Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. filed Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, d/b/a Xfinity, No. 2:26-cv-01018 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), on November 9, 2026, against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, d/b/a Xfinity, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, Comcast Corporation, Comcast of Houston, LLC, Comcast Business Communications, LLC, and Comcast OTR1, LLC. The complaint describes the plaintiff as a New York not-for-profit corporation based in Ithaca, New York, and a wholly owned subsidiary of a university that manages intellectual property invented by university employees (paragraph 7). It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants function as a single enterprise in offering the accused products and services, and that Comcast Corporation directs the operations of the other defendants, its direct and indirect subsidiaries (paragraph 14). The docket shows the case assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Cornell Research Foundation demands a jury.
The two patents
U.S. Patent 7,839,775, "Methods and Systems for Channel Sensing Multiple Access Communications with Multipacket Reception," issued November 23, 2010, and U.S. Patent 7,965,733, "Systems and Methods to Detect and Avoid Collisions in Channel Sense Multiple Access Communications with Multipacket Reception," issued June 21, 2011. Both issued from applications filed March 14, 2006 that claim priority to a provisional application filed March 15, 2005. The complaint says Cornell Research Foundation owns both patents by assignment from the inventors recorded with the USPTO (paragraphs 28 and 32), and USPTO assignment records show those assignments recorded October 11, 2006.
Claim 26 of the '775 patent covers a terminal system with a monitoring subsystem that determines whether signal energy on a communication channel exceeds a predetermined amount, a component that generates and processes network data packets, and a control subsystem that decides how to transmit the packets, enables several of them to be successfully transmitted simultaneously with packets sent by at least one other terminal, and does not let the terminal begin to transmit when the signal energy exceeds that amount. Claim 56 covers a terminal system whose monitoring subsystem likewise blocks the start of a transmission when signal energy exceeds a predetermined amount, and whose control subsystem transmits packets simultaneously to several receiving systems, with the packets separated and substantially decoded at each receiver.
Claim 1 of the '733 patent covers a method in which multiple packets are transmitted simultaneously and successfully received over a communication channel, a control sub-system prevents transmission when signal energy exceeds a predetermined amount, and a feedback channel is monitored for information from a receiver that decodes the simultaneously transmitted packets, conveying whether any of them cannot be successfully decoded. Transmission parameters are modified if a feedback transmission shorter than the transmission on the channel is detected, and channel information, including the status of transmissions, is used to decide whether to transmit. Claim 16 covers a transmitter system with a scheduling component and a control subsystem that prevents transmission when signal energy exceeds a predetermined amount and decides whether to stop transmitting based on receiver feedback that at least one simultaneously transmitted packet could not be decoded. Claim 29 covers a receiver system that separates and decodes multiple packets transmitted simultaneously (multipacket reception) and sends a feedback signal with channel status information conveying whether any of those packets cannot be successfully decoded.
The accused products
The complaint accuses Wi-Fi 5 and later gateways, routers, extenders, pods, hotspots, and access points that Comcast supplies or that are used with Xfinity Internet or Comcast Business Internet; Wi-Fi 6 and later smartphones, tablets, and streaming devices that Comcast provides or that are used with Xfinity Mobile or Comcast Business Mobile; and the Xfinity and Comcast Business services that incorporate, use, provide, configure, or manage them (paragraph 4). As examples of accused access points it names the Xfinity Advanced Gateways, the Xfinity XER10 WiFi Router, the Xfinity Pro WiFi Extender, xFi Pods, and Comcast Business gateways (paragraph 36).
The counts
Count I alleges, upon information and belief, direct infringement of at least claims 26 and 56 of the '775 patent, with Wi-Fi 5 and later access points accused under claim 56 and Wi-Fi 6 and later client devices under claim 26, plus induced and contributory infringement from service of the complaint and willful infringement after that knowledge (paragraphs 34 to 50). Count II alleges, upon information and belief, direct infringement of at least claims 1, 16, and 29 of the '733 patent by Wi-Fi 6 and later products, including that Comcast itself performs the method claims when its employees, technicians, and retail staff activate, set up, test, and demonstrate accused client devices with Comcast gateways, along with induced, contributory, and willful infringement (paragraphs 51 to 67). Claim charts are attached as Exhibits 3, 4, and 5. For marking, the complaint says Cornell Research Foundation makes no product practicing either patent and granted no license under them until 2022 (paragraphs 49 and 66).
Reexamination of both patents
A reexamination of the '775 patent requested February 27, 2017 (Control No. 90/013,914) ended in a certificate issued June 28, 2017, confirming the patentability of claims 1, 26, 44, 51, and 56 without amendment; the other claims were not reexamined. On October 7, 2025, a third party filed new requests for reexamination of both patents. On November 26, 2025, the USPTO ordered reexamination of claims 1 to 60 of the '775 patent (Control No. 90/015,585) and claims 1 to 48 of the '733 patent (Control No. 90/015,584).
In the '733 reexamination, the examiner issued a non-final action on June 22, 2026 and a final rejection on November 4, 2026. The final rejection rejects claims 1 to 48 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the IEEE 802.15.4 standard in view of a 2004 conference paper and the patent's admitted prior art. It also concludes that the provisional application does not provide written description support for independent claims 1, 4, 16, and 29, so those claims are not entitled to the March 15, 2005 date.
Earlier suits on the same patents
Cornell Research Foundation, with its parent university as co-plaintiff, asserted the same two patents in two Eastern District of Texas suits filed January 21, 2025, Nos. 2:25-cv-00054 and 2:25-cv-00055. On November 4, 2026, the court reset jury selection in No. 2:25-cv-00054, previously set for November 6, 2026, to December 7, 2026. Cornell Research Foundation also filed No. 2:26-cv-01009 in the same court on November 6, 2026, asserting the two patents against another broadband and mobile provider.
Relief requested
Cornell Research Foundation asks for a judgment of infringement, damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, a finding of willfulness with enhanced damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, an exceptional-case finding with costs and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, an accounting for damages not presented at trial, and other relief.