- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
In its cable services campaign, Entropic Communications, LLC has filed multiple new pleadings, including two "original" complaints (2:25-cv-07967, 2:25-cv-07969) against Comcast and amended complaints against both Comcast and Cox Communications, all in the Central District of California. The amended complaints add two patents, where more than 20 are already in suit. Entropic, a Fortress Investment Group LLC plaintiff, pleads that it has filed the "new" complaints (over patents already in suit) as insurance against any ruling in the existing case that it lacked standing to sue—based on a now-lapsed vendor services agreement (VSA)—representing that it does not intend to proceed with the new cases if that ruling goes its way. Meanwhile, the Eastern District of Texas is considering threshold issues (i.e., stays and/or transfers) in a trio of cases filed there against cable equipment providers, while the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) works on final written decisions, due in early October, in certain related inter partes reviews (IPRs). The Federal Circuit also has an appeal from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) centered around alleged "collusive sealing practices that frustrate public access" to information surrounding a December 2023 settlement.
The 2022 Cases
In 2022, Entropic Communications filed separate Eastern District of Texas cases against AT&T (DirecTV) and DISH Network (in March) and against Charter Communications (in April). The Texas court transferred the first two to the Northern District of California, where District Judge John W. Holcomb consolidated them, with the case against DirecTV as lead (administratively closing the suit against DISH). There, the parties are tussling over a magistrate's denial of a DirecTV motion for an additional deposition of one of the patents' named inventors, Itshak Gurantz, the former CEO of "Old Entropic" (see below), ahead of revised deadlines concerning the exchange of expert reports this fall. The case against Charter settled, leading to a December 2023 dismissal with prejudice.
That settlement did not end all issues arising from that case, though. EFF sought to intervene, after the settlement, because a "key issue" in the suit appeared to be "the relevance of the industry-leading Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) cable data transmission standard", characterized as "a cornerstone of cable internet in the United States". EFF argued that "Charter's license defense based on DOCSIS may implicate a core legal question in patent law: when is a particular patent 'essential' to a technical standard and thus encumbered by licensing commitments?"
Entropic filed a motion for summary judgment on this defense, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne docketed a report and recommendation (granting it in part and denying it in part), Judge Gilstrap adopted that recommendation, and the parties then settled. EFF takes issue with the fact that the original motion for summary judgment was filed under seal, without Entropic having sought permission from the court to do so, which led to the parties filing all of the briefing under seal, later public versions heavily redacted. Only through Judge Payne's recommendation (docketed without redactions) did the public learn "that the two key issues [in the motion] are (1) what the DOCSIS License means by 'Licensed Technology' as a matter of contract interpretation and (2) whether Charter has plausibly shown any of the patents at issue fall within the meaning of 'Licensed Technology'".
Judge Gilstrap denied EFF's motion to intervene. The court ruled that EFF's length of delay (four to five months) "weighs against timeliness", explaining that because "EFF repeatedly characterized the DOCSIS license defense as a 'key issue in this case'" and because "common sense indicates that EFF would have known by the time the motion was fully briefed (October 11, 2023) at the latest that the documents were sealed without accompanying motions to seal", its later motion to intervene was not timely filed. As to prejudice introduced by allowing EFF to intervene, the court agreed with Charter that "allowing EFF to intervene would be prejudicial to the parties because the case team has already disbanded, and the parties would have to revisit confidentiality issues they reasonably believed were settled" and that EFF would suffer "little" prejudice by the motion's denial. Judge Gilstrap also batted away EFF's argument that the original motion for summary judgment had been improperly filed under seal.
EFF appealed. It leads its brief with the assertion that "[t]his case concerns a district court's misuse of procedural rules to stop the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) from intervening in a recently closed case to challenge collusive sealing practices that frustrate public access". Before diving into the particulars of Judge Gilstrap's putative legal errors, EFF identifies "troubling implications for public access more broadly": "The order implies that intervention to challenge secrecy is essentially impossible once a case is closed. And it further reasons that parties and courts can evade the robust protections ensuring public access to judicial records if they all agree to a protective order that requires parties to file designated materials under seal".
Various amicus ("friend of the court") briefs have been filed, including from Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, joined by Axios Media, BuzzFeed, The Center for Investigative Reporting, Dow Jones, Forbes, Gannett, Hearst, LA Times, McClatchy, the National Newspaper Association, the National Press Club, the National Press Photographers Association, NBCUniversal Media, the New York Times, the News/Media Alliance, Politico, Pro Publica, Society of Professional Journalists, and TEGNA; a group of law professors from Stanford University and University of California at Berkeley; and Public Citizen and Public Justice Foundation. Charter has responded, and the Federal Circuit has set oral argument on October 7, 2025.
The 2023 Cases
In early 2023, Entropic Communications filed multiple, separate Central District of California complaints against Comcast, Cox, DirecTV, and DISH (as well as a multiple, additional Eastern District of Texas complaints Charter, the earlier case having yet to end). Judge Holcomb consolidated the suits against DirecTV and DISH (involving satellite services) and the suits against Comcast and Cox (involving cable services). The former cases remain consolidated; however, on August 6, 2025, the court severed the proceedings against Comcast and Cox again. Judge Holcomb also stayed the Comcast case in light of ongoing trials in response to petitions for IPR, with certain final written decisions due in early October. The Cox matter is to proceed because it refused to be bound by the outcome of those decisions. The court permitted Entropic to file amended complaints against both defendants, which it has done.
While stayed, the court has had pending a motion to dismiss filed by Comcast based on an earlier vendor services agreement (VSA) with MaxLinear, Inc. Comcast has argued that the VSA contained a covenant not to sue, barring Entropic's case. In its newest complaints against Comcast, Entropic extensively and defensively pleads against this defense, first introducing Entropic Communications Inc. (ECI), the entity that originally developed the patents here, which DirecTV recently dubbed "Old Entropic":
Entropic Communications Inc. ("Entropic Inc."), the predecessor-in-interest to Plaintiff Entropic as to the Patents-in-Suit, was founded in San Diego, California in 2001 by Dr. Anton Monk, Itzhak Gurantz, Ladd El Wardani and others. Entropic Inc. was exclusively responsible for the development of the initial versions of the Multimedia over Coax Alliance ("MoCA") standards, including MoCA 1.0, ratified in 2006 and MoCA 1.1, ratified in 2007, and was instrumental in the development of MoCA 2.0, ratified in 2010. It also developed Direct Broadcast Satellite ("DBS") Outdoor Unit ("ODU") single wire technology and System-on-Chip ("SoC") solutions STBs in the home television and home video markets. Entropic was widely known in the cable industry for these innovations and its foundational development of MoCA.
Jumping ahead, per the plaintiff, "In 2015, MaxLinear, Inc. and MaxLinear, LLC (collectively, 'MaxLinear')—leading providers of radio-frequency, analog, digital, and mixed-signal semiconductor solutions—acquired Entropic Inc. [defined to be ECI], as well as the pioneering intellectual property developed by Dr. Monk and his team". Then, in March 2021, Entropic Communications (the current plaintiff) and its sole parent, Entropic Holdings LLC, were both formed in Delaware, shortly after which, per the plaintiff, MaxLinear transferred to it "a portfolio of intellectual property representing the Entropic and MaxLinear innovation in the cable and satellite services markets".
USPTO assignment records confirm that in March 2021, publicly traded operating company MaxLinear (via MaxLinear Communications, LLC, itself f/k/a Entropic Communications, LLC) did move hundreds of US patents, as well as foreign counterparts in Asia, Europe, and elsewhere, to Entropic Communications, the current plaintiff. A smaller assignment between the same parties, of just six US patents, followed in July 2021. As noted, the patents either stem from MaxLinear itself or from ECI, the acquisition price of which reporting placed at $245M, and Entropic is a Fortress plaintiff (see below).
The disputed VSA is a between Comcast and MaxLinear, Inc., having an effective date in August 2020, although Entropic notes that its redacted execution date is different. Comcast contends that the VSA contains a covenant not to sue that should end the current cases against it. Entropic has previously countered and now pleads that this "alleged covenant" does not protect Comcast, operates only during the life of the agreement (which has now terminated, apparently as of August 22, 2025), and did not run with the patents—i.e., cannot bind those not party to the VSA, including the current plaintiff (and MaxLinear LLC, relevant because, per Entropic, "As the parent company of MaxLinear, LLC, MaxLinear, Inc. did not have the right to enter into any agreements that would convey any interest in or in any way encumber MaxLinear, LLC's patents absent an express ownership interest in MaxLinear, LLC's patent").
However this issue is resolved if and when the stay in the Comcast case is lifted, because the VSA has apparently ended, Entropic filed the belt-and-suspenders complaints asserting the same patents already in suit against Comcast: 12 in the -7967 case (7,295,518; 7,594,249; 7,889,759; 8,085,802; 8,228,910; 8,320,566; 8,363,681; 8,621,539; 8,631,450; 9,838,213; 10,257,566; 10,432,422) and ten in the -7969 case (8,223,775; 8,284,690; 8,792,008; 9,210,362; 9,825,826; 9,866,438; 10,135,682; 11,381,866; 11,399,206; 11,785,275). The plaintiff explains that "Entropic does not intend to proceed with [these cases] unless and until the Court's subject matter jurisdiction" in the prior cases is resolved. Entropic again pleads that the infringement has been willful based on a slew of presuit activities, including alleged Comcast investments in "Old Entropic" in 2003 and 2006 and communications purportedly exchanged in late 2022, and the plaintiff again characterizes the asserted patents as "incorprat[ing] various elements of technology set forth in the Multimedia over Coax Alliance standards (the 'MoCA' standards)".
The 2024 and Prior 2025 Cases
In November 2024, Entropic filed a pair of Eastern District of Texas cases against Ubee Interactive and Vantiva (f/k/a Technicolor), adding an April 2025 suit there against Sagemcom Broadband, each defendant targeted as a supplier to the cable providers. For example, in the last complaint, Entropic targets the provision of cable modems, gateways, or television set-top boxes that "include or are based on the Broadcom BCM3390, BCM33843, or BCM3384 SoCs" and are allegedly "sold to providers of cable telecommunications and television services" such as Charter, Comcast, and Cox.
The defendants have sought stays (in light of the parallel proceedings before the PTAB) and transfers, to the Central District of California. The Eastern District of Texas does not impose heightened disclosure requirements on litigants, but the Central District of California does. In agreements filed with the USPTO, Entropic is described as a Delaware entity with a New York City address—that of Fortress. On July 26, 2021, plaintiff Entropic Communications registered to conduct business in Texas; public records identify three Fortress employees as the NPE's managing members, along with Jeffrey Risher, and provide a Plano, Texas address for each individual. Entropic has everywhere identified Entropic Holdings LLC as its parent but has made rolling additional disclosures in the Central District.
For example, in an April 2023 disclosure, the plaintiff certified that the list of parties interested in the outcome of its litigation includes, beyond itself and its parent, Fortress as well as MaxLinear, Inc. and MaxLinear Communications LLC. The certification explains Fortress's placement on the list by stating that "FIG LLC (d/b/a Fortress Investment Group) and/or its wholly-owned subsidiaries are investment advisors to private investment funds that own Entropic Holdings LLC, and may have an interest in the outcome of the action". The MaxLinear entities are included because each is "the prior assignee of one or more of the patents in suit, and has an interest in the outcome of the action".
The plaintiff's more recent disclosures, including those made in connection with its new belt-and-suspenders complaints (see here), are more extensive. Entropic repeats the prior representations (concerning its parent, Fortress, and the two MaxLinear entities) before identifying "the following investment funds or individual investors may own more than 10% of Entropic Holdings LLC":
- FIP UST LP (as "an investment fund entity, which directly owns 50% of Entropic Holdings LLC.");
- Fortress Intellectual Property Opportunities Fund I (A) LP (as "an investment fund entity, which indirectly owns approximately 19% of Entropic Holdings LLC");
- Fortress Intellectual Property Opportunities Fund I (B) L.P. (as "an investment fund entity, which indirectly owns approximately 13% of Entropic Holdings LLC");
- Fortress Intellectual Property Opportunities Fund I (C) L.P. (as "an investment fund entity, which indirectly owns approximately 18% of Entropic Holdings LLC");
- FCOF V UST LLC (as "an investment fund entity, which directly owns approximately 33% of Entropic Holdings LLC");
- Fortress Credit Opportunities Fund (A) L.P. (as "an investment fund entity, which indirectly owns approximately 11% of Entropic Holdings LLC");
- Fortress Credit Opportunities Fund (G) L.P. (as "an investment fund entity, which indirectly owns approximately 16% of Entropic Holdings LLC"); and
- L3 Investment Holdings LP (as "an investor entity, which indirectly owns approximately 11% of Entropic Holdings LLC").
It does not stop there. Entropic provides some color on entities managing pension funds for certain universities in the United Kingdom, these entities apparently having substantial interest in L3 Investment Holdings:
Finally, based on publicly available documents as of July 24, 2017, Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited owned 75% or more of L3 Investment Holdings LP. Based on additional information available from Companies House, it appears this ownership remains current.
Given that L3 Investment Holdings LP indirectly owns approximately 11% of Entropic Holdings LLC, if Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited owns approximately 90% or more of L3 Investment Holdings LP, then such ownership would constitute indirect ownership of 10% or more of Entropic Holdings LLC.
Publicly available information also indicates that Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited is a trustee that runs and manages Universities Superannuation Scheme, which is a private pension scheme for universities and higher education institutions in the United Kingdom, available to academics (such as lecturers, teaching officers, and professors), researchers, and academic-related professional and support staff employed by UK universities and higher education institutions.
According to Companies House, Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited is a "[p]rivate company limited by guarantee without share capital." As such, Plaintiff understands that Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited does not itself have any owners.
Out of an abundance of caution for the Court's evaluation of possible disqualification or recusal, Plaintiff submits that Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited may indirectly own more than 10% of Entropic Holdings LLC.
This veritable onion of funds, managers, and investors should ring a bell; if not, see "Entropic Communications Litigation Produces Some Complicated Brew" (July 2023) for parallels with disclosures made by Fortress's VLSI Technology LLC in a case filed against Intel before Delaware Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly.
The new cases against Comcast have yet to be assigned to a judge but seem destined for Judge Holcomb. K&L Gates LLP filed them. 8/23, Central District of California.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
