DCT

2:19-cv-06160

Realtime Data LLC v. Infrascale Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Realtime Data LLC v. Infrascale, Inc., 2:19-cv-06160, C.D. Cal., 07/17/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Infrascale, Inc. being a California corporation that has transacted business and allegedly committed acts of direct and indirect infringement within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud backup, disaster recovery, and data protection products and services infringe four patents related to data compression and accelerated data storage.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is data compression, a critical process for increasing the efficiency of data storage and network transmission by reducing the size of data before it is stored or sent.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 were "confirmed as patentable in a Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 31, 2017," suggesting the patent has survived a post-grant validity challenge, which can strengthen its presumption of validity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-12-11 Priority Date for ’728 and ’825 Patents
1999-03-11 Priority Date for ’908 Patent
2000-10-03 Priority Date for ’751 Patent
2015-01-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,933,825 Issued
2015-06-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 Issued
2015-08-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 Issued
2017-05-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 Issued
2017-10-31 PTAB Confirms Patentability of ’908 Patent Claims
2019-07-17 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 - "Data compression systems and methods" (Issued June 9, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the "content sensitive behavior" of data compression techniques, where the effectiveness of a given compression algorithm is highly dependent on the type of data being processed (e.g., text, database files, software programs) (’825 Patent, col. 1:26-37). Conventional methods that rely on file type descriptors to select an algorithm are often inadequate due to the vast number of file formats and the complexity of mixed-data files (’825 Patent, col. 3:1-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that analyzes the actual content within a data block, rather than relying solely on external file descriptors, to identify its parameters or attributes. Based on this internal analysis, the system intelligently determines whether to leave the data uncompressed or to compress it using one of multiple available encoders, such as a content-dependent encoder or a general-purpose single encoder. This allows for a more adaptive and efficient selection of the compression method best suited for the specific data content being processed (’728 Patent, Abstract; ’825 Patent, col. 4:1-25).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for automating the selection of an optimal compression algorithm in real-time, improving efficiency without requiring prior knowledge of a file's specific format or type (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 25 (Compl. ¶9).
  • Claim 25 is a computer-implemented method claim comprising the following essential elements:
    • Analyzing, using a processor, data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes of the data within the data block;
    • Determining, using the processor, whether to output the data block in a received form or in a compressed form;
    • Outputting, using the processor, the data block in the received or compressed form based on the determination;
    • Wherein the step of outputting in compressed form includes determining whether to compress the data block with a content dependent data compression or with a single data compression encoder;
    • Wherein the analyzing step excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor indicative of the data's parameters or attributes.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶11).

U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 - "Data feed acceleration" (Issued May 30, 2017)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The transmission of high-volume, real-time data feeds, such as financial market data, is constrained by bandwidth limitations and latency, which can be exacerbated by the processing time required for data compression (’751 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a data server system designed to accelerate data feeds by making the compression and storage process faster than simply storing the original, uncompressed data. The server analyzes the content of a data block, selects an appropriate encoder, and uses a "state machine" (an algorithm that can change its behavior based on previous inputs or internal states) to compress the data before storing it. The key inventive step is the requirement that this entire "compress and store" operation must be completed in less time than it would take to merely store the data in its original, uncompressed form (’751 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:19-28).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aims to reduce the end-to-end latency of data transmission by ensuring the compression process itself does not become a bottleneck, thereby enabling faster delivery of time-sensitive information (Compl. ¶32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 25 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Claim 25 is a system claim comprising the following essential elements:
    • A data server implemented on one or more processors and memory systems;
    • The data server is configured to analyze content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute, or value, where the analysis excludes being based solely on reading a descriptor;
    • The data server is configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value;
    • The data server is configured to compress data in the data block with the selected encoder to produce a compressed data block, wherein the compression utilizes a state machine;
    • The data server is configured to store the compressed data block;
    • Wherein the combined time of compressing and storing the data block is less than the time of storing the data block in uncompressed form.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶33).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,933,825

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,933,825, "Data compression systems and methods," Issued January 13, 2015 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a data compression method that associates specific encoders with a plurality of predefined data parameters or attributes. The system analyzes an incoming data block to identify a "first parameter or attribute" and compresses the block using the associated encoder if a match is found, or with a "default encoder" if no match is found, while excluding analysis based only on a descriptor (’825 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶39).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 18 is asserted (Compl. ¶39).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Infrascale's products infringe by associating a "deduplication encoder with the duplicate data block" and an "Ionic Zip compression encoder with a unique data block," thereby using different encoders for different data attributes (Compl. ¶44).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval," Issued August 25, 2015 (Compl. ¶55).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a system for accelerating data storage using a "data accelerator." The system is configured to compress a first data block with a first compression technique and a second data block with a second, different technique. The central inventive concept is that the combined compression and storage of the data occurs faster than it would take to store the original data in uncompressed form (’908 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶57).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegation centers on the use of two different compression techniques on different data blocks: "deduplication" as a first technique and "another compression" (such as lossless Zip) as a second, different technique, to accelerate data storage (Compl. ¶61).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are a suite of Infrascale's products and services, including Cloud Backup, Cloud Application Backup, Disaster Recovery, Data Protection Appliances, Cloud Failover Appliance, and EndGuard (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products provide data backup and disaster recovery services for businesses (Compl. ¶8). The complaint alleges that these products incorporate "data deduplication" and "data compression" to enhance performance and efficiency (Compl. ¶11). Specifically, the complaint identifies "[D]eduplicating File System-Assisted Replication (DDFS-AR)" as a key technology, which performs "over-the-WAN (block-level) deduplication" by querying a cloud repository to see if a data block already exists before transmitting it (Compl. ¶13). The complaint also alleges the products use "Ionic Zip libraries (lossless compression) prior to transfer to the cloud" (Compl. ¶14). A screenshot in the complaint shows system requirements for Infrascale's Data Protection Appliances, including "2 x 3 GHz processors (or better)" and at least "16 GB" of RAM (Compl. p. 7, ¶9). Infrascale allegedly touts these features as providing "massive storage efficiencies on the order of up to 10X" (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’728 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
analyzing, using a processor, data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes of the data within the data block The accused products perform "block-level" data deduplication, which inherently requires analyzing the content of data blocks to identify attributes such as uniqueness or duplication. ¶12 col. 4:1-3
determining, using the processor, whether to output the data block in a received form or in a compressed form The DDFS-AR feature "effectively queries your cloud repository before it transmits any data to see if a particular block already exists," thereby determining whether to transmit a new compressed block or simply reference an existing one. ¶13 col. 4:4-7
outputting, using the processor, the data block in the received form or the compressed form based on the determination The system "only writes to the cloud archive if that block does not yet exist," otherwise duplicate files are "simply referenced and not copied," constituting an output based on the determination. ¶14 col. 4:8-14
wherein the outputting the data block in the compressed form comprises determining whether to compress the data block with content dependent data compression... or to compress the data block with a single data compression encoder The system allegedly determines between using data deduplication (a content-dependent technique based on identifying duplicates) and standard "data compression to speed up the backup and recovery processes" (a single encoder, e.g., Ionic Zip). ¶14 col. 4:15-22
and wherein the analyzing of the data within the data block to identify the one or more parameters or attributes of the data excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor... The complaint alleges that deduplication occurs by "reading the backup job data," which implies analysis of the block's content itself, not just a descriptor. ¶15 col. 4:23-28
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused product's process of choosing between "deduplication" and general "compression" legally constitutes the claimed step of "determining whether to compress... with content dependent data compression... or to compress... with a single data compression encoder." The defense may argue its process is a single, integrated deduplication algorithm rather than a choice between two distinct encoder types as claimed.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that "reading the backup job data" satisfies the negative limitation of "exclud[ing] analyzing based only on a descriptor." It raises the question of whether the accused systems perform any preliminary filtering based on metadata (which could be construed as a descriptor) before analyzing the full data block content, which could be a non-infringing implementation.

’751 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a data server implemented on one or more processors and one or more memory systems The Accused Instrumentalities are hardware appliances or software running on servers that require processors and memory, as shown in Infrascale's system requirement tables. A provided screenshot details requirements such as "2x3 GHz processors (or better)" and "16 GB" of RAM. ¶27 col. 2:19-21
the data server configured to analyze content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute, or value of the data block that excludes analysis based solely on reading a descriptor The products allegedly perform data deduplication by "reading the backup job data and copying unique files," which requires analyzing the content of the block itself to determine the attribute of uniqueness. ¶28 col. 2:22-26
the data server configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value The system allegedly selects between a deduplication process for duplicate blocks and a different compression process (e.g., Ionic Zip) for unique blocks, which constitutes selecting an encoder based on an identified attribute. ¶29 col. 2:27-29
the data server configured to compress data... with the selected encoder to produce a compressed data block, wherein the compression utilizes a state machine The complaint alleges that the use of data deduplication and compression algorithms inherently utilizes a state machine. ¶30 col. 2:30-33
the data server configured to store the compressed data block The products are data backup and protection appliances whose function is to store data. System requirements specify "2 TB (or larger) - backup storage volume." ¶31 col. 2:34-35
wherein the time of the compressing the data block and the storing the compressed data block is less than the time of storing the data block in uncompressed form The complaint alleges that the "data reduction and acceleration features" of the accused compression algorithms result in a faster "compress and store" operation compared to an uncompressed store. ¶32 col. 2:36-39
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The term "state machine" is a critical point for claim construction. The complaint's allegation is conclusory. The dispute will likely focus on whether the algorithms used for deduplication (e.g., maintaining hash tables) or Zip compression (e.g., maintaining dictionaries) meet the legal and technical definition of a "state machine" as contemplated by the patent.
    • Technical Questions: The final limitation is a performance requirement ("less than the time of storing... in uncompressed form"). This raises an evidentiary question that may require technical testing and expert analysis to compare the timing of the accused system's operations against the baseline defined in the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "state machine" (from '751 Patent, claim 25)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis for the ’751 Patent. The complaint alleges that deduplication and compression inherently use a state machine, but provides no specific evidence. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether standard compression libraries or deduplication engines, which rely on internal data structures like dictionaries or hash tables, fall within the claim's scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition, which may support an argument that the term should be given its ordinary meaning in the art, potentially encompassing any algorithm that maintains state.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract links the state machine to "Data feed acceleration," and the specification describes its use in compressing data feeds like financial data. A defendant may argue this context limits the term to more formal state machines used in parsing specific, structured data feeds, rather than general-purpose compression algorithms.

  • The Term: "excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor" (from ’728 Patent, claim 25 and ’751 Patent, claim 25)

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is crucial for distinguishing the invention from prior art that might use file extensions or metadata to select a compression type. Infringement requires proving the accused system analyzes the actual "data within a data block." The dispute will center on what constitutes "only on a descriptor" and whether the accused products perform any preliminary steps that could be characterized as relying "only on a descriptor."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (favoring non-infringement): The patent contrasts its method with systems that use "file type descriptors... appended to file names" (’825 Patent, col. 2:65-67). A defendant could argue that any analysis of metadata, even if followed by content analysis, falls outside the claim.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (favoring infringement): The claim language "based only on a descriptor" could be interpreted to mean that the ultimate determination cannot be based solely on a descriptor. A plaintiff could argue that as long as content analysis is a necessary part of the process, the claim is met, even if some initial filtering based on a descriptor occurs.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. The factual basis for inducement includes Infrascale's user manuals, product support, marketing, and training materials, which allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the accused deduplication and compression features (Compl. ¶11, ¶25, ¶42, ¶60). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement of the ’825 Patent, alleging the Accused Instrumentalities are especially made for infringement and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶40).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents and infringement "since at least the filing of the original Complaint in this action, or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶10, ¶24, ¶41, ¶59). This suggests the allegation is primarily based on potential post-suit conduct. The complaint also alleges "willful blindness," a standard component of such pleadings (Compl. ¶11, ¶25, ¶43, ¶60).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical mapping: can Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the operation of Infrascale's "data deduplication" and "Ionic Zip" compression features corresponds to the specific, multi-step processes recited in the claims? This includes mapping those features to distinct claim elements like "content dependent data compression," a "single data compression encoder," and a "state machine."
  • A second key question will be one of definitional scope, particularly concerning the negative limitation "excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor." The case may turn on whether Infrascale's products perform any process that could be construed as relying solely on a descriptor, and how the court construes the term "only" in this context.
  • A third dispositive issue will be one of evidentiary proof for functional claims: for patents like the ’751 and ’908, which require that the "compress and store" operation be faster than an uncompressed store, the outcome will depend heavily on technical evidence, testing methodologies, and expert testimony to establish whether the accused products actually meet this performance benchmark under normal operating conditions.