DCT

3:23-cv-01241

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprises Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:21-cv-0226, W.D. Tex., 03/09/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including a large campus in Austin.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud computing, containerization, storage, networking, and wireless access point products and services infringe seven patents related to virtualization, distributed computing, input/output management, and wireless network optimization.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue—virtualization, container orchestration, software-defined storage, and dynamic wireless network management—are foundational to modern cloud computing and enterprise IT infrastructure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's allegations of infringement for several of the patents-in-suit due to prior litigation against other technology companies, including Arista Networks and VMware, which involved similar underlying technologies such as Docker and Kubernetes.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-09-13 U.S. Patent No. 6,816,464 Priority Date
2001-03-09 U.S. Patent No. 6,618,736 Priority Date
2001-04-13 U.S. Patent No. RE 42,153 Priority Date
2003-02-24 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,023,991 & 8,725,132 Priority Date
2003-09-09 U.S. Patent No. 6,618,736 Issued
2004-11-09 U.S. Patent No. 6,816,464 Issued
2006-04-28 U.S. Patent No. 7,783,788 Priority Date
2007-12-07 U.S. Patent No. RE 44,818 Priority Date
2010-08-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,783,788 Issued
2011-02-15 U.S. Patent No. RE 42,153 Issued
2011-09-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,023,991 Issued
2014-03-25 U.S. Patent No. RE 44,818 Issued
2014-05-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,725,132 Issued
2019-07-01 Alleged actual knowledge of RE ’818 Patent (approx. date)
2020-03-25 Alleged actual knowledge of ’464 Patent (approx. date)
2020-08-18 Alleged actual knowledge of ’736 and ’153 Patents (approx. date)
2021-03-08 Alleged awareness of asserted patents via correspondence from Plaintiff
2021-03-09 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,618,736 - "TEMPLATE-BASED CREATION AND ARCHIVAL OF FILE SYSTEMS"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,618,736, titled "TEMPLATE-BASED CREATION AND ARCHIVAL OF FILE SYSTEMS," issued September 9, 2003.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In early virtualized environments, providing a separate file system for each virtual private server on a host computer was inefficient, requiring extensive duplication of data, which wasted storage space and made backups difficult and time-consuming (Compl. ¶11; ’736 Patent, col. 1:11-2:40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "copy-on-write" file system for virtual servers. A common file system is provided as a set of "shared storage units." Each virtual server is then given a corresponding set of "private storage units" and a "usage map." When a virtual server attempts to modify a file, the write is intercepted; the data is copied from the shared unit to the corresponding private unit, the modification is made there, and the usage map is updated to indicate the new data is valid. Subsequent reads check the private unit first, effectively layering custom changes over a shared, read-only base ('736 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-67; Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: This template-based approach significantly reduced the storage and processing overhead required to deploy large numbers of virtual servers, a key challenge for the growth of virtualization and cloud computing (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
  • The essential elements of claim 1, a method, include:
    • providing a first set of storage units and a second set of storage units, with a one-to-one correspondence between units in each set;
    • providing a first usage map to indicate which units in the second set contain valid data;
    • intercepting an attempt to write a data item to a unit in the first set;
    • writing that data item to the corresponding unit in the second set; and
    • storing an indication in the usage map that the corresponding unit in the second set now contains valid data.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. RE 42,153 - "DYNAMIC COORDINATION AND CONTROL OF NETWORK CONNECTED DEVICES FOR LARGE-SCALE NETWORK SITE TESTING AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURES"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. RE 42,153, titled "DYNAMIC COORDINATION AND CONTROL OF NETWORK CONNECTED DEVICES FOR LARGE-SCALE NETWORK SITE TESTING AND ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTURES," issued February 15, 2011.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Distributed computing platforms that statically assign work to different systems could not optimally manage projects requiring dynamic or surging processing power, such as simulating a denial-of-service attack for network testing (Compl. ¶12). There was no way to automatically increase or decrease the number of participating systems in real-time based on project needs (Compl. ¶12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a distributed computing architecture with a managing "server system" and multiple "client systems." The client systems send "poll communications" to the server, which uses this information to create a "dynamic snapshot" of the project's status. The server analyzes this snapshot to determine whether to increase or decrease the number of active client systems and sends back "poll response communications" to coordinate project activities in real-time as they are occurring (Compl. ¶23).
  • Technical Importance: The technology enabled a more dynamic approach to distributed processing, allowing for real-time adjustment of resources based on project status rather than relying on static configurations or post-project analysis (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 18 (Compl. ¶70).

  • The essential elements of claim 18, a platform, include:

    • A plurality of network-connected client systems with under-utilized capabilities;
    • A client agent program running on the client systems to perform workload processing; and
    • At least one server system configured to communicate with the client systems to:
      • receive poll communications from them during processing;
      • use the poll communications to provide a dynamic snapshot of the project status;
      • analyze the snapshot to determine whether to change the number of active client systems; and
      • repeatedly use poll and poll response communications to coordinate project activities.

  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
    The following patents are presented in capsule format as this is a multi-patent case.

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,783,788

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,783,788, titled "VIRTUAL INPUT/OUTPUT SERVER," issued August 24, 2010 (Compl. ¶24).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of inefficient I/O resource allocation in virtualized environments (Compl. ¶27). It discloses a virtual I/O server that allows multiple physical or virtual application servers to share an I/O subsystem by virtualizing its resources and regulating usage via a physical interface, thereby increasing flexibility and performance (Compl. ¶27).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (apparatus) (Compl. ¶92).
    • Accused Features: HPE 3PAR StoreServ and HPE Primera Storage systems, which allegedly provide virtualized storage resources to multiple application servers and manage I/O communications (Compl. ¶92).

  • U.S. Patent No. RE 44,818

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. RE 44,818, titled "QUALITY OF SERVICE IN VIRTUAL COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS," issued March 25, 2014 (Compl. ¶28).
    • Technology Synopsis: Building on concepts similar to the '’788 patent, this invention addresses the need for more sophisticated Quality of Service (QoS) in virtualized I/O systems (Compl. ¶31). It enables the configuration of usage parameters for a physical interface to be based on multiple variables, such as the requesting customer or the type of I/O operation, allowing for more granular QoS control (Compl. ¶31).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 32 (method) (Compl. ¶116).
    • Accused Features: The Priority Optimization software in HPE 3PAR and Primera storage systems, which manages I/O priority policies based on factors like virtual volume and domain (Compl. ¶116, 120, 122).

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,816,464

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,816,464, titled "METHOD, SYSTEM, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR ROUTE QUALITY CHECKING AND MANAGEMENT," issued November 9, 2004 (Compl. ¶32).
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses deficiencies in traditional network optimization techniques for routing delay-sensitive traffic over a wide area network (WAN) (Compl. ¶35). The invention provides for testing and scoring of network routes on a per-connection basis using end-user criteria to improve quality of service and traffic shaping (Compl. ¶35).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (method) (Compl. ¶139).
    • Accused Features: HPE's Silver Peak Unity EdgeConnect SD-WAN Edge Platform, which is alleged to continuously monitor link performance (packet loss, jitter, latency) and use statistical learning to dynamically select the best link for sending data traffic (Compl. ¶139, 140).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,023,991

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,023,991, titled "PROGRAM FOR ADJUSTING CHANNEL INTERFERENCE BETWEEN ACCESS POINTS IN A WIRELESS NETWORK," issued September 20, 2011 (Compl. ¶36).
    • Technology Synopsis: This invention aims to reduce radio frequency (RF) interference in dense Wi-Fi environments where multiple access points (APs) operate in close proximity (Compl. ¶39). It describes a system where an AP receives indications of the transmit power levels used by other APs on the same RF channel and, in response, adjusts its own transmit power to decrease interference (Compl. ¶39).
    • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (computer program product) (Compl. ¶159).
    • Accused Features: The Adaptive Radio Management (ARM) and AirMatch features of HPE's ArubaOS, which are alleged to automatically adjust the transmit power of APs to mitigate co-channel interference (Compl. ¶159, 165).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,725,132

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,725,132, titled "PROGRAM FOR ADJUSTING CHANNEL INTERFERENCE BETWEEN ACCESS POINTS IN A WIRELESS NETWORK," issued May 13, 2014 (Compl. ¶40).
    • Technology Synopsis: Related to the '’991 patent, this invention describes an improved way to manage wireless environments by enabling a Wi-Fi AP to select and repeatedly adjust an optimal transmit power level to reduce interference (Compl. ¶43). It further involves the AP communicating with an associated device (e.g., a smartphone) to set that device's transmit power level to also reduce interference (Compl. ¶43).
    • Asserted Claims: At least claim 2 (apparatus), with claim 1 reproduced in the complaint (Compl. ¶178-179).
    • Accused Features: The AirMatch Workflow functionality of ArubaOS 8, particularly when used with Wi-Fi 6 capable Access Points, which allegedly control their own transmit power and use trigger frames to control the transmit power of associated user devices (Compl. ¶178, 181).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names several distinct product families across HPE's portfolio. For the '736 Patent, the accused products are HPE's container platforms, including HPE Docker Enterprise Edition, HPE Ezmeral Container Platform, and HPE GreenLake Service for Containers (Compl. ¶50). For the RE '153 Patent, the accused products are the HPE Ezmeral Container Platform and associated hardware like HPE Apollo Servers (Compl. ¶70). Other accused products are identified in Section II.

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products represent core components of modern enterprise IT and cloud infrastructure. The container platforms (Ezmeral, GreenLake) are accused of using a copy-on-write filesystem, a key feature of Docker containerization, which allows for efficient storage and deployment of containerized applications (Compl. ¶51-52). A diagram from an HPE document shows how multiple Docker containers can share the same underlying image while each maintains its own writable container layer (Compl. p. 19). The complaint alleges these platforms also use Kubernetes for orchestration, which enables dynamic scaling of applications by automatically managing the number of active nodes or pods in a cluster based on workload (Compl. ¶71-72, 77). A marketing image for the HPE Ezmeral Container Platform highlights its "dynamic cluster scalability" (Compl. p. 33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,618,736 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a first set of storage units and a second set of storage units, each storage unit of the first set corresponding to a storage unit of the second set; The accused products' use of Docker's layered architecture, where the read-only "image layer" is the first set and the writable "container layer" is the second set. ¶52 col. 2:41-49
providing a first usage map for indicating which storage units of the second set contain valid data; The system's use of a "diff directory" to track which data has been modified and exists in the upper read/write layer, allegedly functioning as a usage map. ¶53 col. 2:50-52
intercepting an attempt to write a data item to a storage unit of the first set; The use of a "Copy-on-Write" mechanism that intercepts attempted writes to the lower image layer. ¶54 col. 2:53-54
writing the data item to the corresponding storage unit of the second set; and After interception, data is copied from the lower layer to the upper writable container layer, where the write operation is performed. ¶55 col. 2:54-58
storing an indication in the first usage map that the corresponding storage unit of the second set contains valid data. The system's tracking of the modified file in the writable layer, which serves as an indication that this storage unit now contains the valid data. ¶56 col. 2:58-60
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "usage map," described in the patent in the context of a bitmap, can be construed to cover the functionally analogous but structurally different mechanisms (e.g., "diff directory") used by modern copy-on-write filesystem drivers like "overlay2".
    • Technical Questions: The analysis may turn on whether Docker's layered architecture, where layers are unified into a single filesystem view, constitutes distinct "first" and "second" sets of storage units as required by the claim language.

U.S. Patent No. RE 42,153 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 18) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a plurality of network-connected distributed client systems, the client systems having under-utilized capabilities; The multiple Kubernetes nodes that constitute an HPE-Ezmeral-configured Kubernetes cluster. ¶72 col. 2:10-14
a client agent program configured to run on the client systems and to provide workload processing...; Kubernetes components that run on each node, such as kubelet, kube-proxy, and a container runtime, which manage and execute containerized workloads. ¶73 col. 2:15-18
at least one server system configured to...receive poll communications...wherein a dynamic snapshot information of current project status is provided...to analyze...to determine whether to change how many client systems are active... The Kubernetes controller, which receives metrics and heartbeats from nodes, provides a dynamic snapshot of cluster status (e.g., via a dashboard), and analyzes this information using an auto-scaling policy to add or remove nodes/pods. ¶74-78 col. 2:19-50
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: An issue for construction may be whether the continuous, system-health monitoring data (e.g., "heartbeats," CPU/memory metrics) in Kubernetes constitutes "poll communications" as contemplated by the patent, which describes a more project-specific polling and response cycle.
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may question whether a Kubernetes controller's general-purpose auto-scaling logic performs the specific function of analyzing poll communications "to determine whether to change how many client systems are active in the at least one project," as opposed to managing overall cluster resources.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’736 Patent

  • The Term: "usage map"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement allegation maps it to the internal workings of modern filesystem drivers (e.g., a "diff directory") used in Docker (Compl. ¶53). The case may turn on whether this functional mapping is appropriate or if the patent requires a more specific data structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a 2001-era patent can read on a widely adopted open-source technology.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional: "a first usage map for indicating which storage units of the second set contain valid data" (Compl. ¶18; '736 Patent, Claim 1). This language could support an interpretation that covers any mechanism performing that indicating function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly mentions a "bitmap" as one embodiment ('736 Patent, col. 3:35-39) and describes the usage map as being "initially reset or 'initialized'" ('736 Patent, col. 2:50-52), which may suggest a discrete data structure rather than the implicit tracking of a modern filesystem.

For the RE ’153 Patent

  • The Term: "poll communications"
  • Context and Importance: The plaintiff's infringement theory equates Kubernetes system health metrics and heartbeats with "poll communications" (Compl. ¶76). The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether this term can be construed broadly enough to cover such continuous, automated monitoring data, or if it implies a more specific, client-initiated request for instructions.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the server to "receive poll communications from the client systems during processing of the project workloads, wherein a dynamic snapshot information of current project status is provided based at least in part upon the poll communications" (Compl. ¶32; RE '153 Patent, Claim 18). This functional language may support reading the term on any client-to-server data that contributes to a status snapshot.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently uses the paired terms "poll communications" and "poll response communications" to describe a coordinated, interactive cycle (Compl. ¶23). This may support a narrower construction requiring a more explicit request-response protocol initiated by the client for the purpose of project coordination, rather than general system health monitoring.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations are based on HPE providing products along with documentation, marketing materials, and instructions that allegedly encourage and direct customers to use the products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶58, 61, 80, 83).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for each asserted patent. The claims are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from two sources: (1) Plaintiff's prior patent litigation against other companies (e.g., Arista Networks, VMware) involving the same patents and similar technologies, which Plaintiff alleges HPE was aware of; and (2) direct written correspondence sent from Plaintiff to HPE on March 8, 2021, one day prior to filing the complaint (e.g., Compl. ¶60, 82). Continued infringement after the filing of the complaint is also cited as a basis for willfulness.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical translation: can claim terms rooted in the technological context of the early 2000s, such as the ’736 patent’s "usage map" and the ’153 patent’s "poll communications," be construed to cover the functionally analogous but architecturally distinct mechanisms found in modern, widely-adopted, open-source platforms like Docker and Kubernetes?
  • A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness: given the allegations that HPE was aware of Plaintiff's assertion of these same patents against competitors using similar underlying technologies, what level of pre-suit knowledge can be established, and does HPE's continued marketing and sale of the accused products rise to the level of objective recklessness required for enhanced damages?
  • A central challenge for damages will be apportionment: should infringement be found, the case will likely focus on how to properly apportion the value of the patented features from the overall value of complex, multi-functional enterprise products that heavily integrate non-infringing and open-source technologies.