CommWorks Solutions LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CommWorks Solutions, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00088, E.D. Tex., 02/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district under the alien-venue rule.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s semiconductor chips and devices for Wi-Fi and other networking applications infringe eight patents related to network quality of service, wireless access provisioning, traffic detection, and mesh networking.
• Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies for managing data flow, security, and performance in modern wired and wireless computer networks, which are critical for everything from consumer electronics to telecommunications infrastructure.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant has previously been sued for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas and has not contested the propriety of venue in those actions.

Case Timeline

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

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 Dec. 14, 2004

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that as the internet grew, it became plagued by congestion and latency, and conventional routing systems lacked effective quality of service (QoS) controls, particularly across the different functional layers of the network (e.g., the OSI model) (Compl. ¶24; ’249 Patent, col. 1:32-38; ’249 Patent, col. 2:8-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system for managing broadband communications by monitoring a network for a "quality of service event" occurring at a specific layer of the OSI model (designated Layer N). In response, the system changes the "network provisioning" at a lower layer (a layer less than N) to correct or mitigate the issue ’249 Patent, abstract ’249 Patent, col. 6:53-63 This cross-layer control is intended to bridge the gaps between different service providers and network technologies ’249 Patent, col. 6:58-63
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a mechanism for more granular and responsive QoS management, giving network administrators, service providers, and content providers greater control over network performance and user experience Compl. ¶24

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 11 and 38 Compl. ¶25
• Independent Claim 11 (Method):
  • A method for providing broadband communications over a multi-layered network having a plurality of Open System Interconnection (OSI) reference model layers.
  • Monitoring at least one OSI reference model layer functioning in the multi-layered network.
  • Determining that a quality of service event has occurred in the multilayered network.
  • Determining that the quality of service event occurred at a layer N in the OSI reference model.
  • Responding to the quality of service event by changing network provisioning at a layer less than N.
  • Signaling that the network provisioning at the layer less than N has been changed.
• Independent Claim 38 (System):
  • A system comprising a multi-layered network with a plurality of OSI reference model layers.
  • A network monitor adapted to: monitor at least one OSI layer, determine a quality of service event has occurred, and determine the event occurred at layer N.
  • A network controller adapted to respond to the event by changing network provisioning at a layer less than N.

U.S. Patent No. 7,177,285 - “Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning,” Issued Feb. 13, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of securely connecting new wireless devices to a network, especially for devices that lack a user interface (like a "wireless picture frame") to enter passwords or other credentials, a process that often required technical proficiency (Compl. ¶36; ’285 Patent, col. 3:13-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a "time-based" method for provisioning wireless devices. An access point tracks an "operating parameter" of a wireless device, such as the "onset of a signal transmission." If this event occurs within a specified "time interval" relative to a user-initiated "provisioning" activation (e.g., pressing a button on the access point), the system initiates the process to securely connect the device to the network ’285 Patent, abstract ’285 Patent, col. 3:50-58 This simplifies the setup process by correlating a physical user action with a recent device event.
• Technical Importance: The complaint characterizes this invention as a "major technological advance" for enabling secure wireless provisioning without requiring a complex user interface or high user proficiency, forming the conceptual basis for systems like Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) Compl. ¶37 ’285 Patent, col. 3:37-41

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claim 1 Compl. ¶39
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • A process for provisioning between a wireless device and a network.
  • Tracking an operating parameter of the wireless device within a service area.
  • The operating parameter comprises an onset of a signal transmission of the wireless device.
  • Initiating provisioning of the wireless device if the tracked operating parameter occurs within a time interval.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsules

• U.S. Patent No. 7,463,596, “Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning,” Issued Dec. 9, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’285 Patent, this patent addresses the problem of provisioning wireless devices that lack user interfaces Compl. ¶50 The solution is a time-based process where an access point tracks an operating parameter of a first device (e.g., power-on or signal onset) and automatically associates it with another device if the event occurs within a specified time interval Compl. ¶55
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶53
  • Accused Features: Realtek devices supporting Wi-Fi Protected Setup ("WPS") functionality (the "WPS Accused Products") Compl. ¶44

• U.S. Patent No. 7,911,979, “Time Based Access Provisioning System And Process,” Issued Mar. 22, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also relates to simplifying wireless network setup for devices without user interfaces Compl. ¶64 It describes a provisioning process performed by a provisioning system that tracks an operating parameter of a device (power on or signal onset) and sends a signal to initiate provisioning if the event occurs within a designated time interval Compl. ¶69
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶67
  • Accused Features: Realtek devices supporting Wi-Fi Protected Setup ("WPS") functionality (the "WPS Accused Products") Compl. ¶58

• U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,904, “Method For Contention Free Traffic Detection,” Issued May 20, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem that conventional network access points could not easily differentiate high-priority traffic from normal traffic without complex and slow processing of all data frame headers Compl. ¶78 The solution is a method to more efficiently identify priority traffic by extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a frame and comparing it to a search pattern, allowing low-cost access points to handle priority routing Compl. ¶79 Compl. ¶83
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶81
  • Accused Features: Realtek chips and devices supporting Wi-Fi Multimedia and 802.11-2007+ functionality (the "Wi-Fi Multimedia Accused Products") Compl. ¶72

• U.S. Patent No. 7,027,465, “Method For Contention Free Traffic Detection,” Issued Apr. 11, 2006

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the same problem as the RE’904 patent: the difficulty for access points to separate traffic based on priority without complex processing Compl. ¶92 The invention provides a method for detecting priority by extracting a bit pattern from a predetermined position in a data frame (defined by an offset) and comparing it with a search pattern Compl. ¶97
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶95
  • Accused Features: Realtek devices supporting Wi-Fi Multimedia and 802.11-2007+ functionality (the "Wi-Fi Multimedia Accused Products") Compl. ¶86

• U.S. Patent No. 6,891,807, “Time Based Wireless Access Provisioning,” Issued May 10, 2005

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the same family as the '285, ’596, and ’979 patents, addressing simplified wireless provisioning Compl. ¶106 It describes a time-based system where a network access point tracks the operation of a wireless device and provisions it if the operation occurs within an activatable time interval Compl. ¶110
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 17 Compl. ¶108
  • Accused Features: Realtek devices supporting Wi-Fi Protected Setup ("WPS") functionality (the "WPS Accused Products") Compl. ¶100

• U.S. Patent No. 9,554,304, “Scalable Media Access Control for Multi-Hop High Bandwidth Communications,” Issued Jan. 24, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses performance degradation in multi-hop wireless mesh networks, where conventional media access control (MAC) protocols failed to account for end-to-end resource allocation, leading to communication errors Compl. ¶119 The invention provides a method for establishing a wireless link in a mesh network by receiving a beacon signal, determining its signal quality, and adding the sender node to a neighbor list to establish a communication link if quality thresholds are met Compl. ¶123
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶121
  • Accused Features: Realtek systems and devices supporting Wi-Fi Mesh functionality (the "Wi-Fi Mesh Accused Products") Compl. ¶113

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies five main categories of accused products, which are Realtek Systems-on-Chips (SoCs), devices, and/or software Compl. ¶15 These categories are:

1. "802.3ah Accused Products" and "ITU-T Accused Products": Chips supporting specific wired networking standards (IEEE 802.3ah and ITU-T G.984/G.9807.1) for functions like passive optical networks (PON) Compl. ¶¶19-20
2. "Realtek WPS Products": Devices and chips supporting Wi-Fi Protected Setup ("WPS") functionality, a standard for simplified, secure setup of wireless networks Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶31
3. "Realtek Wi-Fi Multimedia Products": SoCs and devices supporting Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) and the IEEE 802.11-2007+ standard, which relate to prioritizing network traffic Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶72
4. "Wi-Fi Mesh Products": Systems and devices supporting Wi-Fi Mesh functionality for creating multi-hop wireless networks Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶113

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentalities are fundamental components in a vast array of networking equipment. The complaint alleges these Realtek chips are incorporated into products sold in the United States, enabling core functionalities defined by major industry standards for both wired (e.g., fiber-optic) and wireless (e.g., Wi-Fi) communications Compl. ¶5 The allegations cover a wide range of features, from basic network management and QoS to user-facing features like simplified Wi-Fi setup (WPS) and advanced network topologies like mesh networking. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent, but these exhibits were not provided with the complaint document Compl. ¶35, List of Exhibits The following is a summary of the narrative infringement theories presented in the complaint.

• U.S. Patent No. 6,832,249 Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the "802.3ah Accused Products" and "ITU-T Accused Products" infringe claims 11 and 38 Compl. ¶¶27-28 The theory is that these products, by complying with their respective standards, necessarily perform the claimed method and embody the claimed system. Specifically, they allegedly "monitor[] at least one OSI reference model layer," "determin[e] that a quality of service event has occurred," and "respond[] to the quality of service event... by changing network provisioning at a layer less than N" Compl. ¶27

• U.S. Patent No. 7,177,285 Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the "WPS Accused Products" infringe at least claim 1 Compl. ¶41 The infringement theory is that the functionality of Wi-Fi Protected Setup inherently practices the claimed process. The products are alleged to perform a process for provisioning that involves "tracking an operating parameter of the wireless device," specifically an "onset of a signal transmission," and "initiating provisioning... if the tracked operating parameter occurs within a time interval" Compl. ¶41

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention for the ’249 Patent is whether the automated fault detection and management functions within the IEEE 802.3ah and ITU-T standards fall within the scope of the patent's terms, such as "quality of service event" and "changing network provisioning." For the ’285 Patent, a question may arise as to whether the specific user-initiated handshake protocol of the WPS standard constitutes "tracking an operating parameter" that "occurs within a time interval" as construed in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A technical question for the ’249 Patent is what evidence demonstrates that a response to a network event in an accused product occurs at an OSI layer that is definitively "less than" the layer where the event was detected, as required by the claims. For the ’285 Patent, a question will be what evidence shows that the accused WPS products track the "onset of a signal transmission" specifically, as opposed to other events in the WPS communication protocol.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term 1 (from the ’249 Patent)

  • The Term: "quality of service event" (Claim 11)
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical as it defines the trigger for the claimed invention. Its scope will determine what types of network performance issues or status changes can give rise to infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint accuses products compliant with standards that define numerous specific status messages and error conditions, and whether these standard-defined events meet the claim's definition will be a central issue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification may use general language, such as defining the event in terms of any degradation of service or change in network state, potentially supporting a broad reading that covers many types of network alerts.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of quality of service measurements such as "error seconds, unavailable seconds, packet loss rate, transmission time (latency), [and] jitter" ’249 Patent, col. 10:12-14 A party could argue these examples limit the term to specific, measurable performance metrics rather than general status changes.

• Term 2 (from the ’249 Patent)

  • The Term: "changing network provisioning at a layer less than N" (Claim 11)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the required response to the "quality of service event." The infringement analysis hinges on whether the actions taken by the accused products constitute "changing network provisioning" and occur at a "layer less than N."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a "change in the network provisioning may occur without the addition of any new communication circuits or paths" and can include actions like "changing the path of an MPLS tunnel or by changing the priority on a queue in an IP router" ’249 Patent, col. 14:60-66 This could support a broad definition covering software-based configuration changes.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides detailed examples involving activating new physical or virtual circuits, such as provisioning "additional fiber optic circuits" or "additional ATM virtual circuits" ’249 Patent, claims 1, 6 A party could argue these specific, resource-allocating embodiments suggest the term requires more than a simple packet re-routing or priority flag change.

• Term 3 (from the ’285 Patent)

  • The Term: "tracking an operating parameter of the wireless device" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the action the access point must perform. The dispute will likely center on whether the WPS protocol, which involves a user pressing buttons on both the access point and sometimes the device to initiate a handshake, constitutes "tracking" an "operating parameter" in the manner envisioned by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions parameters including "power on and/or start of signal transmission" ’285 Patent, col. 3:54-56 The "and/or" language and general phrasing could support an interpretation that covers various types of device activity beyond the initial power-on event.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and description heavily feature a sequence where the device is powered on first, and its "recent power on" is the event that is checked after the user activates the access point ’285 Patent, col. 5:30-46 ’285 Patent, Fig. 3 This could support a narrower construction limited to events closely tied to the device's initial activation, potentially excluding the more interactive WPS handshake.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Defendant provides information and assistance to its customers to enable them to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner" Compl. ¶16 This allegation appears to lay the groundwork for a claim of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

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

• A central issue will be one of technical mapping: will the court find that the automated processes defined in established industry standards (e.g., IEEE 802.3ah, Wi-Fi Protected Setup, Wi-Fi Multimedia) perform the specific steps recited in the patent claims? The case will likely require a detailed comparison of how the accused standards-compliant products operate versus the specific sequences of monitoring, determining, and responding described in the patents.

• A key question will be one of definitional scope: can broad claim terms such as "quality of service event" and "operating parameter" be construed to cover the specific, well-defined events and protocols of the accused standards-based products? The outcome of claim construction for these terms will be critical in determining the reach of the patents over a wide range of modern networking equipment.

• A further question may relate to the doctrine of equivalents: given that the accused products implement industry standards that evolved over time, to what extent can the functions performed by those products be considered equivalent to the claimed invention, even if they do not literally infringe? This may be particularly relevant for the patents on time-based provisioning, where the WPS standard provides a similar function (simplified setup) through a potentially different technical sequence.