US 10797783

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 10,797,783, including details of recent legal challenges.

Summary of U.S. Patent No. 10,797,783

Title: Broadband repeater with security for ultrawideband technologies

Assignee: Massively Broadband LLC

Inventor: Theodore S. Rappaport

Filing Date: January 17, 2019

Issue Date: October 6, 2020

Abstract: An ultrawideband radio transceiver/repeater provides a low cost infrastructure solution that merges wireless and wired network devices while providing connection to the plant, flexible repeater capabilities, network security, traffic monitoring and provisioning, and traffic flow control for wired and wireless connectivity of devices or networks. The ultrawideband radio transceiver/repeater can be implemented in discrete, integrated, distributed or embedded forms.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

This patent has one independent claim:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a wireless repeater device designed for ultrawideband (UWB) communication. The key features of this device include:
  • The ability to receive UWB signals with a bandwidth of at least 100 MHz.
  • The capability to process the received signals to identify and filter out unwanted data from interfering sources.
  • A function to store the received data.
  • The ability to re-transmit the filtered data, effectively "repeating" the desired communication to extend its range.
  • The capacity to be controlled or have its settings adjusted based on instructions received over the wireless network.

In essence, the claim outlines a smart UWB repeater that can not only extend the range of a wireless network but also intelligently manage the traffic by filtering out interference and can be remotely managed.

Litigation

U.S. Patent No. 10,797,783 has been the subject of litigation. An Inter Partes Review (IPR) was initiated by [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%20Ltd.) against Massively Broadband LLC at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the case number IPR2025-01605. This proceeding was filed on October 14, 2025, and terminated on February 3, 2026.

Additionally, a related district court case was filed by Massively Broadband LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case 2:25-cv-00608). This lawsuit alleges infringement of a dozen patents, including the '783 patent.

I'll search patent litigation sources for this specific patent number.

Let me get the district court docket details and check for any other cases.

Let me verify whether the '783 patent appears in any other district court cases, and check the current status of the E.D. Tex. case.

Known Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,797,783

Searches run against: Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portal, Stanford NPE Litigation Database, Justia Dockets (E.D. Tex.), Docket Alarm, and PTAB filings (Papers/Exhibits) that quote the underlying docket. PACER was not directly accessed; the docket summaries below are drawn from the sources listed and from PTAB exhibits reproducing the district court record. Note up front: I found no case involving U.S. Patent No. 10,797,783 in any jurisdiction other than the single E.D. Tex. action below, and no Federal Circuit appeal naming the '783 patent.

1. District court litigation

Role of the '783 patent in that case: The '783 patent is one of a multi-patent assertion. The complaint groups it with the "Intelligent Wireless Broadband Relay Patents" — U.S. Patent Nos. 7,676,194; 8,923,754; 9,667,337; 10,224,999; and 10,797,783 — alongside the "Smart Antenna Patents" ('763, '358, '625, '548) and the "Network Monitoring Patents" ('794, '925, '700). The plaintiff's papers describe this as twelve asserted patents across three families; the ex parte complaint-summary service describes thirteen. Accused instrumentalities include Samsung 5G RAN equipment (massive MIMO radios, compact macros), Galaxy smartphones/tablets/laptops (hotspot and multi-band antenna functionality), and the Samsung Knox Suite.

Counsel of record (from PTAB exhibits reproducing the district docket and from PTAB filings):

• Plaintiff: K&L Gates LLP (McElhinny, Knedeisen, Rotolo, Bozzo) and Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Andrea Fair). Note: the PTAB service email domain is klgates.com.
• Defendants: Gillam & Smith, LLP (Melissa R. Smith) as local counsel; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (James M. Glass) appearing as petitioner's counsel in the parallel IPRs.

2. PTAB proceeding against the '783 patent (not a district court case, but the only other formal challenge)

This IPR is part of a coordinated Samsung campaign: twelve petitions were filed between September 25, 2025 and November 3, 2025, one for each patent asserted in 2:25-cv-00608 (IPR2025-01563, -01564, -01565, -01587, -01594, -01595, -01605, IPR2026-00032, -00033, -00035, -00086, -00103). All twelve are reflected as Discretionary Denial in the aggregated PTAB data.

3. Cross-checks and database confirmations

• Stanford NPE Litigation Database, entry for patent 10797783, lists exactly one case: MASSIVELY BROADBAND LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, Civil Action 2:25-cv-00608, venue E.D. Tex., with the asserter categorized as "Individual-inventor-started."
• Unified Patents litigation portal links case 2:25-cv-00608 (Texas Eastern District Court) to this patent family, consistent with the Google Patents "Family has litigation" entry.
• Justia Dockets confirms only the one Massively Broadband patent case against Samsung (2:2025cv00608) in its party search; other E.D. Tex. Samsung patent suits surfaced in the same results (United States CP, LLC v. Samsung, 2:2026cv00083; Topwire LLC v. Samsung, 2:2025cv01183) are different plaintiffs and different patents and do not involve the '783 patent.

4. Discrepancies flagged (per instructions)

1. Filing date conflict. The previously generated section states the E.D. Tex. case was "filed on June 7, 2025." The docket (Justia, Docket Alarm) and the complaint itself, as reproduced in PTAB exhibits, show June 6, 2025 ("Case 2:25-cv-00608 Document 1 Filed 06/06/25"). Treat June 6, 2025 as correct. Samsung's own unopposed extension motion also states "On June 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed its Complaint."
2. Number of asserted patents (12 vs. 13). Massively Broadband's own PTAB filings say the case asserts "twelve patents." One third-party complaint-analysis source says "thirteen patents." The twelve-item list of asserted patents quoted from the plaintiff (five + four + three) is internally consistent with twelve; there is no thirteenth patent named in the list I retrieved.
3. Judge identification. The docket shows case assignment to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. One third-party source references Judge Robert W. Schroeder III in connection with an unrelated Samsung matter (Maxell), not this case.

5. Bottom line

There is one known piece of litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,797,783: Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00608-JRG (E.D. Tex., filed June 6, 2025), currently open with trial set for May 17, 2027 and no outcome yet. The only other adversary proceeding touching this patent is IPR2025-01605, which was denied institution on February 3, 2026. No CAFC appeal, no ITC investigation, and no other district court defendant was found for this patent.

Proceedings overview

A single AIA trial proceeding, IPR2025-01605, was filed against US Patent 10,797,783. This IPR was denied institution, leaving all claims of the patent untested and in their original form. This indicates a hardened patent, as an IPR-based defense will be more challenging.

IPR2025-01605 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Massively Broadband LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-10-14
• Status: Discretionary Denial
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available in the provided information.
• Institution decision: Denied (on 2026-02-03, based on the termination date of 2026-02-03 from the previous section). The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not available in the provided patent text or the PTAB proceedings on file snippet, but a discretionary denial means the PTAB chose not to institute the review for reasons other than the merits of the prior art presented.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2026-02-03.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution means all claims of US10797783 remain intact and were not challenged on the merits by this IPR. Consequently, any infringement theory built on these claims is currently unaffected by this PTAB proceeding. An IPR-based defense against this patent would need to present new, compelling prior art arguments or overcome the grounds for discretionary denial that led to the outcome of IPR2025-01605.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10797783 remain untested by the PTAB, as the single filed IPR, IPR2025-01605, was denied institution. This means that all claims are currently sustained in their original form.

Regarding estoppel, since IPR2025-01605 was denied institution, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for the petitioner ([[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd. et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.)) would typically not apply as no claims were advanced to a final written decision. However, the exact scope of estoppel can sometimes be debated even with discretionary denials, depending on the specific reasoning for the denial. For a new defendant facing assertion of this patent, prior-art grounds are still largely available, assuming they are not in privity with Samsung.

The filing of only one IPR, which resulted in a discretionary denial, suggests that the patent owner (Massively Broadband LLC) has so far successfully defended the patent at the institution stage. There is no indication of aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner, as no Final Written Decision was issued. The petitioner in this instance was Samsung, a large operating company, rather than a defensive aggregator.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it is crucial to understand the specific reasons for the discretionary denial in IPR2025-01605, as this information is not fully available in the provided context. A thorough review of the PTAB's decision for IPR2025-01605 would be necessary to understand if the denial was based on procedural issues, arguments related to claim construction, or other factors that could inform a future PTAB challenge.

There are currently no active proceedings pending against US10797783. The absence of additional PTAB activity following the denial of institution for IPR2025-01605 could suggest challenges in identifying strong prior art or navigating the PTAB's discretionary denial standards for this patent.

Inventors

• Theodore S. Rappaport: At the time of filing, Theodore S. Rappaport was a professor at New York University. The patent lists him as the sole inventor.

Original assignee

The patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,797,783, was originally assigned to the inventor, Theodore S. Rappaport, as an individual at the time of its issuance on October 6, 2020. There is no indication that Theodore S. Rappaport, as an individual, shipped a product embodying the claims of the patent. His primary line of business is academic research and education, and he is currently operating in that capacity as a professor at New York University.

Assignment timeline

• 2024-12-31 (executed) / recorded 2025-01-14 — Reel 065522/0762
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: RAPPAPORT, THEODORE S.
  • Assignee: MASSIVELY BROADBAND LLC
  • Correspondent: ROBERT E ALDERSON, 17950 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 500, DALLAS, TEXAS, UNITED STATES, 75252. This correspondent's name and firm are associated with numerous patent assertion entity filings.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter (from individual inventor to a patent assertion entity).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10797783
    2019 : Filed by Theodore S Rappaport
    2020 : Issued to Theodore S Rappaport
    2024 : Assigned to Massively Broadband LLC
    2025 : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer: Present. The patent was transferred from the individual inventor, Theodore S. Rappaport, to Massively Broadband LLC via an "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" executed on 2024-12-31 and recorded on 2025-01-14 (Reel 065522/0762). Massively Broadband LLC was created in Texas in February 2023, and its first lawsuit, accusing Samsung of infringement of this and other patents, was filed shortly after the assignment. This strongly indicates Massively Broadband LLC functions as a licensing-only entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain: Unclear. Massively Broadband LLC is not explicitly listed as a "Known Asserter" in the provided reference lists. However, RPX, an anti-NPE organization, noted the assignment and subsequent lawsuit, identifying the entity's assertion activities.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain: Present. ROBERT E ALDERSON, of 17950 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 500, DALLAS, TEXAS, UNITED STATES, 75252, served as the correspondent for the assignment from Theodore S. Rappaport to Massively Broadband LLC (Reel 065522/0762). This correspondent is known for filing assignments on behalf of numerous patent assertion entities.
4. Cascading transfers: Not present. Only one assignment is recorded in the chain.
5. Pre-litigation transfer: Present. The assignment to Massively Broadband LLC was executed on 2024-12-31 and recorded on 2025-01-14 (Reel 065522/0762). The first infringement lawsuit naming this patent (Case 2:25-cv-00608 against Samsung) was filed on June 7, 2025, which is within six months of the assignment date.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale: Not present. There is no evidence in the records to suggest a bankruptcy fire-sale.
7. Privateering: Unclear. The transfer was from the individual inventor, not an operating company, making privateering unlikely without further evidence of a specific agreement.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE): Not present. The patent is currently held by Massively Broadband LLC, an entity actively engaged in patent assertion, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The clear pattern of a shell-entity transfer from the individual inventor to Massively Broadband LLC (Reel 065522/0762, executed 2024-12-31) and the subsequent filing of a patent infringement lawsuit (Case 2:25-cv-00608, filed June 7, 2025) within six months of the assignment strongly indicate an NPE assertion strategy. The involvement of a correspondent associated with numerous patent assertion entities further supports this classification.

USPTO Assignment Center search page for verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (Search for patent number 10797783).

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10,797,783, I will search for the patent on the USPTO website and review its cited references.

The USPTO provides a Patent Public Search tool to search its database of patents and patent application publications. I will use this tool to find US10797783B2 and then examine the "Cited By" and "References Cited" sections, which list the prior art considered during the examination process.

Since I cannot directly interact with a live search tool, I will proceed by stating how I would obtain the information if I had access to the USPTO Patent Public Search.

Methodology for Identifying Prior Art:

1. Access USPTO Patent Public Search: Navigate to the USPTO's Patent Public Search website.
2. Search for US10797783B2: Use the "Quick lookup" or "Basic search" function to search for the specific patent number "10797783".
3. Retrieve Patent Document: Once the patent document for US10797783B2 is found, access the full text.
4. Locate "References Cited" Section: Within the patent document, identify the section labeled "References Cited" (or similar). This section lists the patents and non-patent literature that the examiner and applicant considered relevant prior art.
5. Extract Citation Details: For each patent citation listed, extract the following information:
   • Full citation (patent number, inventor(s), issue date).
   • Publication/filing date.
   • Brief description (from the abstract or a summary of the patent's content).
   • Potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Analyze how each reference's teachings might anticipate the elements of Claim 1 of US10797783B2. Anticipation means that every element of the claimed invention is disclosed in a single prior art reference.

Note: Without direct, real-time access to the USPTO Patent Public Search and the ability to parse the full text of each cited reference, I cannot provide a definitive list of the most relevant prior art and a detailed anticipation analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Google Patents link provided in the prompt is a good starting point, but the USPTO database would be the authoritative source for this task.

Based on the information I can access from the provided patent text, I can identify the following references that are explicitly mentioned in the description as being related or prior art:

• US patent application 20030096578:

  • Full Citation: US patent application 20030096578, published May 22, 2003, by John McCorkle, et. al. of Xtreme Spectrum, Inc.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published May 22, 2003 (Priority date for US10797783B2 is August 22, 2003, making this prior art).
  • Brief Description: Describes Ultrawideband technologies. (As per the description in US10797783B2: "Ultrawideband technologies are about to become mainstream, and are described in US patent application 20030096578...").
  • Potential Anticipation: This reference likely provides foundational knowledge regarding UWB communication, which is a core technology for Claim 1 ("A wireless repeater device for ultrawideband (UWB) communication, the wireless repeater device comprising: circuitry configured to receive an ultrawideband (UWB) wireless signal having an occupied bandwidth of at least 100 MHz;"). It establishes the state of UWB technology before the priority date of US10797783B2. The extent of its anticipation would depend on whether it discloses or suggests a UWB repeater with the specific filtering, storage, and remote control capabilities outlined in Claim 1.

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,505,032:

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 6,505,032 (referred to as "the patent publication and U.S. patent being herein incorporated by reference" in US10797783B2).
  • Publication/Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but it is cited alongside the 20030096578 application.
  • Brief Description: Also describes Ultrawideband technologies. (As per the description in US10797783B2: "Ultrawideband technologies are about to become mainstream, and are described in ... U.S. Pat. No. 6,505,032...").
  • Potential Anticipation: Similar to US 20030096578, this patent likely details aspects of UWB communication. Its relevance as prior art for Claim 1 would depend on its disclosure of a UWB repeater with the specific intelligent features of Claim 1, beyond basic UWB transmission.

• US Patent Application 2002 0198977:

  • Full Citation: US Patent Application 2002 0198977 Published Dec. 26, 2002, by Dong-Ho Cho.
  • Publication/Filing Date: Published Dec. 26, 2002 (Priority date for US10797783B2 is August 22, 2003).
  • Brief Description: Discusses future wireless networks allowing devices in the home or office to remain connected to the outdoor wireless network through roaming systems and protocols.
  • Potential Anticipation: This patent pertains to broader network connectivity and roaming in wireless networks. While it addresses aspects of network communication, its direct anticipation of Claim 1 of US10797783B2 would hinge on whether it discloses a UWB repeater device with the specific filtering, storage, and remote control features for UWB signals described in Claim 1. It might anticipate the general need for improved network functionality but not necessarily the specific UWB repeater solution.

To analyze the obviousness of US Patent 10,797,783 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will examine the independent claim (Claim 1) in light of prior art available before the patent's priority date of August 22, 2003. A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) in wireless communications at that time would have been motivated to combine existing technologies to address known problems in the emerging ultrawideband (UWB) domain.

Claim 1 of US10797783 describes:
A wireless repeater device for ultrawideband (UWB) communication configured to:

1. Receive UWB wireless signals with an instantaneous or overall occupied bandwidth of 100 MHz or more.
2. Process the received UWB wireless signals to identify unwanted data from interfering sources.
3. Store the received UWB wireless signals.
4. Re-transmit the processed UWB wireless signals to extend a range of the UWB communication.
5. Be controlled or have settings adjusted based on instructions received over the UWB wireless communication network.

Prior Art and Obviousness Analysis:

A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) in wireless communication, around the priority date of August 22, 2003, would be aware of the following:

• Emergence of Ultrawideband (UWB) Technology and its Characteristics: The patent itself notes that "Ultrawideband technologies are about to become mainstream" and defines UWB as having a bandwidth of "100 MHz or more". Prior art, such as Xtreme Spectrum's UWB chip, demonstrated capabilities of 100 megabits per second, consistent with handling such wide bandwidths. The IEEE 802.15.3 standards bodies were actively "developing Physical (PHY) and MAC layer standards for dynamic channel selection and repeater service for UWB", indicating that the concept of UWB repeaters was already being contemplated and developed within the industry.
• Need for Repeaters in UWB Networks: The patent explicitly states that for UWB, "repeaters will become necessary to connect devices over greater distances than the range of a single UWB device" due to the power-bandwidth product. This problem was known and applied to other wireless technologies, with "Repeaters... well known in the art" for cellular, PCS, and more recently, WiFi.
• Functionality of Existing Wireless Repeaters:
  • Range Extension: Commercial WiFi repeaters existed that provided "range and bridge extension for Wireless LAN standards." Examples include WiDeFi's products for IEEE 802.11a/b and Buffalo Technology's product for IEEE 802.11g, announced June 17, 2003, which provided point-to-point or point-to-multi-point operation. SMC Networks also introduced a Wireless Ethernet Adapter on June 6, 2003, with "wireless repeater capabilities for WLAN range extension."
  • Security and Filtering: The Buffalo Technology repeater included "security features such as WiFi Protected Access (WPA), WEP, Password protection, and MAC address association control." Similarly, the SMC Networks repeater featured "WEP encryption, WPA, MAC Address filtering, and SSID Broadcast Disable." These features demonstrate the prior art's ability to identify and filter unwanted data or access from interfering or unauthorized sources.
  • Network-Based Control and Configuration: Both the Buffalo Technology and SMC Networks repeaters were configurable, using a "browser based interface for configuration" or "web browser or Window-based administration software for configuration," respectively. This shows that adjusting repeater settings based on instructions received over the wireless network (or a connected wired network) was a known capability.
  • Data Storage/Buffering: While not always explicitly highlighted in product descriptions, data processing in repeaters, especially those performing filtering or quality of service (QoS) functions, inherently involves some form of data buffering or storage. The patent itself describes a "store and forward approach embodiment" that would use "vast memory... to simply buffer and retransmit the received data." This was a recognized design choice for intelligent repeaters.

Motivation to Combine Prior Art References:

The patent itself provides strong motivation for a POSA to combine these known elements. It highlights that "UWB adoption is likely to be rapid, and just as spam e-mail occurs today with increased frequency on the internet, wireless UWB devices will be subject to tremendous and increased amount of interference, spam traffic, and RF interferences, as well as security attacks by rouge or spoofed message sources or unwanted transmitters." It further states that "Proper repeater functionality will require the ability to detect and process such unwanted traffic... as well as to report back attempted breaches of security or interference sources to a network controller or host device".

A POSA, recognizing the short-range nature of UWB and the anticipated challenges of interference and security attacks, would have been motivated to combine the established functionalities of existing wireless repeaters (such as those from Buffalo Technology or SMC Networks) with the emerging UWB technology. The goal would be to create a robust UWB network infrastructure that not only extends range but also intelligently manages traffic and addresses security concerns.

Obvious Combination:

It would have been obvious for a POSA, at the time of the invention, to:

1. Develop a UWB repeater (Elements 1, 4): Given the ongoing work in IEEE 802.15.3 on UWB repeater service and the known need for range extension for UWB, it would be obvious to adapt existing wireless repeater designs (e.g., from WiDeFi, Buffalo Technology, SMC Networks for WiFi, or general cellular/PCS repeaters) to handle UWB signals (defined as having 100 MHz+ bandwidth).
2. Incorporate filtering of unwanted data (Element 2): Faced with the recognized threats of interference and security attacks in UWB networks, a POSA would naturally apply known filtering and security techniques from existing wireless repeaters (e.g., MAC address filtering, WPA/WEP from Buffalo Technology and SMC Networks) to the UWB repeater. The specific implementation for UWB's wideband signals might require different hardware (e.g., DSPs), but the functional goal and motivation would be obvious.
3. Include data storage (Element 3): To effectively process and filter received signals, especially for functions like error correction, traffic prioritization, or security analysis, buffering or storing data is a fundamental and obvious step in repeater design, as acknowledged by the patent's own store-and-forward embodiment.
4. Enable network-based control (Element 5): The ability to configure and manage repeaters remotely was already present in commercial WiFi repeaters (e.g., browser-based or software administration for Buffalo Technology and SMC Networks repeaters). Extending this capability to a UWB repeater, particularly one performing complex filtering and prioritization, would be an obvious design choice for network management.

Therefore, combining a known wireless repeater (such as those offered by Buffalo Technology or SMC Networks) with the emerging UWB transceiver technology and the recognized need for UWB repeater services (as per IEEE 802.15.3 activities) would render Claim 1 obvious. The motivation would be to overcome the inherent range limitations of UWB and to protect UWB networks from anticipated interference and security threats, using solutions already demonstrated in other wireless network domains.