Eight Deer Ventures LLC v. Cellco Partnership

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Eight Deer Ventures, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Susman Godfrey LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00572, E.D. Tex., 07/10/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is deemed to reside in the District, conducts substantial business there, and maintains regular and established places of business, including retail stores and network technology offices.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's telecommunications platforms, including its "ThingSpace" Internet of Things (IoT) platform and its "Provisioning Platform," infringe three patents related to remote device management, specifically methods for device deregistration, firmware upgrades, and modification of device attributes.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to the management of large fleets of network-connected devices, a foundational technology for the growing Internet of Things (IoT) market, which requires scalable and efficient methods for device provisioning, updates, and lifecycle management.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that in other recent patent litigations, Verizon has admitted to or not contested the court's personal jurisdiction and venue, which Plaintiff may use to argue against challenges on these grounds.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-10-26	'355 Patent Priority Date
2012-10-29	'597 Patent Priority Date
2014-05-05	'628 Patent Priority Date
2017-05-23	U.S. Patent No. 9,661,597 Issues
2017-08-08	U.S. Patent No. 9,729,355 Issues
2020-07-14	U.S. Patent No. 10,715,628 Issues
2026-07-10	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,661,597 - Method and Device for Deregistering Terminal Peripheral

• Issued: May 23, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of "storage resource waste" that occurs when a network gateway cannot actively deregister a terminal peripheral (e.g., an IoT device) '597 Patent, col. 1:45-49 This is particularly problematic when a gateway is replaced, as the old registration information remains on the device, potentially preventing normal data transmission '597 Patent, col. 1:40-45
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where a gateway, upon receiving a request from a service platform, sends a deregistration request message directly to the terminal peripheral '597 Patent, abstract After sending this request (and potentially receiving confirmation), the gateway deletes its own locally stored registration information for that peripheral, thus cleaning up network resources and ensuring the device is properly removed from its management '597 Patent, col. 7:59-67
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a formal, network-initiated process for device lifecycle management, which is critical for maintaining the integrity and efficiency of large-scale M2M/IoT networks.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10 Compl. ¶54
• Independent Claim 1 (method) includes the following essential elements:
  • Receiving, by a gateway, a request message for deregistering a terminal peripheral from a Machine-to-Machine/Man (M2M) service platform.
  • Sending, by the gateway, a request message for deregistering the terminal peripheral to the terminal peripheral.
  • Deleting, by the gateway, registration information of the terminal peripheral stored by the gateway.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims Compl. ¶54

U.S. Patent No. 9,729,355 - Method, Device and System for Remote Management of Terminal Peripheral

• Issued: August 8, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem where remote management of peripherals is "not targeted and cannot be processed subsequently," leading to ineffective management '355 Patent, col. 1:19-22 This implies that prior art systems involved simple, one-way commands without intelligent feedback processing.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a closed-loop management system. A gateway forwards data from a peripheral to a service platform. The platform then sends a remote management operation back to the peripheral via the gateway. Crucially, the gateway then "processes" the operation based on "execution information fed back by the terminal peripheral" (e.g., success or failure) and reports a final result back to the platform '355 Patent, abstract This processing can include re-sending a failed operation at a preset time or removing a successful one '355 Patent, col. 2:21-42
• Technical Importance: This approach creates a more robust and intelligent device management framework by introducing stateful, responsive logic at the network gateway, improving the reliability of remote operations like firmware updates.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10 Compl. ¶65
• Independent Claim 1 (method) includes the following essential elements:
  • Forwarding, by a Machine-to-Machine/Man (M2M) gateway, data sent from a terminal peripheral to an M2M application or service platform.
  • Sending, by the platform, a remote management operation to the terminal peripheral through the M2M gateway.
  • Processing, by the M2M gateway, the remote management operation according to execution information fed back by the terminal peripheral.
  • Reporting a remote management result to the M2M application or service platform.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims Compl. ¶65

U.S. Patent No. 10,715,628 - Attribute Operating Method and Device

• Issued: July 14, 2020

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the inefficiency of having to "re-create the resource" to add or delete an attribute associated with it (e.g., deleting and re-creating an entire account to add a new phone line) '628 Patent, col. 2:5-8 The solution is a method that allows a system to directly operate on a specific attribute of a resource by sending a structured request that identifies the attribute and the desired operation (e.g., create, delete), thus enabling granular modifications without reconstructing the entire parent resource '628 Patent, abstract

Asserted Claims

Independent claims 1 and 9 Compl. ¶76

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that Verizon's "Provisioning Platform," specifically its "Add a New Line of Service" feature, allows users to modify account attributes without reconstructing the entire account, thereby infringing the '628 Patent Compl. ¶¶43-44

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies two primary accused instrumentalities: the "ThingSpace Platform" and the "Provisioning Platform" Compl. ¶¶12-14

Functionality and Market Context

• The ThingSpace Platform is described as Verizon's "Internet of Things (or 'IoT') platform" that allows account holders to manage their devices and applications on Verizon's network from a centralized location Compl. ¶16 The complaint alleges this platform provides features for remote device deregistration ("Deactivate Service for Devices") and remote firmware upgrades ("Schedule a Firmware Upgrade") Compl. ¶17 Compl. ¶28 The complaint includes a diagram illustrating the ThingSpace platform's architecture, which includes modules for connectivity management, device management, and reporting Compl. ¶16
• The Provisioning Platform is alleged to be a system that allows Verizon accountholders to manage device attributes, for example, by adding a new line of service to an existing account without having to reconstruct the entire account Compl. ¶43 The complaint alleges this functionality is accessible via the "My Verizon app" and website Compl. ¶43 Compl. ¶44

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,661,597 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
receiving, by a gateway, a request message for deregistering a terminal peripheral from a Machine-to-Machine/Man (M2M) service platform	The ThingSpace Platform, acting as the M2M platform, receives a user request and sends an HTTP POST request to its API to initiate deactivation.	¶17; ¶18	col. 12:41-48
sending, by the gateway, a request message for deregistering the terminal peripheral to the terminal peripheral	Upon receiving the API request, ThingSpace servers send a deactivation request to Unified Data Management ("UDM") servers, which in turn send a deregistration request to the Access and Mobility Management Function ("AMF"), which then sends a "De-registration Request" to the end-user device ("UE").	¶18; ¶19; ¶21	col. 7:60-63
deleting, by the gateway, registration information of the terminal peripheral stored by the gateway	The UDM triggers the "removal of a subscriber's RM context" and the device's subscription information is deleted upon processing the deregistration request.	¶22	col. 7:63-67

The complaint provides a network signaling diagram from an ETSI technical specification to illustrate the alleged flow of deregistration messages between network components. Compl. ¶19

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the distributed architecture described in the complaint-involving the ThingSpace Platform, UDM servers, and AMF-collectively constitutes a "gateway" as that term is used in the patent. The defense may argue that no single entity performs all the claimed steps of the "gateway."
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies on mapping Verizon's implementation of 5G network standards (e.g., UDM, AMF) to the patent's more generic terms. The case may turn on evidence showing whether the specific messages, such as Nudm_UECM_DeregistrationNotification, actually perform the function of the claimed "request message for deregistering the terminal peripheral."

U.S. Patent No. 9,729,355 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
forwarding, by a Machine-to-Machine/Man (M2M) gateway, data sent from the terminal peripheral to an M2M application or an M2M service platform	Devices connected to the Verizon ThingSpace Platform communicate information, such as device identification and model, to the platform's server.	¶30	col. 1:45-51
sending, by the M2M application or the M2M service platform, a remote management operation to the terminal peripheral through the M2M gateway	The ThingSpace Platform allows users to "Schedule a Firmware Upgrade" by creating a "campaign," which initiates an HTTP request to an API endpoint to begin the upgrade process on a selected device.	¶28; ¶29; ¶32	col. 1:51-56
processing, by the M2M gateway, the remote management operation according to remote management operation execution information fed back by the terminal peripheral, and reporting a remote management result...	The device communicates a result (e.g., "UpgradeFailed," "Completed," or "Firmware image download succeeded") back to the ThingSpace platform. If the upgrade is unsuccessful, the platform can re-send the command according to a preset schedule.	¶33; ¶34; ¶36; ¶40	col. 2:9-14

The complaint includes a screenshot showing the status of a firmware upgrade as "UpgradeFailed," which allegedly represents the "execution information" fed back by the peripheral. Compl. ¶33

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The claim requires the "M2M gateway" to perform the "processing" based on feedback. The complaint alleges the ThingSpace platform re-sends the command on failure Compl. ¶40 A key dispute may be whether the "gateway" itself performs the claimed responsive logic (e.g., retrying or removing the command), or if this function is performed by a different entity (the platform), potentially creating a mismatch with the claim language.
  • Technical Questions: Does simply reporting a status like "UpgradeFailed" and having a platform-level retry policy meet the claim limitation of "processing... according to... execution information"? The patent specification describes specific gateway actions like locally removing or resending the operation, which suggests a more active role for the gateway than what may be alleged. '355 Patent, col. 2:21-42

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '597 Patent

• The Term: "gateway"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central actor in the asserted claims. Its construction will determine whether the collection of distributed network functions alleged by Plaintiff (ThingSpace servers, UDM, AMF) can be mapped to a single claimed element. Practitioners may focus on this term as its scope is dispositive for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the gateway as a "middleware which connects the endmost execution node to a network side server," and states it "may perform protocol conversion," suggesting a functional rather than a monolithic physical definition. '597 Patent, col. 1:15-17
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patent depict the gateway as a discrete entity situated between the "terminal peripheral" and the "M2M service platform." '597 Patent, Fig. 5 The description of the gateway deleting its "locally stored" information could be argued to imply a single, localized device. '597 Patent, col. 5:10-12

For the '355 Patent

• The Term: "processing, by the M2M gateway, the remote management operation according to remote management operation execution information"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the core inventive concept of a responsive, closed-loop management system. The dispute will likely center on what actions constitute "processing" and whether they must be performed by the gateway.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the exact steps of "processing," which could be argued to encompass any responsive action taken based on feedback, including a platform-level decision to retry.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of "processing," stating that if the operation is successful, the gateway "locally remov[es]" the operation, and if it fails, the gateway "re-send[s]" the operation at a preset time. '355 Patent, col. 2:24-34 This language may support a narrower construction requiring the gateway itself to perform these specific stateful actions.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges induced infringement, stating that Verizon encourages and facilitates direct infringement by instructing customers and end users on how to use the accused features (e.g., deregistering a device or performing a firmware upgrade) through promotional materials, instructions, and product manuals Compl. ¶56 Compl. ¶67 Compl. ¶78 The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the infringing features are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use Compl. ¶58 Compl. ¶69 Compl. ¶80
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Verizon has had notice of the patents-in-suit "at least as of the date of this Complaint" Compl. ¶61 Compl. ¶72 Compl. ¶83 This appears to be a basis for alleging post-suit willful infringement.

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

This case will likely hinge on questions of claim scope and the specific location and nature of technical functions within Verizon's complex, multi-component platforms. Key questions for the court include:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "gateway," as defined in the patents, be construed broadly enough to encompass the distributed network architecture that Verizon allegedly uses, which includes separate platforms, UDM servers, and AMF functions?

2. A critical evidentiary question will be one of functional location: For the '355 patent, does the accused ThingSpace system perform the claimed "processing" of execution feedback at the gateway as arguably required by the patent's specific embodiments, or does the platform's control over retries create a fundamental mismatch in where the claimed function is performed?

3. A further question will be one of technical mapping: For the '628 patent, does the commercial process of "adding a new line" to a customer account technically map to the patent's specific method of operating on a severable "attribute" to avoid "re-creating a resource," or is the real-world process sufficiently different to fall outside the claim's scope?