Ax Wireless LLC v. TP Link Systems Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AX Wireless, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: TP-Link Systems Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 8:26-cv-251, C.D. Cal., 02/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant TP-Link is a California corporation with a place of business in Irvine, California, and conducts substantial business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless router systems, including the Deco XE75Pro, infringe five patents related to methods for improving data transmission reliability in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) networks through variable header repetition.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns techniques to enhance the robustness of wireless communications, such as Wi-Fi, by adaptively repeating critical header information within data packets to ensure successful decoding in noisy environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the asserted patents. The patents-in-suit belong to a large family stemming from a 2009 provisional application, indicating a long-term and focused patenting strategy in this technical area.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,079,707 - "Receiver Method and Apparatus for Variable Header Repetition in a Wireless OFDM Network"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,079,707, "Receiver Method and Apparatus for Variable Header Repetition in a Wireless OFDM Network," issued September 18, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In packet-based OFDM communication systems like Wi-Fi, the packet header contains essential control information required for the receiver to properly decode the data payload. The reliable decoding of this header is critical, as its failure results in the loss of the entire packet, a significant problem in noisy wireless environments Compl. ¶13 ’707 Patent, col. 1:50-54
• The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a receiver apparatus capable of handling two distinct packet types to enhance reliability. A first packet type uses a standard header transmitted over two OFDM symbols. A second, more robust packet type repeats the header information across four OFDM symbols, providing redundancy and increasing the probability of successful decoding in adverse conditions ’707 Patent, Abstract col. 2:32-40 This allows the system to adapt, using a more reliable (but higher overhead) format when needed Compl. ¶13
• Technical Importance: This adaptive repetition scheme enables a network to balance efficiency and reliability, using a low-overhead format in clear conditions and a high-reliability format in noisy conditions, which is particularly valuable for applications like SmartGrid that require robust communication ’707 Patent, col. 2:14-26

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶24
• The essential elements of independent claim 1, an apparatus claim for a wireless transceiver, include:
  • A wireless OFDM communications receiver operable to receive a first packet type with a two-part header transmitted using a first and second OFDM symbol.
  • A demodulator to demodulate the two OFDM symbols to receive the two parts of the first packet's header.
  • The receiver is further operable to receive a second packet type with a four-part header, where the first and second parts contain the same header bits, and the third and fourth parts contain the same header bits.
  • The demodulator is further operable to demodulate four OFDM symbols to receive the four parts of the second packet's header.
  • A requirement that the repeated header bits in the second packet type are received in a "different order" than the original header bits.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes allegations against "at least claim 1" Compl. ¶24

U.S. Patent No. 10,917,272 - "Non-transitory computer-readable information storage media for variable header repetition in a wireless OFDM network"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,917,272, "Non-transitory computer-readable information storage media for variable header repetition in a wireless OFDM network," issued February 9, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical challenge as the ’707 patent: ensuring reliable decoding of critical packet header information in OFDM-based wireless networks, which is susceptible to noise and interference Compl. ¶15 ’272 Patent, col. 1:55-59
• The Patented Solution: The ’272 Patent claims methods, stored on computer-readable media, for both transmitting and receiving packets with variable header repetition. The claimed methods involve generating or receiving two types of packets: one with a two-part header and another where the header parts are repeated to form a four-part header, thereby improving decoding reliability in noisy environments Compl. p. 5:1-9 ’272 Patent, Abstract This complements the apparatus claims of the ’707 Patent by claiming the underlying methods.
• Technical Importance: By claiming the methods for both transmission and reception, the patent aims to cover the software and firmware instructions that implement the adaptive reliability scheme on both ends of a wireless link ’272 Patent, col. 2:51-65

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claims 1 and 11 Compl. ¶30
• The essential elements of independent claim 1, a method claim for a transmitter, include:
  • Generating a first packet type with a two-part header.
  • Generating two OFDM symbols to transmit the two parts.
  • Generating a second packet type with a four-part repeated header.
  • Generating four OFDM symbols to transmit the four parts, with repeated bits transmitted in a "different order."
  • Transmitting the selected packet type over the wireless channel.
• The essential elements of independent claim 11, a method claim for a receiver, include:
  • Receiving and demodulating either a first packet type (with a two-part header over two symbols) or a second packet type (with a four-part repeated header over four symbols).
  • A requirement that for the second packet type, the repeated header bits are received in a "different order."

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,646,927 - "Header repetition in packet-based OFDM systems"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,646,927, "Header repetition in packet-based OFDM systems," issued May 9, 2023.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a communication apparatus that transmits data packets in an OFDM system. It claims a transmitter that can generate two packet types—one with a standard two-block header and another with a more robust four-block repeated header—to improve transmission reliability in noisy environments Compl. ¶17
• Asserted Claims: Claims 1-2 are asserted Compl. ¶36
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the TP-Link Deco XE75Pro’s functionality for transmitting wireless data packets infringes this patent Compl. ¶35-37

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,777,776 - "Header repetition in packet-based OFDM systems"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,777,776, "Header repetition in packet-based OFDM systems," issued October 3, 2023.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a wireless communication system that supports backward compatibility between new and old devices. It claims a receiver that can automatically distinguish between a "basic format" packet (header in one transmission block) and an "extended format" packet (header repeated in a second block) by detecting the header repetition Compl. ¶19
• Asserted Claims: Claims 1-6 are asserted Compl. ¶42
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the TP-Link Deco XE75Pro’s ability to receive and automatically identify different packet formats in a mixed-device network infringes this patent Compl. ¶41-43

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,063,134 - "Header repetition in packet-based OFDM systems"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,063,134, "Header repetition in packet-based OFDM systems," issued August 13, 2024.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent is a counterpart to the ’776 patent, claiming a transmitter apparatus that improves backward compatibility. The claimed transmitter can send packets in both a "basic format" (single header block) and an "extended format" (repeated header block), ensuring that newer and older receivers on the same network can coexist and communicate effectively Compl. ¶21
• Asserted Claims: Claims 1-7 are asserted Compl. ¶48
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the TP-Link Deco XE75Pro’s functionality for transmitting packets in these different formats infringes this patent Compl. ¶47-49

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "devices with wireless networking technology," naming the "TP-Link Deco XE75Pro" as the "Exemplary Accused Product" Compl. ¶3, ¶4

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are wireless router systems that operate using OFDM technology to transmit and receive data (Compl. ¶3, ¶13). The core of the infringement allegation is that these products, in their normal operation, practice the patented methods of using variable header repetition to ensure reliable communication Compl. ¶23, ¶29
• The complaint alleges that TP-Link imports, sells, and offers these products for sale throughout the United States, including within the Central District of California Compl. ¶4, ¶7
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent (Exhibits 6-10) but does not attach them Compl. ¶25, ¶31, ¶37, ¶43, ¶49 Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

• '707 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint asserts that the TP-Link Deco XE75Pro directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’707 Patent Compl. ¶24 The infringement theory is that the product, as a wireless OFDM receiver, is capable of receiving and demodulating two distinct types of data packets: a first type with a standard two-part header and a second, more robust type where the header information is repeated across four OFDM symbols for added reliability. The complaint states that an attached claim chart in Exhibit 6 demonstrates how the accused product satisfies each limitation of the claim Compl. ¶25

• '272 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint asserts that the TP-Link Deco XE75Pro directly infringes at least claims 1 and 11 of the ’272 Patent Compl. ¶30 The infringement theory is that the non-transitory computer-readable media (e.g., firmware) within the accused product contains instructions that, when executed, perform the patented methods. These methods include both transmitting (per claim 1) and receiving (per claim 11) packets using the two-part header and four-part repeated header structures. The complaint references Exhibit 7 for a detailed breakdown of this infringement Compl. ¶31

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the specific packet structures defined in the claims (e.g., a header with two distinct parts over two symbols vs. a header with four parts over four symbols) are actually implemented by the accused Deco XE75Pro. The product likely conforms to a modern wireless standard (e.g., Wi-Fi 6E), and the infringement analysis may depend on whether that standard's frame formats map directly onto the structures claimed in patents with a 2009 priority date.
  • Technical Questions: The claims of the ’707 and ’272 patents require that repeated header bits are transmitted or received "in a different order" ’707 Patent, col. 13:22-32 A key technical question will be what constitutes a "different order." The court may need to determine if this requires a specific bit-level permutation, which may not be a standard feature, or if it can be interpreted more broadly to include minor modulation differences inherent in repeated transmissions. The evidence Plaintiff can produce to show this specific functionality in the accused product will be critical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a first packet type" and "a second packet type"

• Context and Importance: The asserted independent claims of the ’707 and ’272 patents are built around the existence of two distinct packet types, defined by specific header structures (e.g., two parts vs. four repeated parts). The infringement case hinges on whether the accused products actually use two packet formats that align with these precise definitions. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused product uses only a single packet format, or if its multiple formats do not match the specific structures claimed, infringement may be avoided.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the specification describes the two packet types as exemplary, suggesting the claims cover the general concept of variable header repetition rather than being strictly limited to the embodiments shown (’707 Patent, col. 2:32-40, Fig. 1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is highly specific, reciting the number of "parts" and "OFDM symbols" for each packet type ’707 Patent, claim 1, col. 12:51-14:32 This specificity, mirrored in the abstract and Figure 1, could support a narrow construction limited to these exact configurations.

• The Term: "in a different order"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the asserted claims of the ’707 and ’272 patents and requires that when header bits are repeated, the repeated set is transmitted or received "in a different order" from the original set ’707 Patent, col. 13:25-29 This is a critical limitation, as it goes beyond simple signal repetition. The definition of this term will be central to determining whether standard diversity-repetition schemes meet this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that "The modulation of the copied block may not be exactly the same as the original version" ’707 Patent, col. 2:35-37 A plaintiff may argue that this language supports a broad reading where any minor difference in how the repeated symbol is modulated or received constitutes a "different order."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the claim's use of "are received in a different order" is a mandatory requirement, whereas the specification's use of "may not be exactly the same" is merely permissive. Without a more concrete definition or embodiment illustrating a specific permutation of bits, a defendant could argue the term is indefinite or requires an intentional, non-standard re-ordering of data that is not present in the accused product.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. The infringement counts are explicitly for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) Compl. ¶23, ¶29, ¶35, ¶41, ¶47
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not plead facts to support a claim of willful infringement, such as allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patents or egregious conduct.

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

• A central issue will be one of technical mapping: do the specific two-packet-type structures recited in the asserted claims, which claim priority to 2009, read on the functionality of the accused TP-Link Deco XE75Pro, which likely implements a modern, standardized protocol such as Wi-Fi 6E? The case may turn on whether the standard's frame formats align with the patents' specific definitions of header repetition.
• A key question of claim construction will focus on the phrase "in a different order." The court will need to determine if this requires a specific, intentional permutation of bits within repeated header symbols—a potentially non-standard feature—or if it can be construed more broadly to cover minor variations in modulation inherent in signal repetition, a common feature in wireless standards.
• An evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can offer to show that the accused product's internal operations—specifically, the firmware instructions executed by its processors—perform the exact methods claimed, particularly the generation, transmission, and reception of packets with the claimed header structures and "different order" repetition.