Vision Sphere Labs' QoS Patent Suit Against Adtran Moves to Alabama, Where Adtran Answers and Counterclaims.

The case and its posture after transfer

The case is Vision Sphere Labs, LLC v. Adtran, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-00728 (N.D. Ala., Northeastern Division). Vision Sphere Labs filed it on August 25, 2025 in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, as No. 3:25-cv-02278. Judge Karen Gren Scholer ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of Alabama on April 7, 2026, subject to a 21-day stay, and the Alabama docket opened April 30, 2026. Adtran filed its answer and counterclaims on May 15, 2026, and the court entered three orders that day. ECF No. 46 addressed the parties' compliance with Rule 26(f). ECF No. 47 set a June 29, 2026 deadline for the parties to elect whether to consent to a magistrate judge's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), and directed the clerk, absent consent by all parties, to reassign the case to a randomly drawn district judge without further order after that date. ECF No. 48 set a telephone status conference for June 16, 2026.

The parties and counsel

The complaint says Vision Sphere Labs, LLC is a Texas limited liability company based in Houston, Texas. It alleges, on information and belief, that Adtran, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Huntsville, Alabama, and Adtran's answer admits that allegation. The complaint is signed by Christopher M. Joe and also lists Michael W. Doell of Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC in Dallas, Texas. Douglas Bridges appeared for Vision Sphere Labs in Alabama on May 7, 2026. Adtran's answer is signed by Benn C. Wilson and also lists Paul M. Sykes of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP in Birmingham, Alabama.

The two patents and the asserted claims

The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,990,860, titled Method and System for Rule-Based Sequencing for QoS, issued August 2, 2011, and U.S. Patent No. 7,769,028, titled Systems and Methods for Adaptive Throughput Management for Event-Driven Message-Based Data, issued August 3, 2010. The complaint alleges Vision Sphere Labs owns all right, title, and interest in both patents. Recorded USPTO assignments show that Harris Corporation, the original assignee of both patents, assigned them to a Texas company effective October 31, 2018, and that company assigned them to Vision Sphere Labs effective March 31, 2024. For the '860 patent, the recorded assignments also include an assignment from Harris Corporation to Harris Solutions NY, Inc. executed January 27, 2017, and a 2018 change of that company's name to Harris Global Communications, Inc. The complaint says the '028 patent expired on September 5, 2022, and Adtran's answer admits it has been expired since at least that date. USPTO records show the '028 patent expired for failure to pay a maintenance fee. They also show the '860 patent lapsed for failure to pay its 12th-year maintenance fee effective August 2, 2023 and was reinstated on March 20, 2024, when the USPTO accepted the late fee.

Claim 15 of the '860 patent, the claim charted in Exhibit C to the complaint, covers a processing device with a network analysis component that determines a network status from a plurality of statuses based on network measurements and determines at least one of an effective link speed and a link proportion for at least one link; a mode selection component that selects a mode based on the determined network status, each mode corresponding to at least one network status and including a user defined sequencing rule; a data prioritization component that assigns priorities and sequences data under the selected mode's rule; a data metering component that meters inbound data by shaping and outbound data by policing; and a data communication component that communicates data based at least in part on at least one of the data's priority, the effective link speed, and the link proportion. At least the data prioritization component is configured to operate at a transport layer of a protocol stack.

Claim 1 of the '028 patent covers a method in which a processing device prioritizes data by assigning a priority in or at the top of the transport layer, analyzes the network to determine its status, selects a mode based on that status, changes the prioritization rules based on the mode, and communicates the data based on priority and network status at a transmission rate metered on the network status. For the '028 patent, the complaint incorporates the Exhibit C chart to the extent applicable.

The infringement allegations

The complaint accuses Adtran routers, switches, and platforms that offer a QoS feature, naming the NetVanta 3140 and other routers running Adtran's AOS operating system. Count I, on the '860 patent, and Count II, on the '028 patent, each allege direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271, induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(c). The complaint alleges compliance with the marking statute, 35 U.S.C. 287, and pleads that the claimed inventions were not well understood, routine, or conventional. It seeks a judgment of infringement, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 that it says may include lost profits and are no less than a reasonable royalty, treble damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and post-judgment royalties.

Why the case moved to Alabama

The complaint pleaded venue in Texas under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), alleging on information and belief that Adtran committed acts of infringement in the district and has a regional office in Richardson, Texas. Adtran moved on October 23, 2025 to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer, and the parties took venue discovery. In her April 7, 2026 opinion, Judge Scholer found that the Richardson facility is leased and operated by an affiliate, Adtran Networks North America Inc., and rejected Vision Sphere Labs' alter ego and ratification arguments, citing In re Cray Inc. and Andra Group, LP v. Victoria's Secret Stores, L.L.C. She held that the Richardson facility is not Adtran's regular and established place of business, so venue in the Northern District of Texas was improper under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b). She granted Adtran's alternative request to transfer under 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) and said she would transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) even if venue were proper. On the convenience factors, the court assumed without deciding that the factor for other practical problems weighed in Vision Sphere Labs' favor, and concluded that the private interest factors weighed in favor of transfer because the other three showed the Northern District of Alabama to be the more convenient location.

Adtran's answer and counterclaims

Adtran denies infringement. Its defenses include noninfringement; invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and 112; double patenting; limits on damages under 35 U.S.C. 287; failure to mitigate; dedication to the public; unclean hands or patent misuse; release, laches, estoppel, or waiver; and prosecution history estoppel. Adtran counterclaims for declaratory judgments that it does not infringe either patent and that both patents are invalid, the invalidity counts pleaded on information and belief. It asks the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and to find the case exceptional and award attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285.