DCT
2:18-cv-10658
Data Scape Ltd v. Citrix System Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Data Scape Limited (Ireland)
- Defendant: Citrix System, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ, August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-10658, C.D. Cal., 12/26/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant is registered to do business in California, has transacted business in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in Goleta, California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s file synchronization products, including ShareFile, Citrix Content Collaboration, and Citrix Workspace, infringe five U.S. patents related to communication systems and methods for transferring and synchronizing data between separate apparatuses.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns methods for managing and executing the synchronization of data between a local client device and a remote storage system, a core function of modern cloud storage and enterprise collaboration platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint repeatedly references knowledge of the patents-in-suit dating from "the filing of the original Complaint in this action," which suggests the current filing is an amended complaint, although no other specific procedural events are detailed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-21 | Earliest Priority Date for '929, '537, '581, '751 Patents |
| 2002-06-12 | Earliest Priority Date for '893 Patent |
| 2009-11-10 | U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537 Issued |
| 2010-05-18 | U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929 Issued |
| 2013-02-26 | U.S. Patent No. 8,386,581 Issued |
| 2017-07-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,715,893 Issued |
| 2018-07-17 | U.S. Patent No. 10,027,751 Issued |
| 2018-12-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929, issued May 18, 2010 (Compl. ¶7).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent family specification describes the problem of cumbersome data transfer between devices, such as a music server and a portable player. It notes that creating a list of files for transfer can be confusing, as it is often unclear whether the list is for organizing data on the source device or for initiating a batch data transfer operation (’537 Patent, col. 1:50-60).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a communication system that decouples the selection of files from the act of data transfer. A user can select data and edit "management information" (a transfer list) on a second apparatus (e.g., a client device) without regard to whether it is connected to a first apparatus (e.g., a server) (’929 Patent, Abstract). When the two apparatuses are connected, a controller automatically compares the edited management information with the data already stored on the first apparatus and transfers data based on the comparison (’929 Patent, Abstract; ’537 Patent, col. 2:20-36).
- Technical Importance: This approach separates the user's logical task of selecting files for synchronization from the physical state of network connectivity, a foundational concept for "offline" editing and automatic "sync" functionality in modern cloud-based services (’537 Patent, col. 1:50-60).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶9).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- A first apparatus having a first storage medium.
- A second apparatus comprising a second storage medium, a communicator, a detector, an editor, and a controller.
- The editor is configured to select data and edit management information for transfer "without regard to the connection of said first apparatus."
- The controller is configured to control the data transfer when the detector detects a connection.
- The controller is further configured to "compare said management information edited by said editor with management information of data stored in said first storage medium" and transmit data based on the comparison.
- The complaint notes that Citrix infringes "other claims of the '929 Patent" (Compl. ¶21).
U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537, issued November 10, 2009 (Compl. ¶25).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the ’929 Patent from the same family, this patent addresses the technical problem of cumbersome and inefficient data synchronization between two separate devices (’537 Patent, col. 1:50-60).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method to synchronize two apparatuses. After confirming a connection, the method involves comparing a "first list of content data" on the first apparatus with a "second list of content data" on the second apparatus (’537 Patent, Abstract). Based on this comparison, the method transfers content from the second apparatus that is not on the first, and deletes content from the first apparatus that is no longer on the second, thereby reconciling the datasets (’537 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:37-53).
- Technical Importance: This method claims a fundamental two-way synchronization process, where additions on a client device are propagated to a server and deletions on the client are likewise propagated to the server, ensuring consistency between two data stores (’537 Patent, col. 2:44-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
- The essential elements of independent method Claim 1 include:
- Judging whether a first and second apparatus are connected.
- Comparing an identifier of the first apparatus with one stored on the second apparatus.
- Comparing a first list of content on the first apparatus with a second list on the second apparatus.
- Transferring content from the second apparatus to the first that is on the second list but not the first.
- Deleting content from the first apparatus that is on the first list but not the second.
- The complaint notes that Citrix infringes "other claims of the '537 Patent" (Compl. ¶38).
U.S. Patent No. 8,386,581 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,386,581, issued February 26, 2013 (Compl. ¶42).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the '929 and '537 patents, claims a communication apparatus that can edit a list of content, uniquely associate that list with an external apparatus using a unique identification, and, when connected, extract that specific list from a plurality of lists and control the transfer of its registered content to the external apparatus (Compl. ¶44).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶44).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Citrix client devices allow users to edit synchronization lists, use authentication to uniquely associate the client with a specific server account, and transfer the selected files upon connection (Compl. ¶51-54).
U.S. Patent No. 10,027,751 - "Communication system and its method and communication apparatus and its method"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,027,751, issued July 17, 2018 (Compl. ¶59).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, also from the same family, claims a system similar to that of the '929 Patent but adds the steps of determining a "size of the selected data" and transmitting the data based on both the results of the comparison and this size determination (Compl. ¶61).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶61).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities, via the ShareFile Sync tool, determine the total size of the files selected for synchronization before initiating the transfer (Compl. ¶72). A screenshot in the complaint shows the tool calculating a total size of "91.61 MB" for selected folders (Compl. p. 42).
U.S. Patent No. 9,715,893 - "Recording apparatus, server apparatus, recording method, program and storage medium"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,715,893, issued July 25, 2017 (Compl. ¶77).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an apparatus that automates data synchronization by reading management data from a first storage medium (e.g., a client) and a second storage medium (e.g., a server), identifying files present on the first but absent from the second, automatically transferring those files, and outputting the transfer status using a "symbolic figure" (Compl. ¶79).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 32 is asserted (Compl. ¶79).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities compare files between the client and server, automatically transfer new files from the client to the server, and use status icons (e.g., syncing, synced, error) to output the status of the transfer, which allegedly constitutes the claimed "symbolic figure" (Compl. ¶85-87).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are identified as Citrix ShareFile, Citrix Content Collaboration, and Citrix Workspace, along with all versions thereof (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Instrumentalities are described as a system for file storage, sharing, and synchronization, comprising both server-side and client-side components (Compl. ¶14-15). The server-side component ("first apparatus") is alleged to include "StorageZones" datacenters, which can be controlled by Citrix or by customers and may utilize storage like Microsoft Azure or Citrix S3 (Compl. ¶14, ¶19). The client-side component ("second apparatus") includes applications for mobile devices, native desktops, and virtual desktops (Compl. ¶15). A core accused feature is the "ShareFile Sync" tool, which allows a user to designate specific local folders to be synchronized with the server-side storage (Compl. ¶15). The complaint provides a system architecture diagram illustrating the interaction between clients, a "StorageZone Controller," and customer datacenters (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 3). The system is alleged to detect network connectivity and automatically retry uploads if a connection is lost (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'929 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first apparatus having a first storage medium, and a second apparatus, said second apparatus comprising: a second storage medium... | The "first apparatus" is the server-side storage (e.g., StorageZones), and the "second apparatus" is the client device (e.g., mobile, desktop) which includes its own storage medium. | ¶14, ¶15 | col. 4:25-30 |
| a communicator configured to communicate data with said first apparatus | Client devices communicate with the server-side storage via a secure SSL/TLS connection. | ¶16 | col. 5:55-65 |
| a detector configured to detect whether said first apparatus and said second apparatus are connected | The client is configured to detect whether network connectivity is available and retries uploads automatically when connectivity is restored. | ¶17 | col. 7:35-41 |
| an editor configured to select certain data to be transferred and to edit said management information based on said selection without regard to the connection... | The ShareFile Sync tool provides a user interface (an "editor") allowing a user to select folders to synchronize using checkboxes, which edits the management information (the list of folders) even when offline. | ¶18 | col. 10:41-43 |
| a controller configured to control transfer of the selected data... based on said management information... when said detector detects that said... apparatus are connected | The ShareFile Sync tool's controller initiates the transfer of the selected folders over the network connection based on the user's selections, which occurs when network connectivity is detected. | ¶19 | col. 11:58-62 |
| wherein said controller is configured to compare said management information... with management information of data stored in said first storage medium and to transmit data... | The controller compares the files designated for sync on the client with the files stored on the server and transmits data based on that comparison, indicated by synchronization status icons showing sync progress. | ¶20 | col. 11:20-25 |
'537 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a communication method... comprising: judging whether said first apparatus and said second apparatus are connected | The method includes judging network connectivity between the client device ("second apparatus") and the StorageZones Controller ("first apparatus"). | ¶33 | col. 7:35-41 |
| comparing... an identifier of said first apparatus with an identifier stored in said second apparatus | The method includes an authentication process where user credentials sent from the client are used to securely access data stored in the server-side StorageZones. | ¶34 | col. 8:6-12 |
| comparing... a first list of content data of said first apparatus and a second list of content data of said second apparatus | The synchronization process compares the list of files and folders on the server ("first list") with the list of files and folders on the client ("second list"), with status icons indicating the comparison result. | ¶35 | col. 9:47-51 |
| transferring, from the second apparatus to the first apparatus, first content data, which is registered in said second list and is not registered... first list | The synchronization process transfers files and folders from the client device to the datacenter when they are new or updated on the client but not yet present on the server. | ¶36 | col. 9:43-46 |
| deleting, from the first apparatus, second content data, which is registered in said first list and is not registered in said second list | The synchronization process deletes files and folders from the datacenter when they are removed from the client device, as illustrated by a file being moved to the local Recycle Bin. | ¶37, ¶21 | col. 9:43-46 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "apparatus," as described in a 1999-priority patent depicting distinct hardware units like a music server and a portable player, can be construed to read on the distributed client-server cloud architecture of the Accused Instrumentalities.
- Technical Questions: For the ’929 Patent, a point of contention may be whether the accused system performs the claimed step of comparing the user-edited "management information" (i.e., the sync list) with "management information of data stored in said first storage medium," or if it performs a more conventional file-by-file comparison. For the ’537 Patent, the dispute may focus on whether the accused sync process performs the specific sequence of list comparison, transferring additions, and deleting removals as recited in the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "apparatus"
- Context and Importance: The patent specification frequently describes embodiments involving physically distinct hardware, such as a "music server" and a "portable recording and playback apparatus" (’537 Patent, Fig. 1). The definition of "apparatus" will be critical for determining whether the claims, which do not contain such limitations, can cover a disaggregated client-server cloud architecture. Practitioners may focus on whether the term should be limited by the specification's embodiments or given its plain and ordinary meaning.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves use the general term "apparatus" without limiting it to a specific physical form factor like a "music server" (Compl. ¶9, ¶27).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the invention is grounded in the specific embodiment of a "music server 50" communicating with a "portable recording and playback apparatus 70" (’537 Patent, col. 4:25-30). This repeated contextual framing could be used to argue for a narrower construction.
The Term: "management information of data to be transferred" (’929 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines what is created by the "editor" and used by the "controller" to initiate the transfer. The complaint maps this to the list of folders a user selects for synchronization (Compl. ¶15, ¶18). The scope of this term—whether it is simply a list of files or requires more metadata—is central to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general and could be read to cover any data, such as a list of file paths, used to manage the transfer.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes creating a "program list" or "transfer list" containing "titles of musical data" (’537 Patent, Fig. 10; col. 10:41-43). This could support an argument that the term is limited to lists related to specific media files rather than a general-purpose file system synchronization manifest.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Citrix provides user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and training that instruct and encourage users to utilize the accused synchronization features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶12, ¶30).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Citrix's knowledge of the asserted patents and their infringement "since at least the filing of the original Complaint in this action, or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶10, ¶28), suggesting a theory of post-suit willfulness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Can patent claims with a 1999 priority date, which describe communication between two distinct hardware "apparatuses," be construed to cover the modern, disaggregated client-server architecture of a cloud storage service where the "first apparatus" is a distributed datacenter?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: Does the accused system’s general-purpose file synchronization perform the specific methods recited in the claims, such as comparing a user-edited "management information" list against a separate list of stored data ('929 Patent), or does the accused functionality represent a technically distinct, albeit superficially similar, approach to data reconciliation?
- A central validity question will likely be the state of the art in 1999: Given the fundamental nature of file synchronization, the case may turn on whether the claimed methods represented a non-obvious advance over prior art network file systems and data replication protocols that existed at the time of invention.