Arbor Systems LLC v. Boingo Wireless Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Arbor Systems LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Boingo Wireless, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-65, E.D. Tex., 01/23/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless communication products and services infringe a patent related to computing systems that use edge processing to provide low-latency computation in 5G networks.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the architectural requirements for 5th Generation (5G) wireless networks, which are designed to support high-throughput, low-latency applications such as autonomous vehicles and augmented reality.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,128,045 - “Computing system”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,128,045, titled “Computing system,” issued on September 21, 2021 (the “’045 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of deploying 5G wireless technology, which requires a dense network of small cell towers to deliver its promised ultra-fast speeds and low delays. This high density is necessary because the high-frequency signals used for 5G require a direct line of sight with the receiving device, creating a need for infrastructure that is both ubiquitous and unobtrusive ’045 Patent, col. 1:36-48
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture that places an "edge processing module" in close proximity to the transceiver and antennas to provide "low-latency computation" for a target device ’045 Patent, Abstract This architecture distributes the computational workload, with an edge module handling latency-sensitive tasks, a core processing module at a head-end, and a cloud module at a data center for less time-critical processing ’045 Patent, col. 2:23-32 This hierarchical structure, depicted in figures such as FIG. 2J, is designed to support demanding applications like autonomous vehicle communication and virtual reality by performing necessary computations at the network's edge, thereby reducing delay ’045 Patent, col. 3:1-15
• Technical Importance: This edge computing approach is presented as a key enabler for the "extremely interconnected world" promised by 5G, where vehicles, smart devices, and industrial sensors rely on nearly instantaneous data processing that centralized cloud computing cannot provide ’045 Patent, col. 1:33-36

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims of the '045 Patent" but does not identify specific claims, instead referring to an unattached exhibit Compl. ¶11 Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
  • A transceiver for communication with a target.
  • One or more electrically or mechanically steerable antennas coupled to the transceiver.
  • An "edge processing module" coupled to the transceiver and antennas to provide computation.
  • A "cloud processing module" located at a cloud data center, coupled to the edge module "to share workload" in serving the target.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, services, or instrumentalities by name Compl. ¶11 It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in an "Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the complaint Compl. ¶16

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. Defendant Boingo Wireless, Inc. is a provider of wireless network services, and the accused instrumentalities are likely components of its public and private wireless network infrastructure Compl. ¶3 The complaint makes no allegations regarding the accused products' specific commercial importance or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products infringe the ’045 Patent, stating that claim charts demonstrating this infringement are included in an Exhibit 2 Compl. ¶16-17 As this exhibit was not provided with the complaint, the pleading itself contains only conclusory allegations that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims Compl. ¶16 Without the referenced exhibit, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Based on the patent’s claims and the general nature of the dispute, several points of contention may arise.
  • Scope Questions: A central question will concern the scope of the claimed system architecture. The case may turn on whether Defendant’s network infrastructure, designed for providing general wireless access, can be shown to possess the specific, hierarchical edge-plus-cloud structure required by the claims.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides no evidence regarding the technical operation of the accused products. A key factual question will be whether Defendant’s systems include a component that functions as the claimed "edge processing module" and whether that component "shares workload" with a cloud module in the specific manner described in the patent specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "edge processing module"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's contribution of providing low-latency computation at the network edge. Its construction will likely determine whether Defendant's distributed network equipment, such as access point controllers or on-site servers, falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent links it to advanced capabilities not necessarily present in all wireless networks.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad and varied list of components that the module can include, such as "cryogenic processors, quantum processors, neuromorphic processors, learning machines, GPUs, and FPGA" ’045 Patent, col. 1:63-66 A party may argue this list is merely exemplary and that any processing unit located at the network edge would meet the definition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently links the module to providing "low-latency computation" and describes it as being potentially "embedded in the antenna housing" ’045 Patent, col. 2:9 A party could argue that the term requires a specialized, co-located computing unit capable of supporting demanding, low-latency applications like autonomous vehicle control, rather than a general-purpose network controller.

The Term: "to share workload"

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the functional relationship between the claimed edge and cloud modules. The interpretation of "share" will be critical to determining if Defendant’s network architecture, which may have distributed components, practices the claimed invention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: One interpretation could be that any system where some processing occurs at the edge and other processing occurs in the cloud meets this limitation, regardless of the level of integration or coordination.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a hierarchical system where each successive module (edge, core, cloud) has "increased latency" and is assigned tasks accordingly to "minimize loading the target" ’045 Patent, col. 2:23-29 This suggests a specific, structured, and latency-optimized division of labor, which a party may argue is required to meet the "share workload" limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner Compl. ¶14-15
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" based on the service of the complaint and its attached (but un-filed) claim charts Compl. ¶13 It further alleges that Defendant has continued its infringing conduct despite this knowledge, which provides a basis for post-suit willful infringement Compl. ¶14

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

• Evidentiary Sufficiency: The primary question is evidentiary. The complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying any of Defendant's products to the patent's claims. The case will therefore depend entirely on whether facts developed during discovery can substantiate the conclusory infringement allegations made in the pleading.
• Definitional Scope: A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "edge processing module," as described in a patent focused on enabling advanced 5G applications, be construed to cover the network components used in Defendant’s potentially more conventional wireless service infrastructure?
• Functional Operation: A central technical question will concern functional operation: does the accused network architecture perform the specific, hierarchical "workload sharing" between edge and cloud modules as taught by the patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed latency-optimization-focused system and the actual operation of Defendant's network?