microwave networks implemented channel structuring consistent
`
`with the description above.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 14
`
`61.
`
`As a result of Cox’s unlawful infringement of the ’891 Patent, MTel has suffered
`
`damage. MTel is entitled to recover damages from Cox adequate to compensate for such
`
`infringement.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Infringement of Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, and 19 of United States Patent No. 5,915,210)
`
`62. MTel incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if
`
`set forth here in full.
`
`63.
`
`The USPTO duly and lawfully issued the ’210 Patent entitled, “Method and
`
`System for Providing Multicarrier Simulcast Transmission,” on June 22, 1999. MTel is the
`
`assignee of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’210 Patent and possesses the exclusive right
`
`of recovery, including the exclusive right to recover for past, present, and future infringement.
`
`Each and every claim of the ’210 Patent is valid and enforceable and each enjoys a statutory
`
`presumption of validity separate, apart, and in addition to the statutory presumption of validity
`
`enjoyed by every other of its claims. 35 U.S.C. § 282. A true and correct copy of the ’210
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`64. MTel alleges that, during the Relevant Period, Cox directly infringed one or more
`
`claims of the ’210 Patent by making, using, selling, and offering to sell Wi-Fi Enabled CPE, Wi-
`
`Fi Enabled Access Points, MIMO Microwave Equipment, and associated services (e.g. Cox
`
`WiFi, In-Home WiFi, and Cox Homelife) and applications relying on Wi-Fi networks (e.g. Cox
`
`TV Connect).
`
`65. MTel alleges that Cox’s use of Wi-Fi Enabled CPE, through which Cox
`
`distributed its high speed data service to customers, infringed one or more claims of the ’210
`
`Patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents by, among other things, employing
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 15
`
`MIMO functionality and certain multi-carrier frequency structures, such as OFDM, as described
`
`above.
`
`66. MTel alleges that the Wi-Fi Enabled CPE listed in attached Exhibit E, and Cox’s
`
`use thereof, directly infringes the ’210 Patent at least because such equipment embodies the
`
`asserted method claims of the ’210 Patent. This list is non-limiting and will be supplemented
`
`after appropriate discovery.
`
`67. MTel alleges that Cox infringed the ’210 Patent each time it leased for a monthly
`
`fee Wi-Fi Enabled CPE to its high speed data service customers in order to wirelessly distribute
`
`the service throughout their homes or businesses.
`
`68. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed the ’210 Patent when, for example, its
`
`technicians tested the maximum throughput that such Wi-Fi Enabled CPE achieved through, for
`
`example, causing a speed test to occur over a wireless data connection extending from an IEEE
`
`802.11 n or ac device (e.g. a computer, tablet, television, media streaming device, or
`
`smartphone) through Wi-Fi Enabled CPE to Cox’s speed test server.
`
`69. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed the ’210 Patent by Cox’s use and
`
`operation of Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points, through which Cox distributed high speed data
`
`service (e.g. Cox WiFi) to customers in locations, such as parks and shopping centers, at least
`
`because Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points employed MIMO functionality and operated according to
`
`the IEEE 802.11 OFDM scheme as further described above.
`
`70. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed the ’210 Patent when its field service
`
`technicians installed and tested Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points.
`
`71. MTel alleges that Cox directly infringed the ’210 Patent when Wi-Fi service was
`
`used by customers through Wi-Fi Enabled Access Points that provided service under the wireless
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 16
`
`network name “CableWiFi” because, even if the operator of any such Wi-Fi Enabled Access
`
`Point is not itself Cox, upon information and belief, such operator is directed and controlled by
`
`Cox, pursuant to the collaboration agreement among Bright House Networks, Cablevision,
`
`Comcast, Cox Communications, and Time Warner Cable so that such operator’s use of Wi-Fi
`
`Enabled Access Points was attributable to Cox.
`
`72. MTel alleges that Cox’s use of microwave networks directly infringed the ’210
`
`Patent at least because such microwave networks employ MIMO techniques and an OFDM
`
`scheme consistent with the above descriptions.
`
`73.
`
`As a result of Cox’s unlawful infringement of the ’210 Patent, MTel has suffered
`
`damage. MTel is entitled to recover damages from Cox adequate to compensate for such
`
`infringement.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MTel prays for entry of judgment against Cox as follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`That Cox directly infringed each of the Asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a);
`
`That Cox provide to MTel an accounting of all gains, profits, savings, and advantages
`
`derived by Cox’s direct infringement of the Asserted Patents, and that MTel be awarded
`
`damages adequate to compensate for the wrongful infringement by Cox, in accordance
`
`with 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`C.
`
`That this case be declared an exceptional one in favor of MTel under 35 U.S.C. § 285,
`
`and that MTel be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and all other costs and expenses
`
`incurred in connection with this civil action in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285 and Rule
`
`54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
`
`D.
`
`That MTel receive all other or further relief as this Court may deem just or proper.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00463-LPS Document 1 Filed 04/21/17 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 17
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), MTel hereby demands a trial
`
`by jury on all issues triable to a jury.
`
`Dated: April 21, 2017
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Daniel Scardino
`Henning Schmidt
`Drew Zerdecki
`REED & SCARDINO LLP
`301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1250
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel.: (512) 474-2449
`Fax: (512) 474-2622
`dscardino@reedscardino.com
`hschmidt@reedscardino.com
`dzerdecki@reedscardino.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`/s/ Michael J. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`FARNAN LLP
`919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 777-0300
`Fax: (302) 777-0301
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`