govinfo:USCOURTS-mdd-8_25-cv-00683-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
 
 : 
AUTHPOINT LLC 
 : 
 
 v. : Civil Action No. DKC 25-683 
 
 : 
GL COMMUNICATIONS INC. 
 : 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 Presently pending and ready for resolution in this patent-
infringement case is the motion to dismiss for failure to state a 
claim filed by GL Communications, Inc. (“GL” or “Defendant”). (ECF 
No. 25). The issues have been briefed, and the court now rules, 
no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the 
following reasons, the motion to dismiss will be granted. 
I. Background 
A. Factual Background 
Plaintiff AuthPoint LLC (“AuthPoint” or “Plaintiff”) is the 
assignee of United States Patent No. 8,699,395 (the “’395 patent”), 
which is titled “Method and device for inverse multiplexing of 
multicast transmission.” (ECF No. 23 ¶¶ 8–9). GL makes and sells 
at least four products that allegedly infringe the method described 
in Claim 1 of the ’395 patent.
1 
 
1 AuthPoint does not describe GL’s general business model. 
GL describes itself as a telecommunication company, (ECF No. 25-
1, at 9), and its website indicates that it offers “a comprehensive 
suite of Voice testing and Network testing solutions for all 

2 
 
1. Preliminary Terminology 
Before diving into the prior art and patented method, it is 
helpful to explain some of the terms used in the claim, including 
inverse multiplexing, inverse demultiplexing, multicast 
transmission, and subscriber. What these terms mean, as a general 
matter, is not in dispute.
2 
GL describes inverse multiplexing as the process of “breaking 
data into smaller units[] . . . [and] sending those smaller units 
to a destination along different paths.” (ECF No. 25-1, at 8). 
Inverse demultiplexing, GL explains, is the process of 
“reassembling the data for the end user.” (Id.). GL further 
contends that these two processes together help “send large amounts 
of data over a network.” (Id.). By spreading out pieces of the 
large message across different paths, inverse multiplexing offers 
“bandwidth benefits.” (See ECF No. 23 ¶ 11). 
 
telecom networks,” Company Overview, GL Comm’cns Inc., 
https://www.gl.com/about.html [https://perma.cc/C6ZV-T6DD]. The 
information on GL’s website is a proper subject of judicial notice. 
Rodgers v. Eagle All., 586 F.Supp.3d 398, 409 n.1 (D.Md. 2022) 
(taking judicial notice of information on a party’s website 
regarding the party’s business, which had not been discussed in 
the papers). 
 
2 Plaintiff contends that Defendant engages in claim 
construction at various points. The definitions provided in this 
subsection, however, come from Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the 
’395 patent, or uncontested explanations in Defendant’s motion to 
dismiss. 

3 
 
Messages transmitted across a network, such as the internet, 
can be unicast, broadcast, or multicast. U.S. Patent No. 8,699,395 
col. 1 l. 15–17 (filed Sep. 9, 2005). 3 “A unicast message is 
addressed at a single terminal of the network, a broadcast message 
is addressed at all terminals of the network[,] and a multicast 
message is addressed at a group of a plurality of the terminals of 
the network.” Id. col. 1 l. 18–22. A subscriber is a “terminal 
[that] has subscribed to the multicast stream.” Id. col. 2 l. 2–
3. 
Putting these concepts together, an inversely multiplexed 
multicast transmission to multiple subscribers is a message to 
various terminals that is broken down into smaller units along 
different pathways for easier transmission. 
2. Prior Art 
Prior to the invention of the ’395 patent, the method of 
inversely multiplexed multicast transmission proceeded as follows: 
(1) An “upstream” multicast router would send a multicast message, 
(2) the multicast message would be inversely multiplexed, (3) the 
multicast message would be inversely demultiplexed, and (4) a 
second, “downstream” multicast router would send copies of the 
 
3 The patent is also filed at ECF No. 23-1. For precision in 
citation to particular text within the patent, the court will cite 
to lines of the patent itself rather than to pages of the ECF 
filing. 

4 
 
inversely demultiplexed message to the various subscribers. (See 
ECF No. 23 ¶¶ 11–12); ’395 Patent col. 2 l. 3–11. That conventional 
method was “unable to efficiently deliver the same multicast stream 
to multiple subscribers without first reassembling the inversely 
multiplexed stream at a central location and then re-distributing 
it.” (ECF No. 23 ¶ 12). In other words, the second multicast 
router was a “bottleneck” that “negated the bandwidth benefits of 
inverse multiplexing.” (Id. ¶¶ 10–11); ’395 Patent col. 2 l. 14–
15. Consequently, the conventional method “required additional 
network infrastructure, introduced latency, and created single 
points of failure in the message delivery path—problems that 
consumed network resources and degraded the quality of service for 
bandwidth-intensive applications such as video and audio 
streaming.” (ECF No. 23 ¶ 12). 
3. The ’395 Patent 
The ’395 patent, filed in 2005 and issued in 2014, devised a 
new method that eliminated the second multicast router. This 
patented method retains the first two steps of the conventional 
method but then decentralizes the inverse demultiplexing and 
distribution of copies. 
The patent presents two configurations of the method. A 
representation of the first configuration, as depicted in Figure 
1 of the patent, is shown below: 

5 
 
 
’395 Patent fig. 1. The patent offers a description of this 
configuration with bolded numbers that correspond to the above 
depiction: 
Fig. 1 shows a part of a network, 
comprising a multicast router 10, an inverse 
multiplexing device 12, a plurality of 
functionally parallel connections 14, a 
plurality of inverse demultiplexing/ 
forwarding devices 16, a local network 17 and 
a plurality of [subscribers] 18. Multicast 
router 10 has a network connection 11 to a 
further part of the network (not shown) and a 
connection to inverse multiplexing device 12. 
Inverse multiplexing device 12 is connected to 
the inverse demultiplexing/forwarding devices 
16, each via a respective one of the 
functionally parallel connections 14. Inverse 
demultiplexing/forwarding devices 16 are 

6 
 
coupled to each other via local network 17. 
Each inverse demultiplexing/forwarding device 
16 is coupled to a respective one of the 
[subscribers] 18. 
 
Id. col. 3 l. 36–48. The patent goes on to describe how this 
configuration of the method works: 
A stream of messages for [subscribers] 18 is 
received at network connection 11 and sent 
[via the multicast router 10] to inverse 
multiplexing device 12, which distributes the 
stream over connections 14 by means of inverse 
multiplexing, e.g. according to a round robin 
distribution scheme. Each inverse 
demultiplexing/forwarding device 16 receives 
those messages of the stream that have been 
sent over the connection 14 to which the 
inverse demultiplexing/forwarding device 16 
is connected. The inverse demultiplexing/ 
forwarding device 16 forwards these messages 
to other inverse demultiplexing/forwarding 
devices 16 if the messages are needed by 
[subscribers] 18 other than the [subscriber] 
that is connected to the inverse 
demultiplexing/forwarding device 16. The 
connected inverse demultiplexing/forwarding 
device 16 of that [subscriber] 18 reassembles 
a stream from the messages that it receives 
from its connection 14 and from the other 
inverse demultiplexing/forwarding devices 16, 
by means of inverse demultiplexing. 
 
Id. col. 3 l. 59 –67, col. 4 l. 1–8. In other words, after the 
multicast message is inversely multiplexed, each subscriber’s 
inverse demultiplexer/forwarding device receives a portion of the 
message, retains that portion, and forwards a copy of that portion 
to the other subscribers in the network. At the conclusion of 
this process, each subscriber’s inverse demultiplexer will contain 

7 
 
all portions of the message. Each subscriber can then inversely 
demultiplex all portions of the message and thereby reassemble the 
original message. 
 The second configuration, as depicted in Figure 2 of the 
patent, contemplates the inverse demultiplexer and the forwarding 
device as separate devices rather than a combined device, and is 
shown below: 
 

8 
 
Id. fig. 2. As with Figure 1, the patent offers a (condensed) 
description of this configuration and how it works with bolded 
numbers that correspond to the above depiction: 
In this [configuration] the functions of 
forwarding and inverse demultiplexing have 
been separated. Forwarding units 22 and 
inverse demultiplexing devices 20 are 
provided[.] Forwarding units 22 are coupled 
between respective connections 14 and local 
network 17. Inverse [de]multiplexing devices 
20 are coupled between [subscribers] 18 and 
local network 17. In this [configuration] 
forwarding units 22 use the destination 
addresses of messages to determine to which of 
the demultiplexing devices 20 messages will be 
forwarded via local network 17. 
 
Id. col. 5 l. 8–17. Put another way, after the multicast message 
is inversely multiplexed, a forwarding device on each parallel 
connection forwards copies of that connection’s portion of the 
message to the inverse demultiplexer coupled with each subscriber. 
At the conclusion of this process, each subscriber’s inverse 
demultiplexer will contain all portions of the message. Each 
subscriber can then inversely demultiplex all portions of the 
message and thereby reassemble the original message. 
This decentralized architecture captured in Figures 1 and 2 
is described in Claim 1: 
A method of forwarding a stream of multicast 
messages through a network by transmitting a 
stream of multicast messages from a multicast 
router to a multicast subscriber device and a 

9 
 
further multicast subscriber device, the 
method comprising: 
 
inverse multiplexing the stream of multicast 
messages, thereby converting the stream 
of multicast messages into multiple 
parts, each part being transmitted via 
one of a plurality of communication 
channels[;] 
 
inverse demultiplexing the multiple parts of 
the multicast messages of the inversely 
multiplexed stream with an inverse 
demultiplexer for the multicast 
subscriber device; and 
 
forwarding, by a plurality of forwarding 
devices coupled to respective ones of the 
plurality of communication channels, 
respective ones of the multiple parts of 
the inversely multiplexed stream from the 
plurality of communication channels to a 
further inverse demultiplexer of the 
further multicast subscriber device. 
 
Id. col. 9 l. 53–67, col. 10 l. 1–4. AuthPoint describes this 
method as a “concrete improvement over prior art.” (ECF No. 23 ¶ 
18). Its “distributed forwarding of inversely multiplexed parts 
for decentralized reassembly” avoids the bottleneck issue while 
retaining the bandwidth benefits of inverse multiplexing. (Id.). 
4. GL’s Products 
AuthPoint alleges that GL has infringed the ’395 patent by 
making, selling, and internally testing and using the following 
four products: (1) Inverse Multiplexing for ATM (IMA) Emulator 
(“IMA Emulator”); (2) MAPS ED-137 Radio Emulator (“Radio 

10 
 
Emulator”); (3) STM-1 Multiplexer; and (4) ATM Analyzer. 4 (See 
generally ECF No. 23-2). AuthPoint uses color- coded boxes to 
identify which portion of the product allegedly performs the 
patented method in Claim 1, but the color coding tends to confuse 
more than clarify. Accordingly, the court will primarily refer to 
the textual allegations in the claim chart. The IMA Emulator is 
the clear focus of the claim chart and the only product AuthPoint 
attempts to tie to every element of the claim. The claim chart 
provides no textual allegations regarding the Radio Emulator; its 
relation to the other products, and frankly the claim itself, is 
too unclear to proceed with any discussion of this product. As 
for the STM-1 Multiplexer and ATM Analyzer, AuthPoint discusses 
them sporadically in the claim chart and they will be noted where 
relevant accordingly. 
Below is GL’s depiction of the IMA Emulator: 
 
4 These product names include a variety of acronyms. 
AuthPoint does not explain the ATM acronym, but GL states that ATM 
stands for “Asynchronous Transfer Mode.” (ECF No. 25-1, at 9). 
The record contains no clear explanation of ATM technology, but it 
presumably constitutes one way to transmit data over a public 
network. Documents attached to Defendant’s motion to dismiss 
suggest that MAPS stands for “Message Automation & Protocol 
Simulation” and enables air-to-ground and ground-to-ground calls 
in the air traffic context. (ECF No. 25-7, at 3 –4). It is not 
evident what STM means. 

11 
 
 
(ECF Nos. 23-2, at 2; 25-2, at 2). AuthPoint identifies the blue 
disks as multicast routers. (ECF No. 23-2, at 2). Once a multicast 
message leaves one of the routers, AuthPoint believes that the IMA 
Emulator, presumably via the ATM (IMA) device connected to that 
router, inversely multiplexes the message and sends it over the 
plurality of physical communication channels (identified in the 
diagram by three lines circled by a dotted line labeled IMA). (Id. 
at 4–5). The ATM Analyzer is relevant to this step. It “analyzes 
data that has been inverse[ly] multiplexed by companion GL products 
including the IMA Emulator.” (Id. at 5). GL describes the ATM 
Analyzer as able to “capture and reassemble frames that were 
transmitted with Inverse Multiplexing,” which AuthPoint interprets 
to mean that “the GL Communications product ecosystem is designed 
to work with inverse[ly] multiplexed multicast streams.” (Id.). 

12 
 
AuthPoint alleges upon information and belief that GL performs 
this step when testing the IMA Emulator and ATM Analyzer. (Id.). 
 AuthPoint next alleges upon information and belief that the 
ATM (IMA) device “at the far-end,” or “the receiving side,” of the 
physical links “functions as the inverse demultiplexer for the 
multicast subscriber devices connected downstream, including the 
PCs, voice equipment, and data devices shown in the diagram.”
5 
(Id. at 7–8). The STM-1 Multiplexer is relevant to this step 
because it also performs inverse demultiplexing. (Id. at 8). 
AuthPoint alleges upon information and belief that GL “sells its 
IMA Emulator and STM-1 Multiplexer products as matched pairs for 
use at both ends of a communication link, with the receiving-end 
device performing inverse demultiplexing.” (Id.). Again, 
AuthPoint believes that GL performs this step when testing the IMA 
Emulator and ATM Analyzer. (Id.). 
 As for the final step, AuthPoint alleges upon information and 
belief that the ATM Access Switches in the IMA Emulator diagram 
“function as a plurality of forwarding devices that are coupled to 
respective ones of the plurality of [the physical] communication 
channels, forwarding the inverse[ly] multiplexed ATM cells toward 
 
5 As just one of many examples of the confusion AuthPoint’s 
color coding creates, it codes the data device as a “multicast 
router” in one row of the claim chart and then in later rows 
describes the same device as a “multicast subscriber device.” 
(Compare ECF No. 23-2, at 2, with id. at 8, 10). 

13 
 
the further inverse demultiplexer at the far end of the network.” 
(Id. at 9–10). AuthPoint identifies the further inverse 
demultiplexer as “the receiving-end ATM (IMA) device.” (Id. at 
10). It also alleges upon information and belief that the diagram 
“depict[s] symmetrical configurations with inverse demultiplexers 
(ATM (IMA) devices) at both ends of the network, with the device 
at the second site functioning as the ‘further inverse 
demultiplexer’ for the ‘further multicast subscriber device’ 
comprising the PCs and other endpoint equipment at that site.” 
(Id.). Finally, AuthPoint alleges upon information and belief 
that the IMA Emulator can be configured with multiple IMA Emulator 
devices (presumably the ATM (IMA) device), each functioning as an 
inverse demultiplexer and thus at least one functioning as a 
further inverse demultiplexer. (Id.). AuthPoint believes that GL 
performs this step and employs such configurations when testing 
the IMA Emulator and ATM Analyzer. (Id.). 
B. Procedural History 
On March 2, 2025, AuthPoint filed a complaint against GL 
asserting a single claim of direct infringement of the ’395 patent. 
(ECF No. 1). After various extensions, GL moved to dismiss the 
complaint for failure to state a claim on December 5, 2025. (ECF 
No. 14). Rather than respond to the motion to dismiss, AuthPoint 
filed an amended complaint on January 9, 2026. (ECF No. 23). The 

14 
 
amended complaint, which contains additional factual allegations 
and a more developed claim chart, continues to assert a single 
claim of direct infringement of the ’395 patent. On January 23, 
GL moved to dismiss the amended complaint. (ECF No. 25). 
AuthPoint responded on February 20, (ECF No. 31), and GL replied 
on March 6, (ECF No. 34). 
II. Standard of Review 
A motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the 
sufficiency of the complaint. Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 
464 F.3d 480, 483 (4
th Cir. 2006). The court “must accept the 
complaint’s factual allegations as true and construe the facts in 
the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Barnett v. Inova 
Health Care Servs., 125 F.4th 465, 469 (4
th Cir. 2025) (citing 
Barbour v. Garland, 105 F.4th 579, 589 (4 th Cir. 2024)). 
Ordinarily, a plaintiff’s complaint must only satisfy the standard 
of Rule 8(a)(2), which requires a “short and plain statement of 
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 
“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer 
more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has 
alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—that the pleader is entitled to 
relief.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (quoting 
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). A Rule 8(a)(2) “showing” requires 
“stat[ing] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell 

15 
 
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has 
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that defendant 
is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Mays v. Sprinkle, 992 F.3d 
295, 299–300 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 
Nearly all of Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Defendant’s 
products are made upon information and belief. “Under the pleading 
standard the Supreme Court [of the United States ] articulated in 
Twombly and Iqbal, a complaint’s conclusory allegations based 
solely ‘upon information and belief’ are ‘insufficient to defeat 
a motion to dismiss.’” Van Buren v. Walmart, Inc., 611 F.Supp.3d 
30, 36 (D.Md. 2020) (quoting Harman v. Unisys Corp., 356 F.App’x 
638, 640–41 (4
th Cir. 2009)), aff’d, 855 F.App’x 156 (4th Cir. 
2021). That said, “pleading on the basis of information and belief 
is generally appropriate where information is particularly within 
defendants’ knowledge and control.” Id. at 37 (quoting Kajoshaj 
v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 543 F.App’x 11, 16 (2
d Cir. 2013)). Even 
then, however, the plaintiff must have “sufficient data to justify 
interposing an allegation on the subject.” 5 Wright & Miller’s 
Federal Practice & Procedure § 1224 (4
th ed. 2026). 
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
has provided specific guidance regarding the assessment of patent-
infringement claims on a motion to dismiss: 

16 
 
A plaintiff is not required to plead 
infringement on an element-by-element basis. 
[Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018)] (“[T]he Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure do not require a plaintiff 
to plead facts establishing that each element 
of an asserted claim is met.”); see Disc 
Disease Sols. Inc. v. VGH Sols., Inc., 888 
F.3d 1256, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding that 
a plaintiff need not plead every element, but 
must only give the alleged infringer fair 
notice of infringement). Instead, it is 
enough “that a complaint place the alleged 
infringer ‘on notice of what activity . . . is 
being accused of infringement.’” Lifetime 
Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 1372, 
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting K-Tech 
Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 
714 F.3d 1277, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). 
 
Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 
2021) (second alteration in original). “The level of detail 
required in any given case will vary depending upon a number of 
factors, including the complexity of the technology, the 
materiality of any given element to practicing the asserted 
claim(s), and the nature of the allegedly infringing device.” Id. 
at 1353. And a lthough claim construction is not generally 
appropriate at the motion-to-dismiss stage, Nalco, 883 F.3d at 
1350, a court “may dismiss a complaint prior to claim construction 
when the complaint rests on an implausible claim construction,” 
ALD Soc., LLC v. Verkada, Inc., 654 F.Supp.3d 972, 979 (N.D.Cal. 
2023) (citing Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, 884 F.3d 1135, 1141–42 (Fed. 
Cir. 2018); Nalco, 883 F.3d at 1349). Thus, “while a patentee’s 

17 
 
pleading obligations are not insurmountable, a patentee may 
subject its claims to early dismissal by pleading facts that are 
inconsistent with the requirements of its claims.” Bot M8, 4 F.4th 
at 1346 (citing Nalco, 883 F.3d at 1348–50). 
III. Analysis 
35 U.S.C. § 271(a) imposes liability for direct infringement 
on anyone who “without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or 
sells any patented invention.” A patented invention, in turn, may 
be a particular method. 35 U.S.C. §§ 100(b), 101. But there are 
several limitations on asserting a claim for direct infringement 
of a method. “There is no established recognition in patent law 
of direct infringement by ‘making’ a ‘method,’” Brumfield v. IBG 
LLC, 97 F.4th 854, 879 (Fed. Cir. 2024), nor does the “sale of an 
apparatus that is capable of infringing use” suffice for a method 
claim, Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed. 
Cir. 2006) (citing Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 
773 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor 
Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[I]ndeed, 
[the Federal Circuit] ha[s] indicated that direct infringement is 
limited to using the method.” Brumfield, 97 F.4th at 879 (emphasis 
added). To state a claim for direct infringement of a method under 
§ 271(a), then, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that “all steps 
of a claimed method are performed by or attributable to” the 

18 
 
accused infringer. Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, 
Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (per curiam) 
(citing BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373, 1379–
81 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). 
Although Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has directly 
infringed Claim 1 of the ’395 patent by making, selling, and using 
the IMA Emulator, Radio Emulator, STM-1 Multiplexer, and ATM 
Analyzer, only use is potentially cognizable. As for use, 
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes the ’395 patent when it 
tests its products internally. Plaintiff must therefore plausibly 
allege that Defendant performs all steps of the patented method in 
Claim 1 when it tests its products internally. The amended 
complaint falls short of doing so. 
 As a threshold matter, the IMA Emulator is the only product 
Plaintiff attempts to read onto each step of Claim 1. It is 
unclear how the other three products partake in infringement of 
the method in Claim 1. Most neglected are the Radio Emulator and 
STM-1 Multiplexer. After Defendant noted in its motion to dismiss 
Plaintiff’s failure to explain the relevance of these products, 
(ECF No. 25-1, at 18–20), Plaintiff declined to discuss them at 
all in its opposition. “In failing to respond to th[ese] 
argument[s,] Plaintiff concedes the point.” Stenlund v. Marriott 
Int’l, 172 F.Supp.3d 874, 887 (D.Md. 2016) (citing Ferdinand-

19 
 
Davenport v. Children’s Guild, 742 F.Supp.2d 772, 777 (D.Md. 2010); 
Kissi v. Panzer, 664 F.Supp.2d 120, 123 (D.D.C. 2009)). Defendant 
made a similar argument regarding the ATM Analyzer, to which 
Plaintiff offered only an oblique response in its opposition, 
explaining that the ATM Analyzer can “decode ATM frames 
constituting Classical IP over ATM.” (ECF No. 31, at 5, 11). 
Assuming this means that the ATM Analyzer can inversely 
demultiplex, Plaintiff does not explain how the ATM Analyzer 
interacts with the other products, most importantly the IMA 
Emulator, to infringe on Claim 1. Thus, the only method to 
consider is the internal testing of the IMA Emulator. 
 Defendant attacks Plaintiff’s claim regarding the IMA 
Emulator on myriad grounds. It argues that Plaintiff fails to 
allege that the IMA Emulator has a multicast router, a further 
multicast subscriber device, a plurality of forwarding devices, or 
a further inverse demultiplexer. (ECF No. 25-1, at 14). It also 
invokes the seven layers of computer networking to posit that 
Plaintiff’s theory of infringement is legally impossible. (Id. at 
21–26). Among these seven layers, the first layer is the physical 
layer, the second layer is the data layer, and the third layer is 
the network layer. (Id. at 23). Because ATM technology occupies 
only the lower physical and data layers, and multicasting occurs 
on the higher network layer, Defendant contends that the IMA 

20 
 
Emulator cannot possibly infringe on a multicasting method patent. 
(Id. at 23–26). Finally, Defendant argues that Claim 1 of the 
’395 patent is not eligible for protection. (Id. at 26–31). 
Plaintiff contests each of these positions. 
Although it is true that Plaintiff need not plead its method 
claim “element-by-element,” the use of a further inverse 
demultiplexer is particularly material to Claim 1. Bot M8, 4 F.4th 
at 1352–53. The principal problem with the prior art was the 
bottleneck created by requiring centralized inverse demultiplexing 
and forwarding. The ’395 patent resolved that problem by 
decentralizing inverse demultiplexing and forwarding. Therefore, 
the absence of plausible decentralization of inverse 
demultiplexing in Defendant’s products cuts at the heart of Claim 
1 and results in a lack of fair notice to Defendant as to the 
infringing nature of its internal testing. Because Plaintiff fails 
to allege that Defendant’s internal testing of the IMA Emulator 
includes use of a further inverse demultiplexer, the direct 
infringement claim fails, and Defendant’s other arguments need not 
be addressed. 
Plaintiff makes, in essence, three arguments regarding the 
existence of a further inverse demultiplexer in the IMA Emulator. 
None is plausible. First, Plaintiff argues that the ATM (IMA) 
device at the receiving end of the multicast message could contain 

21 
 
both the inverse demultiplexer and the further inverse 
demultiplexer, and whether the two must be at different network 
locations is a question of claim construction. (ECF No. 31, at 
5). Defendant correctly observes that this construction of Claim 
1 is plainly implausible. (ECF No. 34, at 4). If all inverse 
demultiplexing occurs at the same network location, that 
architecture creates the precise bottleneck that the ’395 patent 
eliminates. This argument fails at the threshold. 
Second, Plaintiff contends that the ATM (IMA) devices on both 
ends of the ATM network are capable of inverse demultiplexing, and 
one of them thus functions as the further inverse demultiplexer. 
As Plaintiff sees it, “the ATM (IMA) device at the first site [i]s 
the ‘inverse demultiplexer for the multicast subscriber device’ 
(the PCs and equipment at Site 1), and the ATM (IMA) device at the 
second site [i]s the ‘further inverse demultiplexer of the further 
multicast subscriber device’ (the PCs and equipment at Site 2).” 
(ECF No. 31, at 8; see also ECF No. 23-2, at 10). Defendant 
asserts that “[t]his allegation is not plausible because . . . the 
[two] ATM (IMA) devices cannot share the same stream of multicast 
messages as the method requires. One multicast message would be 
inversely multiplexed by the first device and inversely 
demultiplexed by the second device.” (ECF No. 25-1, at 17–18). 
Defendant highlights a key deficiency in Plaintiff’s theory: If 

22 
 
both ATM (IMA) devices operate as inverse demultiplexers, then no 
device appears to function as an inverse multiplexer. In other 
words, the IMA Emulator diagram contradicts this theory of the 
further inverse demultiplexer. Plaintiff is left with only 
conclusory information and belief to support the possibility that 
both devices serve as inverse demultiplexers in the transmission 
of the same multicast message. (ECF No. 23-2, at 10). Although 
that information is within Defendant’s control, Plaintiff lacks 
“sufficient data to justify interposing an allegation on the 
subject,” 5 Wright & Miller’s Federal Practice & Procedure § 1224 
(4th ed. 2026), such as evidence that some of Defendant’s customers 
use such a configuration of the IMA Emulator or a statement from 
an employee of Defendant that it tests such a configuration. 
“[T]he Federal Circuit has made clear that a plaintiff’s inability 
to plead facts without discovery does not excuse compliance with 
Rule 8 or permit a purely speculative complaint to proceed past a 
motion to dismiss.” Auth Token LLC v. City Nat’l Bank, 817 
F.Supp.3d 211, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2026). Plaintiff’s complaint cannot 
proceed on this theory. 
Third, and relatedly, Plaintiff argues that when Defendant 
internally tests the IMA Emulator, Defendant “employs 
configurations with multiple receiving endpoints to verify 
multicast delivery functionality.” (ECF Nos. 23-2, at 10; 31, at 

23 
 
6, 9). To the extent Plaintiff refers to configurations beyond 
the one discussed in the previous paragraph, its allegations are 
only more implausible. Far from being a “factual issue,” (ECF No. 
31, at 9), this guesswork is a serious pleading issue. Even if 
the IMA Emulator is capable of transmitting multicast messages, it 
does not follow that testing of the IMA Emulator would include 
multiple ATM (IMA) devices on the receiving end. While a multicast 
message requires multiple subscribers, it does not require 
multiple inverse demultiplexers. As Plaintiff itself explains, 
the prior art for transmission of multicast messages lacked 
multiple inverse demultiplexers. (See ECF No. 23 ¶ 17 (alleging 
that the prior art required “reassembling the inversely 
multiplexed stream at a central router”)). Hence, the only thing 
separating Defendant’s internal testing of the IMA Emulator from 
the prior art is Plaintiff’s unsupported speculation. As already 
established, that is not enough. 
In short, the IMA Emulator does not plausibly perform the 
step of Claim 1 requiring a further inverse demultiplexer. The 
amended complaint must be dismissed. 
IV. Leave to Amend 
In the event that the amended complaint fails to state a 
claim, Plaintiff requests leave to amend at the end of its 
opposition. (ECF No. 31, at 24). Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) provides 

24 
 
that courts “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 
requires.” Accordingly, the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Fourth Circuit has instructed that “leave to amend a pleading 
should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to 
the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the 
moving party, or the amendment would be futile.” Johnson v. 
Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986) (citing Foman 
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 
Leave to amend is not warranted in this instance. To begin, 
Defendant’s initial motion to dismiss asserted that Plaintiff’s 
original complaint failed to identify a further inverse 
demultiplexer, (ECF No. 14-1, at 12, 19), yet the amended complaint 
filed thereafter did not remedy that defect. There is little 
reason to think the third time will be more successful. 
Plaintiff’s proffer only confirms that doubt: 
AuthPoint could likely add factual allegations 
regarding the specific network configurations 
in which GL Communications deploys, tests, and 
demonstrates its IMA Emulator products, 
including configurations involving multiple 
receiving-end IMA devices serving multiple 
subscriber endpoints; the manner in which 
multicast IP traffic is encapsulated within 
ATM cells and inverse[ly] multiplexed by the 
IMA Emulator; and/or the role of ATM Access 
Switches and other forwarding devices within 

25 
 
the Public ATM Network depicted in GL 
Communications’ system diagrams. 
 
(ECF No. 31, at 24). These proposed amendments contain no specific 
factual allegations and offer no promise of fixing the identified 
defect. Moreover, Plaintiff’s request does not comply with Local 
Rule 103.6, which requires the attachment of the proposed (second) 
amended complaint and a redline showing the proposed changes. 
Leave to amend will be denied, and the amended complaint will be 
dismissed with prejudice. 
V. Conclusion 
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss will 
be granted. A separate order will follow. 
 
 /s/ 
 DEBORAH K. CHASANOW 
 United States District Judge 

Passage view · GavelSight