CommScope Holding Company, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC

24-1588 Fed. Cir. Closed 26 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 21 Mar 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 24 Apr 2026, with 26 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
24-1588
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
Fed. Cir.
Court level
Court of Appeals
Case region
District of Columbia
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
Appeal
Filed – Closed
21 Mar 2024 – 24 Apr 2026
Duration
764 days
Basis of termination
Appeal Dismissed
Products & marks
Operable as bonded transceivers
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 24-1588, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US8090008B2 Inactive App. US12/783725

System and method for scrambling the phase of the carriers in a multicarrier communications system

A system and method that scrambles the phase characteristic of a carrier signal are described. The scrambling of the phase characteristic of each carrier signal includes associating a value with each carrier signal and computing a phase shift for each carrier signal based on the value associated with that carrier signal. The value is determined independently of any input bit value carried by that carrier signal. The phase shift computed for each carrier signal is combined with the phase characteristic of that carrier signal so as to substantially scramble the phase characteristic of the carrier signals. Bits of an input signal are modulated onto the carrier signals having the substantially scrambled phase characteristic to produce a transmission signal with a reduced PAR.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
3 Jan 2012
Earliest priority
9 Nov 1999
Est. expiry
23 Feb 2021
Validity challenges
1 on recordIPR2015-00240 · filed by 2Wire, Inc.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04B1/38H04L27/36H04L5/12H04B17/00H04L25/03H04L27/26
Examiner
BOCURE, TESFALDET
US8090008B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8090008B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US7570686B2 Inactive App. US10/619691

Systems and methods for establishing a diagnostic transmission mode and communicating over the same

Upon detection of a trigger, such as the exceeding of an error threshold or the direction of a user, a diagnostic link system enters a diagnostic information transmission mode. This diagnostic information transmission mode allows for two modems to exchange diagnostic and/or test information that may not otherwise be exchangeable during normal communication. The diagnostic information transmission mode is initiated by transmitting an initiate diagnostic link mode message to a receiving modem accompanied by a cyclic redundancy check (CRC). The receiving modem determines, based on the CRC, if a robust communications channel is present. If a robust communications channel is present, the two modems can initiate exchange of the diagnostic and/or test information. Otherwise, the transmission power of the transmitting modem is increased and the initiate diagnostic link mode message re-transmitted to the receiving modem until the CRC is determined to be correct.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
4 Aug 2009
Earliest priority
10 Aug 2000
Est. expiry
1 Oct 2022
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04B1/38H04L12/26H04L1/00H04L1/18H04L69/40H04L1/24H04L5/14H04M3/22H04M3/30H04M11/00
Examiner
TRAN, KHANH C
US7570686B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7570686B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

"THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED"

Case 24-1588 · Fed. Cir. · closed 24 April 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 24-1588?

24-1588 is a patent infringement action brought by CommScope Holding Company, Inc. against TQ Delta, LLC, filed on 21 Mar 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 24 April 2026.

Which patents were asserted in 24-1588?

US8090008B2 (“System and method for scrambling the phase of the carriers in a multicarrier communications system”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC, currently inactive; US7570686B2 (“Systems and methods for establishing a diagnostic transmission mode and communicating over the same”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC, currently inactive; US8468411B2 (“Packet retransmission”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; D886416; US7453881B2 (“Systems and methods for multi-pair ATM over DSL”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US8937988B2 (“Systems and methods for a multicarrier modulation system with a variable margin”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US7844882B2 (“Resource sharing in a telecommunications environment”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US9300601B2 (“Bonding device and method”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US8495473B2 (“Resource sharing in a telecommunications environment”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US9014193B2 (“Bonding device and method”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; D903237; US10409510B2 (“Resource sharing in a telecommunications environment”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US8594162B2 (“Impulse noise management”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; D905380; US9894014B2 (“Bonding device and method”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US8462835B2 (“Impulse noise management”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US9547608B2 (“Resource sharing in a telecommunications environment”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US9094348B2 (“Packet retransmission”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US9485055B2 (“Packet retransmission and memory sharing”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US10833809B2 (“Techniques for packet and message communication in a multicarrier transceiver environment”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; D859788; US8276048B2 (“Resource sharing in a telecommunications environment”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US9154354B2 (“Systems and methods for a multicarrier modulation system with a variable margin”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US10044473B2 (“Packet retransmission and memory sharing”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US8595577B2 (“Packet retransmission”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC; US10567112B2 (“Impulse noise management”), assigned to TQ DELTA, LLC. The record also lists Operable as bonded transceivers.

How was case 24-1588 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: "THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED"

How long did case 24-1588 take?

764 calendar days, from filing on 21 Mar 2024 to closure on 24 April 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 24-1588?

Brett M. Schuman, Craig Lytle and Jesse Lempel are recorded as counsel for plaintiff CommScope. David Z. Petty, Peter J. McAndrews and Rajendra A. Chiplunkar appear for defendant TQ Delta.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 24-1588 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 24-1588 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.