Cable One Inc v. DataCloud Tech LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cable One, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: DataCloud Technologies, LLC (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Winston & Strawn LLP
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-01813, D. Ariz., 11/01/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Arizona because Plaintiff’s principal place of business is in Phoenix, Arizona, and Defendant purposefully directed licensing and infringement-related communications into the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its network virtualization, Android application, and website infrastructure do not infringe four of Defendant's patents related to operating system functions, data management, and anonymous network communication.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to foundational technologies in operating systems, categorized data management, and secure networking, which are integral to the architecture of modern internet services, applications, and cloud infrastructure.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant has asserted the patents-in-suit in at least seventeen prior lawsuits. Post-filing and pre-filing patent office proceedings are relevant: an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the ’613 patent resulted in the cancellation of several claims prior to this complaint, though the asserted claim 8 was not affected. An Ex Parte Reexamination of the ’498 patent resulted in a certificate cancelling claims 1-20; because this complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of claim 1 of the ’498 patent, the subsequent cancellation may render that portion of the dispute moot.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 - “Disambiguating File Descriptors,” Issued May 6, 2003

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in computer operating systems where the same system calls are used to access both files stored on physical media (e.g., a hard drive) and communication channels (e.g., a network socket), making it difficult to distinguish between the two for security or resource management purposes (U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613, col. 2:26-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method of "intercepting" system calls that create or manage file descriptors. When a descriptor is created, an "indicator" is stored in a special table to flag what type of resource it points to (e.g., "file on media"). Other processes can then examine this table to apply different rules based on the descriptor's type, enabling more granular control ('613 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-7).
• Technical Importance: This technique allowed for enhanced security by enabling a system to, for example, block a remotely executed program from accessing local files while still permitting it to use network communications ('613 Patent, col. 2:15-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶10).
• Essential elements of claim 8 include:
  • A method in a computer system for disambiguating file descriptors.
  • Intercepting system calls that establish a file stored on media.
  • Storing at least one indicator that a file descriptor established by an intercepted system call is associated with a file stored on media, wherein storing the indicator further comprises storing it in a table.
  • Examining at least one stored indicator to determine with what file type a file descriptor is associated.

U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 - “Data Organization and Management System and Method,” Issued November 18, 2003

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the difficulty faced by consumers and businesses in organizing the large volume of information they receive, such as warranties, product manuals, and service updates, which are often misplaced or difficult to retrieve (’063 Patent, col. 1:17-39).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a centralized system where information "providers" (e.g., sellers, manufacturers) send digital "information packs" to a user's "data repository." Each pack includes a "category identifier" that allows the system to automatically file the information in a pre-defined location. The system also allows users to create custom categories and send feedback to providers so that future information is automatically filed in the custom location ('063 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The system was designed to automate the categorization and storage of disparate consumer and business documents, reducing manual organization and making critical information easier to manage and access ('063 Patent, col. 2:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶11).
• Essential elements of claim 4 include:
  • A method for providing information to users comprising storing information in an "information pack."
  • Associating the pack with a user destination address, a category identifier, and a provider identifier.
  • Communicating the pack over a network to a "user data repository" and locating it in a reserved category location.
  • Creating a custom location in the repository, placing the pack there, and associating a custom category identifier with it.
  • Sending a signal to a processing station that analyzes subsequent packs and places them in the custom location if provider identifiers match.

U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 - “Apparatus, System, and Method for Communicating to a Network Through a Virtual Domain Providing Anonymity to a Client Communicating On the Network,” Issued April 24, 2007

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses privacy risks associated with online activity, such as tracking of a user’s identity and browsing habits (’959 Patent, col. 1:56-65). The proposed solution is a system architecture comprising a "deceiver," a "controller," and a "forwarder" that collectively establish an anonymous communication session by routing a client's traffic through the forwarder, thereby masking the client's true IP address from the destination server ('959 Patent, col. 2:35-44).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶12).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant has accused "Sparklight's website infrastructure" of infringement (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 8,762,498 - “Apparatus, System, and Method for Communicating to a Network Through a Virtual Domain,” Issued June 24, 2014

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, which is related to the '959 patent, also describes a system for anonymous networking through virtual domains. It focuses on a method where a "controller device" determines a destination IP address based on a "virtual namespace destination address" (e.g., a special domain name) and instructs a "forwarder device" to handle the communication, thereby creating a layer of separation between the client and the destination ('498 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶13).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant has accused "Sparklight's web sites that use Transport Layer Security (TLS) version 1.2 or 1.3" of infringement (Compl. ¶34).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for four distinct instrumentalities: (1) Cable One's "employment of virtualizing in its network and systems environment" ('613 patent); (2) the "Cable One Android App" ('063 patent); (3) "Sparklight's website infrastructure" ('959 patent); and (4) "Sparklight's web sites that use Transport Layer Security (TLS) version 1.2 or 1.3" ('498 patent) (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 26, 30, 34).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides very little technical detail regarding the specific operation of the accused instrumentalities. It identifies them by name and broadly states the technology category they fall into. The core of the complaint's technical assertions is a denial that these products and services perform the specific steps recited in the asserted patent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 27, 31, 35). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the products' commercial importance, focusing instead on the legal controversy created by Defendant's infringement assertions. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’613 Patent Infringement Allegations

’063 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary point of contention for the ’613 patent appears to be whether the term "intercepting system calls," as described in the patent, can be read to cover modern "virtualizing" techniques in a network environment (Compl. ¶23). For the '063 patent, a key question is whether the "Cable One Android App" functions as the claimed "user data repository" designed to receive and organize "information packs" from various providers, or if its functionality is fundamentally different (Compl. ¶27).
• Technical Questions: The complaint raises the technical question of whether Cable One's virtualization environment actually creates and maintains a "table" of "indicators" for file descriptors as required by claim 8 of the ’613 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 8:1-4). Similarly, for the '063 patent, the complaint puts at issue whether the Android App performs the specific steps of receiving a "category identifier" and using it to file an "information pack" in a corresponding location (Compl. ¶27).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "intercepting system calls" ('613 Patent, Claim 8)

• Context and Importance: This term describes the foundational action of the claimed method. Defendant’s infringement allegation hinges on its contention that "virtualizing" a network meets this limitation, which Plaintiff denies. The construction of this term will be critical to determining if there is a technical overlap between the patent and the accused technology.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the mechanism is to "replace[] ... a pointer in the system call vector table ... with a pointer to alternative object code," which could be argued to cover any technique that redirects an operating system-level request to a handler other than the default ('613 Patent, col. 2:1-7).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures illustrate a specific implementation of a "system call wrapper" that is inserted into the operating system kernel to examine system calls ('613 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 7:41-54). A party could argue the term is limited to this direct manipulation of an OS kernel's system call table, and does not cover other methods of virtualization like hypervisor-based management.

Term: "user data repository" ('063 Patent, Claim 4)

• Context and Importance: The claimed method requires communicating information to, and organizing it within, a "user data repository." Plaintiff denies that its Android App constitutes such a repository. The scope of this term will likely determine whether the architecture of the accused app can infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term broadly as a "[p]ersonal information storage and retrieval area, in which information is stored in a compartmentalized or categorized format" ('063 Patent, col. 2:50-54). This could arguably encompass any application that stores structured data for a user.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and detailed description depict a complex system with distinct "Quarantine" and "Private" areas, a "Firewall/Filter," and a structure designed to receive and manage "information packs" from numerous third-party providers (e.g., pharmacists, car dealers, retailers) ('063 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 2). A party may argue the term requires this specific, multi-provider organizational architecture, not merely a data store within a single-provider application.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint, being an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A central issue will be one of technological translation: can the specific, early-2000s computing concepts described in the patents—such as the '613 patent's low-level "intercepting [of] system calls" and the '063 patent's "information pack" ecosystem—be construed to read on the functionality of the modern and technically distinct accused instrumentalities, namely network virtualization and a dedicated mobile application?
• A key evidentiary question will concern the operational reality versus the claim requirements: does the standard implementation of Transport Layer Security (TLS) in "Sparklight's website infrastructure" create the specific three-part "deceiver, controller, and forwarder" architecture required by the '959 and '498 patents, or is there a fundamental mismatch between standard secure web protocols and the claimed system for anonymity?
• Finally, a critical threshold question for the court will be the viability of the legal controversy itself: given that claim 1 of the '498 patent was cancelled by the USPTO in a reexamination proceeding after the complaint was filed, the court must determine if a justiciable case or controversy still exists for that patent, potentially rendering that part of the declaratory judgment action moot.