DCT
8:17-cv-01762
Aqua Connect Inc v. Apple Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Aqua Connect, Inc. (Nevada) and Strategic Technology Partners, LLC (Nevada)
- Defendant: Apple, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
- Case Identification: 8:17-cv-01762, C.D. Cal., 10/10/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant Apple, Inc. is a California corporation that resides in the district and maintains numerous established places of business, including Apple Store retail locations, within the Central District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s "Screen Sharing" and "AirPlay Mirroring" features, integrated into its macOS and iOS operating systems, infringe patents related to a specific architecture for enabling remote desktop access on Mach-derived operating systems.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the architectural challenges of securely and efficiently managing remote user sessions on operating systems, like Apple's, that use separate, isolated execution environments for system and user processes.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a period of close collaboration between Plaintiffs and Apple from 2008 to 2011, during which Plaintiffs developed their remote desktop technology. It is alleged that Apple ceased cooperation and subsequently launched its own competing features. U.S. Patent No. RE46,386 is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,093. These allegations of prior interaction and notice form the basis of the willfulness claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-06-21 | Apple email allegedly acknowledging awareness of Aqua Connect's products. |
| 2008-09-23 | Earliest Priority Date for '386 and '502 Patents. |
| 2008-09-24 | Plaintiff's Aqua Connect Terminal Server (ACTS) 3.0 released. |
| 2009-09-23 | Application for original '386 patent filed. |
| 2011 (Early) | Apple allegedly stops cooperating with Aqua Connect. |
| 2011-07 | Apple launches Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" with accused "Screen Sharing" feature. |
| ~2011 | Apple launches iOS 5 with accused "Airplay Mirroring" feature. |
| 2014-12-30 | U.S. Patent No. 8,924,502 Issued. |
| 2017-05-02 | U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,386 Issued. |
| 2017-10-10 | Complaint Filed. |
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"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE46,386, "Updating a User Session in a Mach-Derived Computer System Environment," issued May 2, 2017 (Compl. ¶23).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint describes that Mach-derived operating systems like macOS create security barriers by isolating processes into different execution "contexts" (e.g., a "system context" and one or more "user contexts") (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 37). This architecture makes it technologically difficult for a single remote-access application to both be persistently available (requiring it to run in the system context) and also securely access and control a specific user's graphical interface (which resides in an isolated user context) (Compl. ¶¶55-56, 59). Conventional solutions were allegedly inefficient, insecure, or limited, for instance by requiring a user to be logged in beforehand or exposing the user context directly to a network (Compl. ¶¶62, 66).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes splitting the remote desktop application into two cooperating tasks that operate in separate Mach contexts: an "agent client" in the system context and an "agent server" in the user context (Compl. ¶67). This architecture allows the system-level "agent client" to manage network connections from remote users, while the corresponding "agent server" runs within the target user's context to access and control that user's specific interface data (Compl. ¶¶68, 70). Communication between these two components, such as via shared memory or Mach ports, enables the secure transfer of user interface data across the context boundary, thereby overcoming the inherent limitations of the OS architecture (’386 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:56-65; Compl. ¶71).
- Technical Importance: This architecture allegedly enabled the first secure, fully functional, multi-user terminal server solution for macOS, a capability Plaintiffs claim was in high demand and which Apple had been unable to provide (Compl. ¶¶6, 66, 74).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶23, 112).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Creating at least one user computer context on a Mach-derived computing device, where the context is configured to incorporate an agent server.
- Associating the agent server with an agent client, where the client and server are executed on the same device but in separate processes and separate Mach contexts.
- Generating, via the agent server, data for an updated user instance.
- Determining, via the agent server, that user computer data has been updated.
- Transferring the data between the agent server and agent client using a computer system communication facility.
- Transmitting the data over a network to a remote computer.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other independent and dependent claims (Compl. ¶25).
U.S. Patent No. 8,924,502 - "System, Method and Computer Program Product for Updating a User Session in a Mach-Derived System Environment"
- Patent Identification: 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 (Compl. ¶24).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of securely updating a remote user's graphical display in a terminal server environment where multiple user sessions may exist on a single host machine (’502 Patent, col. 1:14-29). As described in the complaint, this pertains to the architectural challenge of communicating across isolated process contexts in a Mach-derived OS (Compl. ¶¶26-27).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for transmitting data using a client/server architecture distributed across separate contexts. A "first context" on a Mach-derived system incorporates an "agent server," and a "second context" incorporates an "agent client" (’502 Patent, col. 7:41-48). These two components, running in separate processes, communicate via a system facility (e.g., shared memory) to transfer user interface data, which is then transmitted over a network to a remote system (’502 Patent, col. 8:1-17; Fig. 1). This architecture is designed to provide a secure and robust method for remote display and control (Compl. ¶¶85-86).
- Technical Importance: The described method provides a technical solution for enabling remote desktop functionality that respects the security boundaries of a Mach-based OS while allowing for efficient data transfer (Compl. ¶86).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶24, 143).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- 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 same system but in separate processes.
- Generating, by the agent server, data corresponding to an updated user instance.
- Determining, by the agent server, that user data has been updated.
- Transferring the data to or from the agent client via a system communication facility.
- Transmitting the data from the agent client over a network to a remote system.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other independent and dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶25, 143).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are broadly defined to include: Apple Mac computers running macOS 10.7 or later; iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touch devices running iOS 5 or later; and compatible Apple TVs (Compl. ¶¶93-94). The specific accused functionalities are "Screen Sharing," "Remote Management," "Apple Remote Desktop," and "Airplay Mirroring" (Compl. ¶¶93-94).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused "Screen Sharing" and "AirPlay Mirroring" features implement the patented technology by using an architecture with an "agent client" in one Mach context and an associated "agent server" in a separate Mach context to communicate user interface data across security boundaries and over a network (Compl. ¶¶85-88). The complaint includes a screenshot from Apple's End User License Agreement which allegedly requires users to employ the accused "Screen Sharing" feature for certain types of remote connections, thereby preventing use of competing products (Compl. ¶12). These features are described as integral parts of Apple's operating systems, present on a vast number of devices sold since 2011 (Compl. ¶¶10-11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint incorporates by reference external exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) that allegedly contain detailed claim charts, but these exhibits are not attached to the filed complaint. The following summary is based on the narrative infringement allegations within the complaint body.
RE46,386 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| creating at least one user computer context configured to be executed on a Mach-derived computing device ... wherein each of the at least one user computer context is configured to incorporate an agent server; | Apple’s macOS, a Mach-derived system, creates a "user context" when a user logs in. This context is alleged to include a process that functions as the claimed "agent server" for screen sharing. | ¶¶39, 88 | col. 3:56-61 |
| associating the agent server with an agent client, wherein the agent client and the agent server are configured to be executed on the Mach-derived computing device, but in separate processes and in separate Mach contexts; | Apple’s accused features allegedly use an "agent client" process running in the system context that associates with the "agent server" process in the user context, with the two operating in separate Mach contexts. | ¶¶86, 88 | col. 4:11-14 |
| generating, by the agent server, data corresponding to an updated user instance, wherein the data corresponding to the updated user instance comprises user computer data, | The "agent server" process within the user context allegedly captures updates to the user's graphical interface, such as screen changes, which constitutes generating user computer data. | ¶¶56, 59 | col. 5:20-29 |
| determining, by the agent server, that any portion of the user computer data has been updated; | The "agent server" allegedly determines which portions of the user interface have changed (e.g., identifying "dirty rectangles"). | ¶¶202-204 | col. 5:20-29 |
| transferring the data corresponding to the updated user instance between the agent server and the agent client via a computer system communication facility... | The system allegedly transfers the updated user interface data between the "agent server" and "agent client" processes using a communication facility such as a Mach port or shared memory. | ¶¶71, 85, 88 | col. 4:46-55 |
| transmitting the data corresponding to the updated user instance over a communications network to a remote computer system... | The "agent client" allegedly transmits the user interface data over a network to a remote computer for display and control. | ¶¶56, 86 | col. 5:1-11 |
8,924,502 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| creating a first context on a Mach-derived system... wherein the first context incorporates an agent server; | Apple’s macOS allegedly creates a "first context" (e.g., the system context) that contains a process functioning as the claimed "agent server." | ¶¶38, 88 | col. 7:41-44 |
| creating a second context on the Mach-derived system, wherein the second context incorporates an agent client; | Upon user login, macOS allegedly creates a "second context" (e.g., the user context) that contains a process functioning as the claimed "agent client." | ¶¶39, 88 | col. 7:45-48 |
| generating, by the agent server, the data corresponding to an updated user instance... | The process acting as the "agent server" allegedly generates data corresponding to changes in the user's graphical session. | ¶¶56, 59 | col. 7:51-53 |
| transferring the data to or from the agent client via a system communication facility... | The accused system allegedly transfers this data between the two processes using a system communication facility. | ¶¶71, 85, 88 | col. 8:1-5 |
| transmitting from the agent client the data over a network to a remote system... | The process acting as the "agent client" allegedly transmits the received data over the network to the remote device. | ¶¶56, 86 | col. 8:9-13 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether Apple's accused processes (e.g., "screensharingd", "loginwindow") map onto the patent's specific "agent server" and "agent client" terminology. The analysis will likely focus on whether these processes perform the functions recited in the claims and exist in "separate Mach contexts" as that term is understood in the patent.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question is whether Plaintiffs can prove the existence and mechanism of the claimed communication link. The complaint alleges that the "agent server" in the user context can look up and communicate with the "agent client" in the system context (Compl. ¶¶68, 70), a specific technical assertion that will require proof of how Apple's architecture actually operates.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "agent server" / "agent client"
- Context and Importance: These terms define the core components of the claimed invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis depends heavily on whether the specific software processes used by Apple in its "Screen Sharing" and "AirPlay Mirroring" features can be properly characterized as an "agent server" and an "agent client" as defined by the patents.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the components functionally, for example, as providing "remote input and output for a user context" (’502 Patent, col. 4:11-14). This could support an interpretation where any two cooperating processes that fulfill these respective roles of session interaction and remote communication would meet the definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also refers to the components as a "KVM agent" server/client system, and Figure 1 explicitly labels them as such (’502 Patent, col. 4:41-42; Fig. 1). This could support a narrower construction limited to processes that manage keyboard, video, and mouse data, or that use the specific communication architecture detailed in the embodiments.
The Term: "separate Mach contexts"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is fundamental to the patent's claimed solution to the problem of OS security boundaries. Infringement requires proving not just that two processes are used, but that they operate in distinct "Mach contexts." The definition of what constitutes a "separate" context will be dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint defines a "context" broadly as a "task's execution environment, that determines what operating system services (Mach ports) it can access" (Compl. ¶37). This could support a reading where any two processes with different permission sets or visibility into system resources are in "separate contexts."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent and complaint's background sections focus heavily on the specific security relationship between a "system context" (parent) and a "user context" (child), where visibility is asymmetrical (Compl. ¶¶40-42). Practitioners may focus on this specific hierarchical relationship, which could support a narrower construction requiring the server and client to exist in two contexts with this specific parent-child security dynamic.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Plaintiffs allege induced infringement, stating that Apple instructs its users to infringe. This allegation is supported by references to Apple's public-facing support website, which provides step-by-step instructions on how to set up and use the accused "Screen Sharing" feature (Compl. ¶¶100, 131). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows these instructions for macOS Sierra (Compl. ¶100, p. 27). The complaint also alleges inducement through Apple's EULA, which allegedly requires users to use the infringing "Screen Sharing" feature for separate graphical desktop sessions (Compl. ¶¶99, 130).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes extensive allegations to support willfulness. It claims Apple had pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology due to a close working relationship with Aqua Connect from 2008-2011, which ended shortly before Apple launched the accused features (Compl. ¶¶9-10, 116). Knowledge is further alleged through the hiring of a former Aqua Connect developer by Apple (Compl. ¶105). Finally, the complaint alleges that multiple Apple employees received trial versions of Aqua Connect's software which, according to a provided screenshot of the installer, was marked as being "protected by one or more Patents, including U.S. Patent #8,549,093" (the original patent of the '386 reissue) (Compl. ¶106, p. 31).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical mapping and claim construction: can the specific software processes that implement Apple's "Screen Sharing" and "AirPlay Mirroring" be proven to meet the structural and functional limitations of the claimed "agent server" and "agent client" operating in "separate Mach contexts"? The case will likely hinge on a detailed, evidence-based comparison between Apple's code and the patent claims.
- A second central question will be one of historical narrative and intent: does the evidence of the prior relationship between the parties, followed by Apple's development of the accused features, demonstrate that Apple deliberately copied Plaintiffs' patented solution, as alleged? The resolution of this question will be critical for the claims of willful infringement and any potential for enhanced damages.