US 8861349

US patent 8861349, titled "Broadband communications device," was invented by Eric M. DeLangis. The application, US13/531,294, was filed on June 22, 2012, and the patent was issued on October 14, 2014. The original assignee was "Individual," and the current assignee is Competitive Access Systems Inc.

Abstract:
The patent describes a Residential Communications Gateway (RCG), which is a broadband communications device designed to integrate all voice, data, and video communications for residential or small business use. It transmits this combined traffic over one or more Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) lines, either independently or in conjunction with a wireless broadband backbone. The RCG achieves this by utilizing packetized data with Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technologies and RF communications. A key aspect of the RCG's design is that it eliminates the need for additional or specialized transmission equipment in the Central Office or elsewhere in the network, which is often required for DSL and Cable systems. This approach aims to reduce costly infrastructure enhancements, enabling widespread deployment of high-speed communications and services to all POTS subscribers.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Independent Claim 1: Broadband Communications Device
  This claim describes a physical device that connects to a standard telephone line (POTS). It incorporates a modem (data access arrangement), a digital signal processor (DSP) for audio processing, and a main central processing unit (CPU). The CPU manages the flow of Internet Protocol (IP) data packets between the DSP and the modem, and the device also features a wireless interface. Additionally, it has at least one port for connecting a telephone, which is linked to the DSP. A core function of the CPU is to dynamically allocate bandwidth over the POTS line on a packet-by-packet basis, specifically giving voice packets higher priority than other data packets.

• Independent Claim 12: Method for Providing Broadband Communication Services
  This claim outlines a method for delivering broadband communication services. The method begins by establishing a modem connection over a standard telephone line (POTS). It then involves sending and receiving Internet Protocol (IP) packets via this POTS line. A crucial step in this method is prioritizing voice packets over data packets during transmission over the POTS line. Based on this prioritization, the available bandwidth on the POTS line is dynamically allocated on a per-packet basis.

Litigation Information (as of April 26, 2026):
The patent family is involved in litigation, with multiple cases filed in various US District Courts and one PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) case. The identified cases include:

• A US case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case 4:25-cv-00886).
• A "First worldwide family litigation" has been filed, as reported by Darts-ip.
• A PTAB case, IPR2025-01372, was filed but was "Not Instituted - Procedural."
• A US case filed in the Texas Northern District Court (case 4:25-cv-00948).
• Two US cases filed in the North Carolina Eastern District Court (cases 5:24-cv-00505 and 4:24-cv-00130).
• Two US cases filed in the California Northern District Court (cases 5:25-cv-04595 and 3:25-cv-04595).

A search for CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) 2026 dockets specifically for patent 8861349 did not yield any direct results indicating active appeals at the CAFC level as of April 26, 2026. The provided litigation data pertains to district court and PTAB proceedings.

Litigation involving US patent 8861349 is known. The patent text itself provides the following details:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:25-cv-00886
  • Status: Case filed
  • Source: District Court

• First worldwide family litigation filed

  • Status: Litigation filed
  • Source: Darts-ip

• PTAB case IPR2025-01372 filed

  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural
  • Source: Unified Patents PTAB Data

• Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:25-cv-00948
  • Status: Case filed
  • Source: District Court

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 5:24-cv-00505
  • Status: Case filed
  • Source: District Court

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:24-cv-00130
  • Status: Case filed
  • Source: District Court

• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 5:25-cv-04595
  • Status: Case filed
  • Source: District Court

• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 3:25-cv-04595
  • Status: Case filed
  • Source: District Court

Please note that specific plaintiff(s), defendant(s), and precise filing dates are not consistently provided in the snippets for every case, but the case numbers and jurisdictions are available. The status for most district court cases is "Case filed", while the PTAB case has a "Not Instituted - Procedural" status.## Litigation Involving US Patent 8861349

US Patent 8861349, titled "Broadband communications device," has been involved in multiple litigation proceedings. The known cases, as of April 26, 2026, include:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:25-cv-00886
  • Status: Case filed.
  • Plaintiff(s) / Defendant(s) / Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.

• Global Patent Litigation (First Worldwide Family Litigation)

  • Status: Filed.
  • Plaintiff(s) / Defendant(s) / Jurisdiction / Case Number / Filing Date: Not specified beyond the status of filing and being the first worldwide family litigation.

• Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

  • Case Number: IPR2025-01372
  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.
  • Plaintiff(s) / Defendant(s) / Filing Date: Petitioner information is sourced from Unified Patents PTAB Data.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:25-cv-00948
  • Status: Case filed.
  • Plaintiff(s) / Defendant(s) / Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 5:24-cv-00505
  • Status: Case filed.
  • Plaintiff(s) / Defendant(s) / Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:24-cv-00130
  • Status: Case filed.
  • Plaintiff(s) / Defendant(s) / Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.

• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 5:25-cv-04595
  • Status: Case filed.
  • Plaintiff(s) / Defendant(s) / Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.

• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 3:25-cv-04595
  • Status: Case filed.
  • Plaintiff(s) / Defendant(s) / Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US8861349. This proceeding, IPR2025-01372, received a Discretionary Denial, meaning no claims of the patent were addressed on the merits. This status indicates the patent has not been challenged on its merits at the PTAB, leaving all claims untested.

IPR2025-01372 — Red Hat, Inc. v. Competitive Access Systems Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-04
• Status: Discretionary Denial. This means the PTAB declined to institute the IPR, typically for reasons unrelated to the merits of the patentability challenge itself.
• Judge panel: Judges Kent B. Herink, Jason J. Diehl, and Carl P. Quigley.
• Petition grounds: Red Hat, Inc. challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,861,349 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The petition identified the following prior art references:
  • US 2002/0064149 A1 (Kopera)
  • US 2002/0146014 A1 (Heidemann et al.)
  • WO 00/70830 A1 (Elkjaer et al.)
  • US 2002/0101869 A1 (Blackmon et al.)
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-04. The panel exercised its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, citing factors from Fintiv (e.g., related district court litigation). Specifically, the Board noted that a district court case involving the same patent, Competitive Access Systems Inc. v. Red Hat, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-00886 (E.D. Tex.), was scheduled for trial before the statutory deadline for a final written decision in the IPR.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: This proceeding did not result in any claims being invalidated. The discretionary denial, based on parallel district court litigation, means that the patentability arguments against claims 1-20 were not heard on the merits by the PTAB. A future challenger would need to consider the PTAB's discretionary denial factors and the status of any related litigation before filing a new IPR.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-20) of US8861349 remain untested by the PTAB. IPR2025-01372 was denied institution based on the PTAB's discretionary authority, primarily due to the existence of a parallel district court litigation with an earlier trial date. This means that the PTAB did not make any determination on the patentability of claims 1-20.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since the PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01372, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not apply to Red Hat, Inc. (or its privies) for the claims and grounds raised in this petition. This is because estoppel only attaches if a final written decision is issued. Therefore, Red Hat (and other potential petitioners) would technically be free to challenge the same claims and grounds in a future PTAB proceeding, although the Fintiv discretionary denial factors would still need to be addressed if parallel litigation exists.

The sole PTAB proceeding on this patent thus far is IPR2025-01372, filed by Red Hat, Inc. The discretionary denial indicates a strategic decision by the PTAB to defer to the ongoing district court litigation rather than a determination on the merits of the patent. This absence of a merits-based challenge leaves the patent's claims formally "hardened" against this specific PTAB proceeding, but without any substantive validation of their patentability.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US8861349, be aware that claims 1-20 remain formally unadjudicated by the PTAB. The denial of institution in IPR2025-01372 was a procedural decision based on the Fintiv factors, not an affirmation of patentability.

You should review the institution decision for IPR2025-01372 to understand the PTAB's reasoning for discretionary denial, particularly in light of any ongoing or potential district court litigation you may be involved in. The decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.

Consider the prior art presented in Red Hat's petition, as these arguments against claims 1-20 were not fully evaluated by the PTAB. These may still be viable grounds for a subsequent IPR if the Fintiv factors are no longer a barrier, or for defenses in district court litigation.

The patent has also been involved in other district court litigation in the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas, and the Eastern District of North Carolina, as well as the Northern District of California. The outcomes and statuses of these cases could influence future PTAB filings or litigation strategy.

Inventors

• Eric M. DeLangis (Individual, Original Assignee)

Original assignee

The original assignee listed on the patent is "Individual." Since the patent abstract and description refer extensively to a "Residential Communications Gateway (RCG)" device and "Competitive Access Systems Inc," it is highly probable that Eric M. DeLangis, the inventor, was the individual who initially held the patent and was likely associated with Competitive Access Systems Inc.

Based on the patent text, Competitive Access Systems Inc. appears to have been an operating company focused on providing telecommunications services through the RCG device. The patent describes the RCG as a "broadband communications device that combines all voice, data and video communications... for transmission over a single, or a plurality of Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) lines separately or in conjunction with, a wireless broadband backbone." The company's primary line of business, as described, was to enable Competitive Local Exchange Companies (CLECs) to offer advanced voice and data services over existing POTS lines without requiring expensive infrastructure enhancements.

Regarding its current status, the legal status of US8861349B2 is listed as "Expired - Lifetime" on Google Patents as of today's date, 2026-05-21. This suggests the patent is no longer in force. The "Current Assignee" is listed as Competitive Access Systems Inc.

Assignment timeline

To reconstruct the full assignment record for US patent 8861349, I would typically search the USPTO Assignment Center directly using the patent number. However, the provided patent text from Google Patents includes assignment information.

According to the "Legal status" section of US8861349B2 on Google Patents, the following assignment event is listed:

• 2021-05-13 - Assigned to COMPETITIVE ACCESS SYSTEMS, INC.
  • Conveyance: Reassignment
  • Assignor: DELANGIS, ERIC
  • Assignee: COMPETITIVE ACCESS SYSTEMS, INC.
  • Context: Assignment of assignor's interest (see document for details).

The Google Patents page also lists "Individual" as the "Original Assignee" and "Competitive Access Systems Inc" as the "Current Assignee". This indicates that the patent was initially held by the inventor, Eric M. DeLangis, and later assigned to Competitive Access Systems, Inc.

No other assignments are explicitly detailed in the provided Google Patents text. I cannot perform a live search of the USPTO Assignment Center at this moment, but based on the provided text, this is the complete assignment timeline available to me.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8861349
    2012 : Filed by Individual (Eric M. DeLangis)
    2014 : Application granted; Patent issued
    2021 : Assigned to Competitive Access Systems Inc
    2023 : Anticipated expiration (then expired)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. While Competitive Access Systems Inc. is the assignee, the provided information does not offer enough detail to definitively determine if it operates as a shell entity for licensing only, or if it continues to be an operating company. The patent describes the RCG device and its purpose for CLECs, suggesting an operating business, but its current operational status is not fully detailed beyond being the "Current Assignee" of an "Expired - Lifetime" patent.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Competitive Access Systems Inc. is not identified as a known NPE/asserter from the provided lists.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. The provided patent text does not include correspondent information (attorney name, firm, address) for the assignment.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only one assignment is explicitly listed in the provided information: from Eric M. DeLangis to Competitive Access Systems Inc.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. The assignment to Competitive Access Systems Inc. occurred on 2021-05-13. The various litigation cases listed, such as 4:25-cv-00886 and 4:25-cv-00948, have 2025 filing dates. This gap (2021 assignment, 2025 litigation filings) suggests the assignment was not immediately preceding the litigation. However, without the precise filing dates for all cases and a definitive "first infringement suit," it's hard to be certain.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication in the provided patent text that the original assignee filed for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — Unclear. No information is provided to suggest an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — insufficient data.

The available data only explicitly details one assignment from the individual inventor to Competitive Access Systems, Inc. While the patent has expired, and there are multiple litigation instances, there is insufficient information to confidently identify Competitive Access Systems, Inc. as a shell entity or a known patent asserter, nor are there other strong troll-pattern signals present in the limited assignment record provided. Further investigation into the nature of "Competitive Access Systems, Inc." and the specifics of the litigation (plaintiffs and defendants) would be required for a more definitive conclusion. The assignment information is available on the Google Patents page under "Legal status".

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 8861349, I will use the USPTO Patent Public Search tool. I will search for the specific patent number 8861349 and then examine the "Cited by" section to find the prior art references that the examiner considered.

Please note that as a large language model, I do not have direct access to the USPTO database for live searching, nor can I interpret which claims are anticipated without a detailed claim-by-claim analysis, which is beyond the scope of this interaction. However, I can provide the format and approach you would use if you were to perform this task manually using the USPTO search tools.

Steps to find the most relevant prior art and perform analysis:

1. Access USPTO Patent Public Search: Go to the USPTO Patent Public Search website.
2. Search by Patent Number: Use the "Basic Search" or "Advanced Search" option and enter "8861349" in the patent number field.
3. Locate "Cited References" or "References Cited": Once the patent document for US8861349B2 is retrieved, navigate to the section listing cited references. These are the prior art documents considered by the patent examiner.
4. Extract Information for Each Reference: For each patent or publication listed as prior art, extract the following:
   • Full Citation: Including patent number, inventor(s), issue date, and title.
   • Publication/Filing Date: The relevant date for 35 U.S.C. § 102 analysis.
   • Brief Description: A concise summary of the prior art's subject matter, typically found in its abstract or first claim.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This requires a detailed, claim-by-claim comparison of US8861349B2's claims against the disclosures of each prior art reference. For each reference, one would need to determine if every element of a given claim in US8861349B2 is present in that single prior art reference.

Without direct access to the USPTO database and the ability to perform a detailed claim analysis, I cannot provide the specific prior art details and anticipation analysis for US patent 8861349 at this moment. The provided patent text does not list its own "References Cited" section directly, so an external search of the USPTO database would be necessary.

I cannot perform an obviousness analysis of US patent 8861349 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as requested because the provided patent text does not include a "Prior Art section" with specific prior art references (e.g., patent numbers, publications) that can be combined and analyzed against the claims.

The patent text lists "Prior art keywords" such as "network", "rcg", "connection", "data", and "location", and a "Prior art date" of 2002-10-15. These keywords are too general, and the date merely indicates the priority date, not specific references. A thorough obviousness analysis requires explicit prior art documents to identify combinations and motivations that would render the claims of US patent 8861349 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.