Delaware Jury Sides with McAndrews Client TQ Delta, Again
For the second time in a span of seven months, McAndrews secured a complete victory for its client TQ Delta LLC, a technology development and licensing firm, by securing a favorable jury verdict and judgment in Delaware. On Thursday, January 16, 2020, a Delaware federal jury found that 2Wire Inc. infringed TQ Delta’s patent related to Digital Subscriber Line (“DSL”) technology. 2Wire is part of CommScope Holding Company, Inc., a global network infrastructure provider.
The jury’s verdict followed a nearly four-day trial in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. After deliberation, the eight-member jury returned a favorable verdict on all four counts, finding that 2Wire infringed Claims 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,453,881 and that those patent claims were not invalid over the prior art.
The TQ Delta patent at issue in the litigation covers important improvements for Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) modems relating to increasing both the “rate and reach” of existing DSL networks. TQ Delta’s patented technology allows multiple DSL connections to be bonded together to achieve higher data rates for a broader set of customers in a reliable, cost-effective manner. These patents are part of TQ Delta’s sizable worldwide patent portfolio for digital communication technology, including DSL. McAndrews also represents TQ Delta in related litigation for other patents and against other DSL equipment vendors.
“We are pleased that yet another jury has confirmed the strength of our DSL portfolio,” said Abha Divine, Managing Director of TQ Delta. “TQ Delta’s portfolio is the result of decades of engineering investment, and the company continues to innovate and solve important problems in the field of DSL and communications in general, said Divine.
Lead trial attorney, Peter McAndrews, explained that “Marcos Tzannes, an inventor of the ‘881 patent, has devoted his life’s work to the development of innovative and valuable DSL technology. The defendant’s strategy was to argue, incorrectly, that it did not need the invention so it didn’t use it. We are pleased that the jury once again vindicated the inventors’ hard work and our client’s commitment to innovation.”