Aqua Connect Inc v. Shi Intl Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Aqua Connect, Inc. (Nevada) and Strategic Technology Partners, LLC (Nevada)
  • Defendant: SHI International Corp. (New Jersey) and TeamViewer Gmbh (Germany)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Ryan E. Hatch, PC
• Case Identification: 2:19-cv-05662, C.D. Cal., 07/10/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper for SHI International Corp. based on its regular and established place of business and acts of infringement within the district. For TeamViewer Gmbh, a foreign corporation, venue is alleged to be proper in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remote desktop software products infringe patents related to a specific software architecture for updating remote user sessions in Mach-derived computer environments.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns remote access software, particularly methods for securely and efficiently managing multiple user sessions on host computers running Mach-derived operating systems, such as Apple's macOS.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant TeamViewer Gmbh was notified of its infringement no later than October 17, 2018. It also notes that during the prosecution of the reissued ’386 Patent, the patent examiner found the claims patent-eligible under the standard set forth in Alice.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-09-23	Priority Date for ’386 and ’502 Patents (Provisional App. Filing)
2014-12-30	U.S. Patent No. 8,924,502 Issues
2017-05-02	U.S. Patent No. RE46,386 Issues
2018-10-17	Alleged date of pre-suit notification to TeamViewer Gmbh
2019-07-10	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,386, "Updating a user session in a Mach-derived computer system environment," issued May 2, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges in terminal server environments, where implementing multiple independent application instances for remote users can lead to security vulnerabilities and inefficient graphical display updates (RE46386 Patent, col. 2:14-29). Specifically, conventional methods could lead to information being passed across user session boundaries or require transmitting large amounts of display data, consuming significant resources (RE46386 Patent, col. 2:20-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a split software architecture on the host machine. An "agent server" runs within a specific user's context (or session), while a separate "agent client" runs in a different Mach context (e.g., the system context) (RE46386 Patent, col. 4:12-58). These two components communicate through a system communication facility, such as shared memory, to securely and efficiently transfer only the updated portions of a user's display to a remote computer, enabling isolated and performant multi-user sessions (RE46386 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This architecture claims to solve problems with prior art remote desktop solutions, such as the inability to run multiple, isolated user sessions in the background on a single host machine and the exposure of user data directly to the network (Compl. ¶¶7-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-35 (Compl. ¶23).
• Independent claim 1 recites a method with essential elements including:
  • Creating at least one user computer context on a Mach-derived computing device, with each context configured to incorporate an "agent server."
  • Associating the agent server with an "agent client," where the client and server execute on the same device but in "separate processes and in separate Mach contexts."
  • Generating, via the agent server, data for an updated user instance.
  • Transferring this data between the agent server and agent client via a computer system communication facility.
  • Transmitting the data from the agent client over a network to a remote system for update.

U.S. Patent No. 8,924,502, "System, method and computer program product for updating a user session in a Mach-derived system environment," issued December 30, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’502 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the ’386 Patent: the need for an improved method for securely and efficiently updating graphical display information for remote users in a terminal server environment, particularly on Mach-derived systems (’502 Patent, col. 2:13-28).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same as in the ’386 Patent, centered on a software architecture that separates functions into an "agent server" and an "agent client" operating in distinct contexts on the host machine (’502 Patent, col. 4:12-58). Communication between these components is managed via a dedicated facility (e.g., sockets, pipes, or shared memory) to handle the transfer of user interface data to a remote device (’502 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The invention is presented as an unconventional technical solution that allows for secure, multi-user remote access by isolating user tasks and providing an efficient mechanism for managing network connections and data transfer (Compl. ¶¶7, 9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-42 (Compl. ¶31).
• Independent claim 1 recites a method with essential elements including:
  • Creating a first context on a Mach-derived system that incorporates an "agent server."
  • Creating a second context on the Mach-derived system that incorporates an "agent client."
  • The agent client and agent server are executed on the Mach-derived system but in "separate processes."
  • Generating data for an updated user instance by the agent server.
  • Transferring the data between the agent client and server via a system communication facility, which may involve shared memory.
  • Transmitting the data from the agent client over a network to a remote system.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names TeamViewer, TeamViewer Host, TeamViewer QuickSupprt, and TeamViewer QuickJoin as the accused instrumentalities, with "TeamViewer 13 version 13.2.14328" identified as a representative product (Compl. ¶¶24, 32).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as remote desktop and remote support software products (Compl. ¶¶24, 32). It alleges that Defendant SHI International Corp. sells and offers these products for sale to customers within the judicial district (Compl. ¶16, ¶18). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the internal architecture or operation of the accused products, instead incorporating by reference exemplary claim charts (Exhibits A and B) that were not included with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶25, ¶32).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include the exemplary claim charts (Exhibits A and B) that detail the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶25, ¶32). Therefore, the specific mapping of claim elements to accused product features is not available for analysis. The infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core narrative theory is that the accused TeamViewer products, when used to provide remote access to a Mach-derived computer system, practice the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶9, 22, 30). The complaint alleges that this infringement is direct and indirect and occurs through Defendants' acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the accused products in the United States (Compl. ¶¶23, 31). The infringement theory appears to depend on the accused products implementing a software architecture that separates processes for managing user sessions from those handling network communication in a manner that maps onto the "agent server" and "agent client" structure described in the patents (Compl. ¶9).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "agent server" and "agent client"

• Context and Importance: These terms define the core components of the claimed invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis will heavily depend on whether the functional modules within the accused TeamViewer software can be properly characterized as an "agent server" and an "agent client" as understood in the context of the patents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the entire inventive concept rests on this specific architectural separation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes these components by their function: the "agent server 106" is associated with a "user context 104," while the "agent client 110" can be associated with a "protocol translator 108" to communicate with a remote device ('502 Patent, Fig. 1, col. 4:12-24). This functional description could support an interpretation that covers any software components performing these respective roles, regardless of their specific naming convention.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims require the "agent client" and "agent server" to operate in "separate processes" and "separate Mach contexts" ('386 Patent, cl. 1). A defendant could argue this requires a specific implementation with formally distinct processes and memory spaces, aotentially excluding architectures that use, for example, different threads within a single process. The specification's emphasis on security through isolation may support this narrower view (Compl. ¶7).

• The Term: "Mach-derived system"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the environment in which the invention operates. The scope of this term is critical, as it determines which operating systems are covered by the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides "Mac OS provided by Apple Inc." as one example of an operating system, but also lists "a Windows operating system ... or a Linux operating system" as potential environments for the host system ('502 Patent, col. 4:48-53). This could support a reading that the term is not strictly limited to operating systems with a pure Mach kernel.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent titles, claims, and background sections repeatedly and specifically refer to a "Mach-derived" environment ('502 Patent, Title; cl. 1). A party could argue the term should be construed narrowly to refer to operating systems with a specific kernel architecture that was the focus of the technical problems the inventor sought to solve, as described in the complaint (Compl. ¶¶2-9).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) (Compl. ¶¶26, 34). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims, such as by citing to user manuals or marketing materials that instruct users on how to perform the allegedly infringing steps.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that TeamViewer GmbH had knowledge of the patents-in-suit "no later than October 17, 2018," when its subsidiary was allegedly served with a prior complaint (Compl. ¶14). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for the claim of willful infringement and the corresponding request for treble damages (Compl. p. 9, ¶B).

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Can the plaintiffs demonstrate that the internal software architecture of the accused TeamViewer products, when operating on a "Mach-derived system," contains distinct components that function as the claimed "agent server" and "agent client" operating in "separate processes" and "separate... Mach contexts"?
• A second key question will be evidentiary: As the complaint relies on unincorporated claim charts, the case will likely turn on the technical evidence, such as source code analysis or expert testimony, that the plaintiff can produce to prove that the accused products practice each limitation of the asserted claims.
• Finally, the dispute may involve a question of definitional scope: How the court construes the term "Mach-derived system" will be critical in defining the technological scope of the claims and, consequently, the extent of any potential infringement.