Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 181998Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. ________________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
`HARRIS GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”), by and through its
`
`attorneys, hereby alleges against Defendants L3Harris Technologies, Inc. (“L3Harris Tech”) and
`
`Harris Global Communications Inc. (“HGC”) (collectively “L3Harris”) as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This declaratory-judgment action seeks a determination that Comcast does not
`
`infringe any claims of United States Patent Nos. 7,027,426 B2 (the “ʼ426 Patent”), 6,718,394 B2
`
`(the “ʼ394 Patent”), 7,453,864 B2 (the “ʼ864 Patent”), 6,980,537 B1 (the “ʼ537 Patent”),
`
`6,958,986 B2 (the “’986 Patent”), 7,304,972 B2 (the “’972 Patent”), 6,870,846 (the “ʼ846
`
`Patent”), 7,382,765 (the “ʼ765 Patent”), 6,754,192 (the “ʼ192 Patent”), 7,440,572 B2 (the “ʼ572
`
`Patent”), 7,606,256 B2 (the “ʼ256 Patent”), 6,404,756 B1 (the “ʼ756 Patent”), 6,349,091 B1 (the
`
`“ʼ091 Patent”), 6,961,310 B2 (the “ʼ310 Patent”), and 7,082,117 B2 (the “ʼ117 Patent”)
`
`(collectively “the L3Harris Patents”).
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 181999Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Comcast is a limited liability company organized and existing under Delaware
`
`law, with a principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business in Melbourne, Florida.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, HGC is a New York corporation with its principal
`
`place of business in Rochester, New York.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338(a) because Comcast’s claims arise under the patent laws of the United States,
`
`35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
`
`2202. With respect to Comcast’s declaratory-judgment claims, for the reasons set forth herein,
`
`there is a substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a
`
`declaratory judgment regarding the alleged infringement, or not, of the L3Harris Patents.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over L3Harris. On information and belief,
`
`L3Harris Tech is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware,
`
`maintains a registered agent for service of process in this forum, and has continuous and
`
`systematic contacts with this forum. On information and belief, HGC has assigned to L3Harris
`
`Tech, a Delaware corporation, all substantial rights—including but not limited to the right to
`
`monetize, license, enforce in court and control litigation—in the L3Harris Patents that are
`
`recorded as assigned to HGC. Alternatively, on information and belief, HGC and L3Harris Tech
`
`have entered into an agreement whereby L3Harris Tech, a Delaware corporation, is acting as
`
`HGC’s agent for purposes of the monetization, licensing, enforcement in court and control of
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 182000Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`
`litigation concerning the L3Harris Patents that are recorded as assigned to HGC. With respect to
`
`those patents, L3Harris Tech has held itself out to Comcast as having all substantial rights and
`
`the right to act as HGC’s agent with respect to the allegations of infringement and threatened
`
`enforcement of those patents.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c).
`
`I.
`
`The L3Harris Patents
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ’426 Patent, which is entitled “Multi-channel Mobile Ad Hoc Network” and which issued on
`
`April 11, 2006. A true and correct copy of the ’426 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this
`
`Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ’394 Patent, which is entitled “Hierarchical Mobile Ad-Hoc Network and Methods for
`
`Performing Reactive Routing Therein Using Ad-Hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing
`
`(AODV)” and which issued on April 6, 2004. A true and correct copy of the ’394 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ’864 Patent, which is entitled “Predictive Route Maintenance In a Mobile Ad Hoc Network”
`
`and which issued on November 18, 2008. A true and correct copy of the ’864 Patent is attached
`
`as Exhibit C to this Complaint.
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ’537 Patent, which is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Communication Network Cluster
`
`Formation and Transmission of Node Link Status Messages with Reduced Protocol Overhead
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 182001Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`
`Traffic” and which issued on December 27, 2005. A true and correct copy of the ’537 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit D to this Complaint.
`
`12.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ’986 Patent, which is entitled “Wireless communication system with enhanced time slot
`
`allocation and interference avoidance/mitigation features and related methods” and which issued
`
`on October 25, 2005. A true and correct copy of the ’986 Patent is attached as Exhibit E to this
`
`Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ’972 Patent, which is entitled “Method and device for establishing communication links and
`
`handling unbalanced traffic loads in a communication system” and which issued on December 4,
`
`2007. A true and correct copy of the ’972 Patent is attached as Exhibit F to this Complaint.
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ʼ846 Patent, which is entitled “Hierarchical mobile ad-hoc network and methods for
`
`performing reactive routing therein using dynamic source routing (DSR),” and which issued on
`
`March 22, 2005. A true and correct copy of the ’846 Patent is attached as Exhibit G to this
`
`Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ’765 Patent, which is entitled “Predictive routing in a mobile ad-hoc network,” and which
`
`issued on June 3, 2008. A true and correct copy of the ’765 Patent is attached as Exhibit H to
`
`this Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ’192 Patent, which is entitled “Temporal transition network protocol (TTNP) in a mobile ad
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 182002Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`
`hoc network,” and which issued on June 22, 2004. A true and correct copy of the ’192 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit I to this Complaint.
`
`17.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ʼ572 Patent, which is entitled “Secure Wireless LAN Device and Associated Methods,” and
`
`which issued on October 21, 2008. A true and correct copy of the ’572 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit J to this Complaint.
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ’256 Patent, which is entitled “Distributed Trunking Mechanism for VHF Networking,” and
`
`which issued on October 20, 2009. A true and correct copy of the ’256 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit K to this Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ’756 Patent, which is entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Coordinating Channel Access to
`
`Shared Parallel Data Channels,” and which issued on June 11, 2002. A true and correct copy of
`
`the ’756 Patent is attached as Exhibit L to this Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ’091 Patent, which is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Controlling Communication Links
`
`Between Network Nodes to Reduce Communication Protocol Overhead Traffic,” and which
`
`issued on February 19, 2002. A true and correct copy of the ’091 Patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`M to this Complaint.
`
`21.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ʼ310 Patent, which is entitled “Multiple Path Reactive Routing in a Mobile Ad Hoc
`
`Network,” and which issued on November 1, 2005. A true and correct copy of the ’310 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit N to this Complaint.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 182003Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris owns and/or controls all substantial rights in
`
`the ʼ117 Patent, which is entitled “Mobile Ad-Hoc Network with Intrusion Detection Features
`
`and Related Methods,” and which issued on July 25, 2006. A true and correct copy of the ’117
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit O to this Complaint.
`
`II.
`
`The Disputed Technologies
`
`23.
`
`In a series of pre-suit communications (discussed below), L3Harris, through its
`
`agent David Barnes (“Barnes”), alleged that the L3Harris Patents cover aspects of several open
`
`and/or public protocols, including Zigbee, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), IEEE 802.11e and
`
`802.11ac, and Thread (hereinafter the “Accused Networking Protocols”), as used in Internet of
`
`Things (“IoT”) devices.
`
`24.
`
`L3Harris accuses Comcast of infringing the L3Harris Patents based on the
`
`purported operation and capabilities of Comcast’s IoT devices that allegedly use the Accused
`
`Networking Protocols (hereinafter the “Accused Products”).
`
`25.
`
`The Accused Products were not developed by L3Harris. To the contrary, the
`
`Accused Products were developed in conjunction with Comcast, its equipment vendors, and/or
`
`various technology partners.
`
`26.
`
`On information and belief, L3Harris was not involved in developing any of the
`
`Accused Networking Protocols. In general, as relevant to this dispute, the Accused Networking
`
`Protocols allow IoT devices—such as home-security, entertainment, and other “smart-home”
`
`systems—to communicate with one another efficiently and inexpensively. The technology
`
`underlying each protocol was developed through the efforts of multiple companies operating
`
`through alliances and organizations around the world. Comcast, for instance, has participated as
`
`a promoter in the Zigbee Alliance. Zigbee is a networking solution for IoT devices that allows
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 182004Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`
`low-power smart objects and products from many different vendors to work together. On
`
`information and belief, L3Harris is not a member of the Zigbee Alliance.
`
`27.
`
`Similarly, BLE is a “low energy” version of Bluetooth that was first introduced in
`
`2004 and specifically developed for IoT devices. BLE is developed and maintained by the Smart
`
`Home Subgroup of the Bluetooth Special Interest Group. The Subgroup is a consortium of more
`
`than sixty member companies. Although the Subgroup’s full membership does not appear to be
`
`publicly available, upon information and belief, L3Harris is not a member and has never
`
`contributed to BLE’s development.
`
`28.
`
`Thread is developed and maintained by the Thread Group, an organization of over
`
`one-hundred members whose board is comprised of representatives from, among other
`
`organizations, Google, Qualcomm, and Apple. On information and belief, L3Harris is not a
`
`member of the Thread Group.
`
`29.
`
`The 802.11e and 802.11ac protocols are amendments to the IEEE 802.11
`
`protocol, the world’s most widely used wireless networking standard. IEEE 802.11 is used, for
`
`example, by Wi-Fi in most home and office networks to allow laptops, printers, and smartphones
`
`to talk to each other and access the Internet without connecting wires. The 802.11e amendment
`
`offers a set of enhancements for wireless applications and is of critical importance for delay-
`
`sensitive applications, such as streaming multimedia. 802.11ac makes Wi-Fi work substantially
`
`faster on common consumer devices. These standards are created and maintained by the
`
`LAN/MAN Standards Committee (IEEE 802) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (IEEE), the world’s largest technical professional organization for the advancement of
`
`technology. The IEEE 802.11 Working Group is comprised of representatives from
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 182005Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`
`organizations such as Intel, Sony, and Google. On information and belief, L3Harris not a
`
`member of the 802.11 Working Group.
`
`30.
`
`Comcast is a member of the Wi-Fi Alliance, a non-profit organization that
`
`promotes Wi-Fi technology and certifies Wi-Fi products for conformity to certain standards of
`
`interoperability. The Wi-Fi Alliance’s efforts include certification programs for 802.11e and
`
`802.11ac, among other standards. L3Harris is not a member of the Wi-Fi Alliance.
`
`III. L3Harris’s Threats Regarding Alleged Infringement of the L3Harris Patents
`
`31.
`
`Beginning in May 2018, Barnes, holding himself out as a representative of Harris
`
`Corporation (“Harris”)1 contacted Comcast stating that Comcast required a patent license from
`
`Harris for certain Accused Products. Barnes represented, and continues to represent, himself as
`
`“Managing Director” of North Forty Consulting LLC, which, upon information and belief, is a
`
`Delaware limited liability company. Since May 2018, Comcast has engaged in an extended
`
`dialogue with Barnes and directly with L3Harris, explaining that Comcast does not practice the
`
`asserted L3Harris Patents and therefore does not need a license.
`
`32.
`
`Since the summer of 2018, Harris (and then L3Harris), through its agent Barnes,
`
`identified over twenty patents that it believed Comcast should license. These included, in a first
`
`wave, United States Patent Nos. 6,980,537; 7,027,426; 7,184,421; 7,082,117; 6,718,394;
`
`6,961,310; 6,958,986; 6,349,091; 7,440,572; and 6,606,357, as well as two European patents.
`
`And in April 2019, L3Harris identified another patent, No. 6,982,987. Comcast responded to
`
`these assertions first with a letter dated April 1, 2019, and then with an email dated May 13,
`
`2019, explaining why Comcast did not infringe any of these patents and thus a license was not
`
`necessary. In addition, Comcast met with L3Harris on June 26, 2019, to afford L3Harris the
`
`
`1
`Harris Corporation merged with L3 Technologies in 2019 to become L3Harris
`Technologies, the named defendant here.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 182006Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`
`opportunity of further explaining why Comcast needed a license to these patents. L3Harris’s
`
`presentation was no more convincing or clarifying than its written allegations, which were both
`
`vague and mistaken in their understanding of the Accused Products and the reasonable scope of
`
`the patents.
`
`33. Without providing any further evidence of alleged infringement, in August and
`
`September 2019, L3Harris notified Comcast that it had failed to significantly engage with
`
`L3Harris, and provided a chart of additional infringement contentions and a summary of
`
`infringement contentions at issue to-date. In addition to reiterating past assertions2, L3Harris
`
`identified the following new patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,996,088; 7,606,256; 6,404,756;
`
`6,804,208; 7,142,866; 6,870,846; 6,754,192; and 7,382,765. In late October 2019, L3Harris
`
`identified two more U.S. Patents: Nos. 7,453,864 and 7,304,972. Again, Comcast explained in
`
`correspondence (dated November 13) why Comcast did not infringe these patents and thus a
`
`license was not necessary. L3Harris responded by reiterating its contention that “Comcast
`
`branded products from 2012 to the present have infringed and continue to infringe one or more
`
`claims of at least [the L3Harris Patents].” As Comcast has communicated to L3Harris, most
`
`recently by letter dated December 6, it remains Comcast’s position that, among other things,
`
`Comcast does not practice the L3Harris Patents and therefore Comcast does not need to license
`
`any rights from L3Harris. L3Harris maintains that Comcast’s Accused Products infringe one or
`
`more of the L3Harris Patents. Accordingly, there is a substantial and immediate controversy
`
`between the parties with regard to whether the Accused Products infringe the L3Harris Patents.
`
`34.
`
`Comcast, directly and through operating subsidiaries, has operated, marketed,
`
`and/or sold one or more of the accused products and services, and will continue to operate,
`
`market, and/or sell one or more of the Accused Products in various markets across the United
`
`2
`L3Harris withdrew from consideration two patents it had initially identified.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 182007Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`
`States, including in this district. Given this substantial and immediate controversy, Comcast
`
`seeks declaratory relief from this Court concerning its non-infringement of the L3Harris Patents.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ʼ426 Patent)
`
`35.
`
`Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, as though
`
`fully set forth in this Paragraph.
`
`36.
`
`As set forth above, L3Harris contends that Comcast’s making, using, offering to
`
`sell, selling, or importing of Comcast branded XB6 Wireless Gateways infringes one or more
`
`claims of the ’426 Patent.
`
`37.
`
`Comcast has not infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or
`
`indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any
`
`claim of the ’426 Patent, including through its XB6 Wireless Gateway products accused in
`
`L3Harris’s communications with Comcast. For example, L3Harris asserts that Comcast’s XB6
`
`Wireless Gateways supporting Thread personal area networks infringe claim 8. But the accused
`
`XB6 Wireless Gateway products do not satisfy at least the claim limitation in claim 8 of “at a
`
`source node, sending a route request over each of the plurality of electrically separate channels to
`
`discover routing to a destination node” and “selecting a route to the destination node on at least
`
`one of the plurality of electrically separate channels.” Comcast’s XB6 Wireless Gateway
`
`products do not include a source node that sends a route request over multiple electrically
`
`separate channels to discover routing to a destination node in the manner required by the claim,
`
`nor do they select a route on one of the plurality of electrically separate channels.
`
`38.
`
`Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between
`
`Comcast and L3Harris relating to the non-infringement of the ʼ426 Patent. Comcast seeks a
`
`judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 182008Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`
`Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the
`
`parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ʼ394 Patent)
`
`39.
`
`Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, as though
`
`fully set forth in this Paragraph.
`
`40.
`
`As set forth above, L3Harris contends that Comcast’s making, using, offering to
`
`sell, selling, or importing of Comcast branded Home Security and Home Automation products
`
`and services infringes one or more claims of the ’394 Patent.
`
`41.
`
`Comcast has not infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or
`
`indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any
`
`claim of the ’394 Patent, including through its Home Security and Home Automation products
`
`accused in L3Harris’s communications with Comcast. For example, L3Harris asserts that
`
`Comcast’s Home Security and Home Automation systems supporting Zigbee personal area
`
`networks infringe claim 25. But the accused products do not satisfy at least the limitation of
`
`claim 25 of “a plurality of nodes grouped into clusters of nodes, each cluster having a designated
`
`cluster leader node.” Comcast’s accused Home Security and Home Automation products do not
`
`include nodes that are grouped into clusters of nodes, and likewise they do not include a
`
`designated cluster leader node in the manner required by the claim.
`
`42.
`
`Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between
`
`Comcast and L3Harris relating to the non-infringement of the ʼ394 Patent. Comcast seeks a
`
`judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein.
`
`Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the
`
`parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 182009Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ʼ864 Patent)
`
`43.
`
`Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, as though
`
`fully set forth in this Paragraph.
`
`44.
`
`As set forth above, L3Harris contends that Comcast’s making, using, offering to
`
`sell, selling, or importing of Comcast branded Home Security and Home Automation products
`
`and services infringes one or more claims of the ʼ864 Patent.
`
`45.
`
`Comcast has not infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or
`
`indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any
`
`claim of the ʼ864 Patent, including through its Home Security and Home Automation products
`
`accused in L3Harris’s communications with Comcast. For example, L3Harris asserts that
`
`Comcast’s Home Security and Home Automation systems supporting Zigbee personal area
`
`networks infringe claim 1. But the accused Home Security and Home Automation products do
`
`not satisfy at least the limitation of claim 1 of “predicting route failure in the network by
`
`generating route failure metrics including link failure metrics and node failure metrics for each
`
`route” and “performing route maintenance in the network based upon the predicted route
`
`failure.” Comcast’s Home Security and Home Automation products do not predict route failure
`
`in the network in the manner required by the claims, nor do they perform route maintenance
`
`based upon predicted route failure.
`
`46.
`
`Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between
`
`Comcast and L3Harris relating to the non-infringement of the ʼ864 Patent. Comcast seeks a
`
`judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein.
`
`Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the
`
`parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 182010Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ʼ537 Patent)
`
`47.
`
`Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, as though
`
`fully set forth in this Paragraph.
`
`48.
`
`As set forth above, L3Harris contends that Comcast’s making, using, offering to
`
`sell, selling, or importing of Comcast branded Home Security and Home Automation products
`
`and services infringes one or more claims of the ʼ537 Patent.
`
`49.
`
`Comcast has not infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or
`
`indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any
`
`claim of the ʼ537 Patent, including through its Home Security and Home Automation products
`
`accused in L3Harris’s communications with Comcast. For example, L3Harris asserts that
`
`Comcast’s Home Security and Home Automation systems supporting Zigbee personal area
`
`networks infringe claim 16. But the accused Home Security and Home Automation products do
`
`not satisfy at least the limitation of claim 16 of “identifying neighboring units that are isolated
`
`from communications with remaining neighboring units of said communication unit” and
`
`“designating said communication unit as said routing unit in response to determining that said
`
`communication unit communicates with at least one neighboring unit that is isolated from
`
`communications with remaining neighboring units of said communication unit.” Comcast’s
`
`Home Security and Home Automation products do not identify isolated neighboring units in the
`
`manner required by the claims, nor do they designate certain units as routing units based on such
`
`an identification.
`
`50.
`
`Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between
`
`Comcast and L3Harris relating to the non-infringement of the ʼ537 Patent. Comcast seeks a
`
`judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 182011Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`
`Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the
`
`parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ʼ986 Patent)
`
`51.
`
`Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, as though
`
`fully set forth in this Paragraph.
`
`52.
`
`As set forth above, L3Harris contends that Comcast’s making, using, offering to
`
`sell, selling, or importing of Comcast branded Home Security and Home Automation products
`
`and services infringes one or more claims of the ʼ986 Patent.
`
`53.
`
`Comcast has not infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or
`
`indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any
`
`claim of the ʼ986 Patent, including through its Home Security and Home Automation products
`
`accused in L3Harris’s communications with Comcast. For example, L3Harris asserts that that
`
`Comcast’s Home Security and Home Automation products supporting Zigbee personal area
`
`networks infringe claim 25. But the accused Home Security and Home Automation products do
`
`not satisfy at least the limitations of claim 25 of “scheduling respective semi-permanent time
`
`slots to establish communication links between respective pairs of mobile nodes for transmitting
`
`data stored in the data queues therebetween”; “determining link utilization metrics for each
`
`communication link based upon a quantity of data previously sent over the communication link
`
`during the semi-permanent time slots and the data queues”; and “scheduling demand assigned
`
`time slots for establishing additional communication links between the pairs of mobile nodes for
`
`transmitting the data based upon the link utilization metrics.” Comcast’s Home Security and
`
`Home Automation products do not assign “semi-permanent” time slots in the manner required by
`
`the claims, nor do they determine link utilization metrics or establish additional communication
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 182012Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`
`links based on “a quantity of data previously sent over the communication link during the semi-
`
`permanent time slots.”
`
`54.
`
`Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between
`
`Comcast and L3Harris relating to the non-infringement of the ʼ986 Patent. Comcast seeks a
`
`judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein.
`
`Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the
`
`parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties.
`
`SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ʼ972 Patent)
`
`55.
`
`Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, as though
`
`fully set forth in this Paragraph.
`
`56.
`
`As set forth above, L3Harris contends that Comcast’s making, using, offering to
`
`sell, selling, or importing of Comcast branded XB6 Wireless Gateways infringes one or more
`
`claims of the ʼ972 Patent.
`
`57.
`
`Comcast has not infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or
`
`indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any
`
`claim of the ʼ972 Patent, including through its XB6 Wireless Gateway products accused in
`
`L3Harris’s communications with Comcast. For example, L3Harris has contended that
`
`Comcast’s XB6 Wireless Gateways supporting 802.11ac infringe claim 21. But the accused
`
`XB6 Wireless Gateway products do not satisfy at least the limitations of claim 21 of “a mobile
`
`node for a wireless communication network” including “a directional antenna” and “a time slot
`
`scheduling unit to schedule time slots to establish a communication link with neighboring mobile
`
`nodes.” Comcast’s XB6 Wireless Gateway products do not use either a time-slot scheduling unit
`
`or directional antennas as required by the claim.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 1898 Filed 12/09/19 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 182013Case 1:19-cv-02245-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/09/19 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`
`58.
`
`Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between
`
`Comcast and L3Harris relating to the non-infringement of the ʼ972 Patent. Comcast seeks a
`
`judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein.
`
`Such a determination and declaration are necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the
`
`parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties.
`
`SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ʼ846 Patent)
`
`59.
`
`Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive, as though
`
`fully set forth in this Paragraph.
`
`60.
`
`As set forth above, L3Harris contends that Comcast’s making, using, offering to
`
`sell, selling, or importing of Comcast branded Home Security and Home Automation products
`
`and services infringes one or more claims of the ʼ846 Patent.
`
`61.
`
`Comcast has not infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or
`
`indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any
`
`claim of the ʼ846 Patent, including through its Home Security and Home Automation products
`
`accused in L3Harris’s communications with Comcast. For example, L3Harris asserts that
`
`Comcast’s Home Security and Home Automation products supporting Zigbee personal area
`
`networks infringe claim 29. But the accused Home Security and Home Automation