Ax Wireless LLC v. D Link Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AX Wireless, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: D-Link Corporation (Taiwan) and D-Link Systems, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: AX Wireless, LLC v. D-Link Corporation, 8:26-cv-252, C.D. Cal., 02/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Defendant D-Link Systems, Inc. because its principal place of business is in Irvine, California, within the district. Venue is alleged as proper for D-Link Corporation on the basis that it is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States and may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Wi-Fi 7 smart router infringes five patents related to methods and apparatuses for improving the reliability of wireless communications by variably repeating header information in data packets.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses reliable data transmission in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) networks, a foundational technology for modern Wi-Fi, by creating more robust packet headers to overcome noise and interference.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents. The five asserted patents are part of a single family descending from a common priority application.

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, the header contains essential control information needed to properly decode the data payload. The patent’s background notes that ensuring this header is decoded reliably is critical, especially as networks use different frequency bands, which can affect signal diversity and decoding success (Compl. ¶15; ’707 Patent, col. 1:49-59).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a receiver apparatus capable of handling two distinct packet types to enhance reliability. A "first packet type" has a header transmitted using two OFDM symbols. A "second packet type" provides greater robustness by repeating the header information, transmitting it over four OFDM symbols. This allows the system to adapt, using the more resilient four-symbol header in challenging conditions (Compl. ¶15; ’707 Patent, Abstract, col. 2:32-40).
• Technical Importance: This variable repetition scheme allows for a trade-off between overhead and reliability, enabling devices to communicate robustly in noisy environments while remaining compatible with simpler devices or less demanding conditions Compl. ¶15

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ('707 Patent, col. 11:48 - col. 13:31; Compl. ¶26).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A wireless OFDM transceiver with a receiver operable to receive a first packet type having a two-part header field.
  • A demodulator operable to demodulate two OFDM symbols to receive the two parts of the first packet's header.
  • The receiver is also operable to receive a second packet type having a four-part header field, where the first and second parts are repetitions of one set of header bits, and the third and fourth parts are repetitions of another set.
  • The demodulator is further operable to demodulate four OFDM symbols to receive the four parts of the second packet's header.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

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: As with the ’707 Patent, the invention addresses the need for reliable header transmission in OFDM networks to ensure proper payload decoding (Compl. ¶17; ’272 Patent, col. 1:50-59).
• The Patented Solution: This patent claims the technology from the perspective of software or firmware ("non-transitory computer-readable information storage media"). It covers instructions that cause a device to perform a method of both transmitting and receiving the two different packet types. The transmit method involves generating packets with either the two-symbol header or the more robust four-symbol repeated header. The receive method involves demodulating and decoding these packet types Compl. ¶17 ’272 Patent, Claims 1, 11
• Technical Importance: By claiming the methods stored on media, the patent covers the software and firmware that implements the variable header repetition scheme, a critical component for enabling the functionality in modern programmable networking devices Compl. ¶17

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claims 1 and 11 ('272 Patent, col. 12:49 - col. 14:52; Compl. ¶32).
• Essential elements of claim 1 (transmit method) include:
  • Non-transitory media with instructions that cause a processor to perform a method comprising:
  • Generating a first packet type with a two-part header and transmitting it over two OFDM symbols.
  • Generating a second packet type with a four-part repeated header and transmitting it over four OFDM symbols.
• Essential elements of claim 11 (receive method) include:
  • Non-transitory media with instructions that cause a processor to perform a method comprising:
  • Receiving a first packet type and demodulating its two-symbol header.
  • Receiving a second packet type and demodulating its four-symbol repeated header.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

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 Compl. ¶18
• Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges this patent claims a communication apparatus that transmits two types of data packets. The first type has a header transmitted in two blocks, while the second repeats each of those blocks, resulting in a four-block transmission to improve reliability in noisy environments Compl. ¶19 This patent appears to cover the transmitter-side apparatus.
• Asserted Claims: At least claims 1–2 are asserted Compl. ¶38
• Accused Features: The D-Link router is accused of infringing by transmitting packets that embody the claimed two-block and four-block header structures Compl. ¶38

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 Compl. ¶20
• Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges this patent is directed to an improved receiver apparatus that automatically determines a packet’s format by examining whether its header is repeated in a consecutive transmission block. This detection mechanism is described as enabling backward compatibility by allowing newer devices to process both basic and extended formats while coexisting with older devices Compl. ¶21
• Asserted Claims: At least claims 1–6 are asserted Compl. ¶44
• Accused Features: The D-Link router's receiver is accused of automatically detecting which packet format is used based on whether the header repeats Compl. ¶44

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 Compl. ¶22
• Technology Synopsis: The complaint alleges this patent claims an improved transmitter apparatus that can transmit packets in two formats. A distinguishing feature noted is that the repetition for the extended format is applied only to the header and not to the data payload, which would enable a receiver to distinguish formats and improve backward compatibility Compl. ¶23
• Asserted Claims: At least claims 1–7 are asserted Compl. ¶50
• Accused Features: The D-Link router's transmitter is accused of creating and sending packets where repetition is selectively applied only to the header Compl. ¶50

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Exemplary Accused Product" is the D-Link Aquila Pro AI BE9500 Wi-Fi 7 Smart Router. The broader category of "Accused Products" includes wireless modems, routers, access points, and switches with wireless networking technology Compl. ¶¶3-4

Functionality and Market Context

The accused product is a Wi-Fi 7 smart router, a device that provides wireless internet access and networking capabilities Compl. ¶4 The complaint alleges that this product practices wireless networking technology, including OFDM, and infringes the asserted patents by making, using, selling, or importing devices that implement the claimed header repetition schemes (Compl. ¶¶3, 19, 26). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the router's operation beyond the conclusory allegations of infringement. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references attached claim charts in Exhibits 6 and 7 for the ’707 and ’272 patents, respectively; however, these exhibits were not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶¶27, 33). The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations.

’707 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the D-Link Aquila Pro AI BE9500 Wi-Fi 7 Smart Router directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’707 Patent Compl. ¶26 The infringement theory is that the router's receiver is operable to receive and decode at least two different types of packets corresponding to the "first packet type" (with a two-symbol header) and "second packet type" (with a four-symbol, repeated header) as recited in the claim (Compl. ¶¶15, 27).

’272 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the D-Link Aquila Pro AI BE9500 Wi-Fi 7 Smart Router directly infringes at least claims 1 and 11 of the ’272 Patent Compl. ¶32 The infringement theory is that the non-transitory computer-readable media (e.g., firmware) within the router contains instructions that, when executed, cause the device to perform the claimed methods. This includes both transmitting packets with the two- and four-symbol header structures (infringing claim 1) and receiving and decoding such packets (infringing claim 11) (Compl. ¶¶17, 33).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the packet structures defined by the relevant wireless standard (e.g., Wi-Fi 7 / IEEE 802.11be) used by the accused router fall within the specific definitions of "first packet type" and "second packet type" in the claims. The claims recite specific two-part/four-part repeated structures, and the analysis may turn on whether the router's actual packet formats map directly onto this language.
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused router's general-purpose OFDM transceiver performs the specific functions as claimed? For the receiver-focused claims, this includes demodulating and distinguishing the two packet types. For the transmitter-focused claims, this includes specifically generating packets with the claimed repeated header structures. The dispute may focus on whether the router's operation is merely capable of handling such packets or if it is specifically configured to do so as the patents describe.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "first packet type" / "second packet type"

• Context and Importance: (appearing in claims of both the '707 and '272 patents) The claims of the asserted patents are built around the existence of and distinction between these two packet types. The entire infringement case may depend on whether the accused router can be shown to transmit and/or receive two distinct types of packets that meet the structural requirements laid out in the claims (e.g., two-part header vs. four-part repeated header).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the invention in the general context of accommodating "different repetitions schemes (D=1, ..., DMAX)" to allow devices to communicate, which may support an argument that any two distinct, coexisting repetition schemes fall within the claim's scope ('707 Patent, col. 2:27-31).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims themselves provide a very specific definition for each packet type, detailing a two-part structure for the first and a four-part repeated structure for the second ('707 Patent, Claim 1, col. 11:51 - col. 13:21). This explicit structural definition may be used to argue for a narrow construction limited to systems that implement this exact arrangement.

The Term: "demodulator operable to demodulate" / "instructions... cause to be performed a method comprising: ... demodulating"

• Context and Importance: (’707 Patent, Claim 1) / ’272 Patent, Claim 11 These terms define the required functionality of the receiver. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely involve whether a standard, general-purpose OFDM demodulator inherently meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a specific configuration or logic for handling the claimed packet structures.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "operable to" suggests capability. Plaintiff may argue that if the hardware is capable of demodulating the sequence of symbols, it meets the limitation, regardless of whether it is specifically designed with the patent's full system in mind.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict a system with distinct functional blocks, including a "Demodulation Module" (240) that works in concert with a "Decoding Module" (270) ('707 Patent, Fig. 2). This may support an argument that the claim requires more than just generic demodulation capability and implies a system structured to perform the specific decoding process described.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a boilerplate reference to indirect infringement in its introductory section Compl. ¶2 However, the substantive infringement counts (Counts I-V) exclusively allege direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and do not plead any specific facts to support the knowledge or intent required for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶25, 31, 37, 43, 49).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not allege willful infringement. It does not plead that Defendant had pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patents or infringement, which would be foundational for such a claim.

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

• A core issue will be one of technical mapping: Do the packet formats used by the accused D-Link Wi-Fi 7 router, which are likely governed by the IEEE 802.11be standard, align with the specific "first packet type" (two-symbol header) and "second packet type" (four-symbol repeated header) structures as narrowly defined in the asserted claims?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional distinction: For the receiver-focused patents, can Plaintiff prove that the accused router distinguishes between packet formats by specifically detecting the presence of a repeated header, as described in the ’776 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation of the detection mechanism?
• A central question for the transmitter-focused patents will be one of selective application: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused router’s transmitter selectively applies repetition only to the packet header and not the payload, as required by claims of the ’134 patent, or does the router's transmission protocol implement repetition in a materially different way?