The complaint
The case is NextGen Innovations, LLC v. CoreWeave, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00879 (E.D. Tex.), filed October 2, 2026 and assigned to Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. NextGen, a Nevada limited liability company based in Las Vegas, is represented by Russ August & Kabat. The complaint says Walter and Alexander Soto, brothers who founded two optical networking companies, UBI Systems in 2003 and iPON Systems in 2005, formed NextGen in October 2018 to license their patent portfolio, and that on November 29, 2018 they granted NextGen an exclusive license to each asserted patent, with all substantial rights until its expiration date. CoreWeave is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Livingston, New Jersey.
The three patents share the title System and Method for Performing High-Speed Communications over Fiber Optical Networks and name Alexander Soto and Walter Soto as inventors: U.S. Patent 9,887,795, issued February 6, 2018; U.S. Patent 10,263,723, issued April 16, 2019; and U.S. Patent 10,771,181, issued September 8, 2020. The complaint describes the '723 patent as a continuation of the '795 patent and the '181 patent as a continuation of both. One count per patent alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) of at least claim 1, with claim charts attached as Exhibits 4 through 6. The complaint pleads the infringement in the past tense ("CoreWeave infringed") and alleges compliance with the marking statute, 35 U.S.C. 287.
What the asserted claims cover
Claim 1 of the '795 patent is a method claim. It covers m-ary modulation communication carried out by a pluggable optical transceiver module: receiving a first electrical binary data signal through the module's system interface, converting it to a first electrical m-ary modulation signal, amplifying that signal to drive an optical transmitter, emitting a first optical signal on a first wavelength, receiving a second optical signal on a second wavelength at an optical detector that produces an electrical signal, amplifying that signal to facilitate clock and data recovery, recovering clock data information to produce a second m-ary modulation signal, demodulating it to a second electrical binary data signal, and transmitting that signal through the system interface. The claim does not recite an equalizer, an encoder or decoder, or a digital to analog converter.
Claim 1 of the '723 patent covers a pluggable optical transceiver module with an electrical system interface; an encoder unit that codes the incoming electrical data signal according to an error correcting code; an m-ary modulator that increases the number of bits per symbol; a digital to analog converter; a driver that amplifies the resulting analog m-ary signal to drive an optical transmitter; the optical transmitter, emitting on a first wavelength; an optical detector for a second optical signal on a second wavelength; an amplifier; a clock data recovery unit that produces a second m-ary modulation signal; an equalizer that performs equalization on that signal to remove noise; an m-ary demodulator that decreases the number of bits per symbol; and a decoder unit that decodes according to an error correcting code.
Claim 1 of the '181 patent covers a pluggable optical transceiver module with the same transmit and receive chain as claim 1 of the '723 patent, from the electrical system interface through the equalizer and the m-ary demodulator, but without the encoder unit and the decoder unit.
The complaint quotes the shared specification as describing fiber network performance as constrained by amplitude degradation and temporal distortions, and as proposing m-ary modulation, channel equalization, demultiplexing across multiple fibers, and coding and error correction, alone or in combination.
The accused modules
The complaint accuses pluggable optical transceiver modules that perform m-ary modulation and demodulation, clock and data recovery, and equalization within the module. Its named category is 100 Gbps single-lambda PAM4 transceivers in the QSFP28 form factor, which convert four 25 Gb/s non-return-to-zero (NRZ) electrical lanes into one 100 Gb/s four-level pulse amplitude modulation (PAM4) optical lane and reverse the conversion on receive. Its example is the NVIDIA MMS1V70-CM 100GbE QSFP28 DR1 transceiver. Quoting NVIDIA's product specification, the complaint describes that module as hot-pluggable, converting four 25Gb/s NRZ input channels to a single 100Gb/s PAM4 optical channel over one fiber at a nominal 1310nm wavelength, "and vice versa for the receive path," with clock and data recovery controls enabled by default for 100 GbE operation. NVIDIA is not a defendant.
To tie the modules to CoreWeave, the complaint cites CoreWeave's statement that its MLPerf benchmark results ran on a production cluster built with NVIDIA Quantum-2 InfiniBand networking, and a 2023 Slurm User Group presentation listing "100 Gbps Frontend Networking" for CoreWeave's HGX H100 supercomputer instances. It alleges that CoreWeave's GPU cloud services depend on the network traffic the modules carry.
How the complaint reads on claim 1
The complaint body does not chart the claims element by element; it says the attached charts set out the accused features. The product passages it quotes speak to the electrical input lanes, the conversion to a single PAM4 optical lane, the transmit and receive optical paths, and clock and data recovery, which correspond to some of the steps of claim 1 of the '795 patent. For claim 1 of the '723 and '181 patents, the complaint's definition of the accused modules alleges equalization within the module; the body does not describe the modules' digital to analog converter, driver, or equalizer, or, for the '723 claim, an encoder unit and decoder unit using an error correcting code. Those elements are addressed, if at all, in the exhibits.
Each claim places the recited functions in the pluggable optical transceiver module. The '795 claim is a method. Count 1 recites making, using, offering for sale, selling, and importing the modules, but its only allegation that the claimed steps were performed is that CoreWeave's operation of the modules performs every step of at least claim 1, so the method count rests on CoreWeave's own use of the modules.
Venue
The complaint pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), which allows a patent suit where the defendant resides or where it has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. For the place of business, it points to a CoreWeave datacenter in Plano, Texas, which CoreWeave announced in July 2023 and which, the complaint says, industry reporting identifies as operational at the end of 2023; a City of Plano incentive agreement, approved in December 2025, that it says requires CoreWeave to lease and occupy at least 454,421 square feet there for a data center; and a job posting for a fully on-site Technical Deployment Lead role listing Plano. It alleges, on information and belief, that CoreWeave possesses and controls the space at the Plano facility, where its equipment is installed on a permanent and continuous basis, and that CoreWeave personnel regularly install, maintain, and replace equipment there. As further corroboration of CoreWeave's presence in the district, it cites a Texas Comptroller registration listing CoreWeave as an operator of a data center in Denton, where Core Scientific has announced a long-term agreement with CoreWeave; the complaint does not name Denton as a site of the alleged infringement. For acts of infringement, the complaint alleges, on information and belief, that CoreWeave used and operated the accused modules at the Plano datacenter, including in network equipment supporting its 100 Gbps network, and that by operating them CoreWeave used the claimed apparatuses and performed the claimed method; it does not say when that use occurred.
Earlier cases and Patent Office review
NextGen's notice of related cases, filed in the CoreWeave case, lists nine other cases that it describes as involving one or more of the asserted patents. One is NextGen's same-day suit against Microsoft, No. 2:26-cv-00880. The other eight are listed as closed: suits against II-VI (filed in this district and transferred to the Northern District of California), Infinera, Fujitsu Network Communications, AT&T Services (two cases), Nokia of America (two cases), and Cisco Systems.
Nokia of America petitioned for inter partes review of all three patents in March 2023 (IPR2023-00680, -00681, and -00682), challenging claims that include claim 1 of each patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution under 35 U.S.C. 325(d) in November 2023. The USPTO Director vacated those decisions on March 28, 2024 and remanded. After the Board denied institution again, the Director on December 3, 2024 vacated the remand decisions, declined to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. 325(d) or 314(a), and remanded for the Board to decide whether the petitions show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, the threshold set by 35 U.S.C. 314(a). The docket of NextGen's 2023 case against Nokia of America in the same court, No. 2:23-cv-00637, shows a stipulation of dismissal filed December 27, 2024 and an order dismissing the case entered January 2, 2025.
Relief
The prayer asks for a judgment of infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. 284 with interest and costs, an accounting, a finding that the case is exceptional with attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and other relief at law or in equity. The complaint does not ask for an injunction. It does not plead willfulness or indirect infringement and does not allege that CoreWeave knew of the patents before suit. Google Patents lists an anticipated expiration date of June 10, 2024 for each of the three patents and shows the '795 and '181 patents with a fee-related expired status; the complaint does not state an expiration date. Under 35 U.S.C. 286, damages may not be recovered for infringement committed more than six years before the complaint or counterclaim for infringement is filed.
What to watch next
Watch for CoreWeave's answer or any motion to dismiss or transfer, including any venue challenge under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b); any coordination with the Microsoft case; and any new petition for inter partes review. The case can end at any time by license, settlement, or dismissal.