Dali Wireless, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications LLC

Background

Dali Wireless, Inc. sued Corning Optical Communications LLC for willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,433,261, 9,197,358, and 10,506,454. The patents concern distributed antenna systems, including techniques for managing wireless coverage, frequency use, transmission power, traffic, and radio resources. Dali’s willful-infringement claims had previously been dismissed. The remaining matter included Corning’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.

Corning’s accused SpiderCloud Enterprise Radio Access Network system uses radio nodes and a service node to provide indoor cellular coverage. The court applied the summary-judgment standard, under which judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For patent infringement, the court explained that the accused device must contain every limitation of the asserted claim, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

The ’358 Patent

The relevant claims required two frequency sets with different geographic footprints, with the second footprint larger than and at least partly surrounding the first. The court had previously construed “geographic footprint” to mean “radio coverage area.” It adhered to its conclusion that the coverage areas depend on transmission power, relying on the patent specification’s description of different frequencies being transmitted at different power levels.

The court found that the first and second frequency sets in the SpiderCloud system were transmitted at the same power level and therefore had the same radio coverage area. Dali’s expert asserted that the system met the limitation but did not explain why the frequency sets had different or geographically distinct footprints. The court therefore granted summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’358 patent.

The ’261 Patent

The ’261 patent claims a method requiring an iterative transmit-power optimization algorithm that adjusts a digital remote unit’s power level to increase a key performance indicator related to the number of satisfied users. Dali alleged both direct infringement by Corning and induced infringement based on Corning’s customers’ use of the SpiderCloud transmit-power-optimization feature.

For direct infringement, the court found no evidence that Corning used the feature after the ’261 patent issued on October 1, 2019. The software-testing logs showed testing between January 2016 and October 2018. The court rejected Dali’s expert’s speculation that Corning likely tested the feature in later software versions, finding no specific or credible evidence supporting that conclusion. It granted summary judgment of no direct infringement of the ’261 patent.

For induced infringement, the court explained that Dali needed evidence of an underlying direct infringement by Corning’s customers and evidence that Corning specifically intended to induce infringement. Corning became aware of the ’261 patent on April 8, 2020, and the feature remained in the operating system for a time, but it was disabled by default and Corning provided no instructions for enabling it. The court also found no evidence that Corning’s customers actually used the feature after October 1, 2019. The court granted summary judgment of no induced infringement of the ’261 patent. It also noted that Corning permanently disabled the feature in its latest software version in 2021.

The ’454 Patent

The ’454 patent claims a system that dynamically routes signals and reconfigures sectors by allocating at least one digital remote unit from a first sector to a second sector based on key performance indicators and quality of service. The court had construed “sectors” to mean “independent radio resources,” such as radio-frequency carriers, resource blocks, codes, or time slots. The court explained that power levels are not radio resources.

The court found that SpiderCloud transitioned users between sets of radio nodes by increasing the transmission power of the second set. Under the court’s claim construction, changing a radio node’s power level changed the coverage area but did not reallocate the node to a different set of independent radio resources. The court rejected Dali’s expert’s conclusory statements that the system assigned independent radio resources to different cells. It granted summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’454 patent.

Expert Motions and Disposition

The court denied as moot four motions concerning expert evidence: Corning’s motion to strike Bims’ report, Dali’s motion to exclude Kindler’s expert opinions, Corning’s motion to exclude Donohue’s expert opinions, and Dali’s motion to exclude Andrews’ and Proctor’s expert opinions. The court found that the disputed evidence was not material to its summary-judgment decision.

The court granted Corning’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’261, ’358, and ’454 patents. It denied the four expert-evidence motions as moot, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and ordered the case closed.