DCT

3:26-cv-00363

Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:26-cv-00363, N.D. Cal., 01/13/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Google alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because the defendants, as foreign entities, may be sued in any district where they are subject to personal jurisdiction. The complaint asserts personal jurisdiction based on defendants' patent licensing and enforcement activities directed at companies in the district, including Google, as well as defendants' litigation history in the same court.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff Google seeks a declaratory judgment that its managed cloud services for open-source platforms Kubernetes, Apache Hadoop, and Apache Kafka do not infringe nine patents related to distributed computing, system monitoring, and data management.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue involve foundational aspects of large-scale, distributed computing systems, including cluster management, performance monitoring, and fault-tolerant data handling, which are central to the operation of modern cloud computing and data streaming services.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that this declaratory judgment action follows a multi-year campaign by Defendants to license a portfolio of patents acquired from Hewlett Packard Enterprise. This campaign allegedly included sending infringement accusations to Google's customers and directly to Google, asserting that Google's products infringe at least thirty-five patents. The complaint also notes that Defendants have filed infringement lawsuits against at least 20 companies, including Google customers and other major technology firms, asserting some of the patents-in-suit. Defendants have also previously sued Google on four separate occasions over other patents from the same portfolio.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-31 U.S. Patent No. 6,889,244 Priority Date
2001-10-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,376,953 Priority Date
2004-07-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,936,738 Priority Date
2005-05-03 U.S. Patent No. 6,889,244 Issued
2005-06-22 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,379,538 & 7,251,588 Priority Date
2006-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,370,416 Priority Date
2007-07-31 U.S. Patent No. 7,251,588 Issued
2007-07-31 U.S. Patent No. 7,730,218 Priority Date
2007-12-20 U.S. Patent No. 7,640,332 Priority Date
2008-05-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,904,686 Priority Date
2008-05-20 U.S. Patent No. 7,376,953 Issued
2009-12-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,640,332 Issued
2010-06-01 U.S. Patent No. 7,730,218 Issued
2011-03-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,904,686 Issued
2011-05-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,936,738 Issued
2013-02-05 U.S. Patent No. 8,370,416 Issued
2013-02-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,379,538 Issued
2014-01-01 Google announces Kubernetes open source project
2015-01-01 Google donates Kubernetes to the Cloud Native Computing Foundation
2021-04-14 Defendants send first letter to Google asserting infringement
2021-05-13 Defendants send second letter to Google, identifying the ’538 patent
2021-11-15 Defendants send fourth letter to Google, identifying the ’588 patent
2022-01-10 Defendants file first suit against Google on other patents
2024-01-15 Defendants sue SAP, asserting the ’538, ’244, and ’738 patents
2024-07-12 Defendants file second suit against Google on other patents
2024-12-27 Defendants file third suit against Google on other patents
2025-01-27 Defendants sue Home Depot over use of Google Kubernetes Engine, asserting ’332 patent
2025-05-09 Defendants sue FedEx and NetApp, asserting ’416, ’332, and ’686 patents
2025-08-25 Defendants file fourth suit against Google on other patents
2026-01-13 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,379,538 - *Model-Driven Monitoring Architecture*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,379,538, “Model-Driven Monitoring Architecture,” issued February 19, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent does not explicitly state a problem in its background, but the context of the invention implies a need for monitoring systems in complex computing environments to adapt automatically to changes in that environment's configuration without manual intervention ('538 Patent, col. 1:11-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a "machine-readable monitoring model" acts as a central definition for the configuration of a monitoring environment. When the environment's configuration changes (e.g., servers are added or removed), the model is updated. An element within the monitoring environment, such as a monitoring agent, can then read the updated model and "autonomously adapt its operation" to the new configuration ('538 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:21-31).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for more flexible and resilient monitoring in dynamic environments like cloud computing clusters, where manual reconfiguration of monitoring agents for every change would be inefficient and error-prone ('538 Patent, col. 1:11-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies independent Claim 7 as an example claim asserted by Defendants (Compl. ¶43).
  • The essential elements of method Claim 7 include:
    • providing a machine-readable monitoring model that defines the configuration of a monitoring environment;
    • responsive to a change occurring in said monitoring environment's configuration, said machine-readable monitoring model updating to reflect said change; and
    • an element of said monitoring environment reading said machine-readable model and autonomously adapting its operation to the changed configuration.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,251,588 - *System for Metric Introspection in Monitoring Sources*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,251,588, “System for Metric Introspection in Monitoring Sources,” issued July 31, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes that in typical monitoring systems, the definitions of metrics (e.g., parameter name, unit of measurement) are not provided in a machine-readable format. This requires a user to "hard-code the monitoring tool to understand the metrics of each monitored component," which is inefficient and inflexible, especially when new systems are added or metric definitions change ('588 Patent, col. 2:32-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes storing "metric definitions" for a monitored component in a "machine-readable format." A monitoring tool can then access these definitions through a "metric introspection interface." By accessing these definitions, the tool can "autonomously comprehend" the metrics it is collecting and process the monitoring data accordingly, without needing to be manually hard-coded for each specific metric ('588 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This "introspection" capability allows for the creation of universal monitoring tools that can adapt to different systems and data sources automatically, a key feature for managing heterogeneous, large-scale IT environments ('588 Patent, col. 4:40-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies independent Claim 13 as an example claim asserted by Defendants (Compl. ¶49).
  • The essential elements of method Claim 13 include:
    • storing metric definitions for at least one monitored component in a machine-readable format to a data storage device;
    • a monitoring tool accessing the machine-readable metric definitions to determine the metric definitions used in monitoring data;
    • the monitoring tool accessing said monitoring data collected for the at least one monitored component; and
    • the monitoring tool processing the monitoring data based at least in part on the corresponding metric definitions.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,370,416 - *Compatibility Enforcement in Clustered Computing Systems*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,370,416, "Compatibility Enforcement in Clustered Computing Systems," issued February 5, 2013 (Compl. ¶54).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for creating and managing a clustered computing system by using stored license information. This information includes a "bundle-type parameter" that defines characteristics like the size of the cluster, which is used to enforce compatibility and licensing compliance as nodes are added and the cluster is activated (Compl. ¶55).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim (Compl. ¶55).
  • Accused Features: The complaint states that Google Kubernetes Engine is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶55).

U.S. Patent No. 7,640,332 - *System and Method for Hot Deployment/Redeployment in Grid Computing Environment*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,640,332, "System and Method for Hot Deployment/Redeployment in Grid Computing Environment," issued December 29, 2009 (Compl. ¶60).
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology relates to updating an application in a grid computing environment without service interruption ("hot deployment"). The method involves adding a new version of an application bundle to a repository server, using a discovery module to find which grid nodes are running the application, and notifying a manager on those nodes to redeploy the new version using a specific plug-in (Compl. ¶61).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim (Compl. ¶61).
  • Accused Features: The complaint states that Google Kubernetes Engine is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶61).

U.S. Patent No. 7,904,686 - *Data Security for use with a File System*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,904,686, "Data Security for use with a File System," issued March 8, 2011 (Compl. ¶66).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a data security method for a file system that works by applying a "mapping function" to the data block numbers associated with a file's index node. The resulting "mapped data block numbers" become the actual addresses of the file's data in a storage device, obscuring the direct physical location of the data (Compl. ¶67).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim (Compl. ¶67).
  • Accused Features: The complaint states that Google's Managed Service for Hadoop is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶67).

U.S. Patent No. 7,730,218 - *Method and System for Configuration and Management of Client Access to Network-Attached-Storage*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,730,218, "Method and System for Configuration and Management of Client Access to Network-Attached-Storage," issued June 1, 2010 (Compl. ¶72).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for connecting a computer to a network-attached storage (NAS) object. A "master-agent" continuously runs in the network, constructs an "executable code block," and forwards it to the target computer system for execution, which then establishes the connection to the NAS object (Compl. ¶73).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim (Compl. ¶73).
  • Accused Features: The complaint states that Google's Managed Service for Hadoop is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶73).

U.S. Patent No. 7,936,738 - *Fault Tolerant Systems*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,936,738, "Fault Tolerant Systems," issued May 3, 2011 (Compl. ¶78).
  • Technology Synopsis: The invention is a method for preserving system state in fault-tolerant systems by storing context information within an outgoing message. A computing device "selectively indicates" to a layer of its protocol stack that context information should be obtained and added to the message, ensuring that a response to that message will contain the necessary context to restore state if a failure occurs (Compl. ¶79).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim (Compl. ¶79).
  • Accused Features: The complaint states that Google's Managed Service for Kafka is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶79).

U.S. Patent No. 7,376,953 - *Apparatus and Method for Routing a Transaction to a Server*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,376,953, "Apparatus and Method for Routing a Transaction to a Server," issued May 20, 2008 (Compl. ¶85).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for intelligently routing transactions to front-end servers. The method involves identifying an "attribute-based category" for a transaction and then routing it to a server that has been assigned to handle transactions of that specific category, with a fallback to a default server if no assigned server is identified (Compl. ¶86).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim (Compl. ¶86).
  • Accused Features: The complaint states that Google's Managed Service for Kafka is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶86).

U.S. Patent No. 6,889,244 - *Method and Apparatus for Passing Messages Using a Fault Tolerant Storage System*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,889,244, "Method and Apparatus for Passing Messages Using a Fault Tolerant Storage System," issued May 3, 2005 (Compl. ¶91).
  • Technology Synopsis: The invention is a method for transmitting messages between two nodes by using a fault-tolerant storage system (FTSS) as an intermediary. A message from the first node is sent to and stored by the FTSS, which then processes the message "in accordance with a messaging paradigm" before transmitting it to the second node, leveraging the reliability of the storage system for message passing (Compl. ¶92).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies Claim 1 as an example claim (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The complaint states that Google's Managed Service for Kafka is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶92).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for Google’s managed services related to three open-source software platforms: Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE), Managed Service for Hadoop, and Managed Service for Kafka (Compl. ¶¶12-14, 29).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE): The complaint identifies GKE as Google's "managed implementation of Kubernetes," an open-source project for managing containerized applications (Compl. ¶¶8, 21). Google alleges that a specific feature, the Horizontal Pod Autoscaler (HPA), functions by automatically adjusting the number of application replicas "based on observed metrics" such as CPU utilization, not based on changes to the system's underlying configuration (Compl. ¶43). The complaint further alleges that GKE uses "hardcoded metrics" rather than accessing external, machine-readable definitions to interpret monitoring data (Compl. ¶49).
  • Managed Service for Hadoop: This is identified as a Google managed service for the Apache Hadoop open-source software, which is used for distributed data processing (Compl. ¶¶13, 67). In the context of the non-infringement arguments, the complaint alleges that in this service, the Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) NameNode determines the DataNode where data blocks are stored, rather than obtaining mapped data block numbers that serve as direct storage addresses (Compl. ¶67). It also alleges that the YARN ResourceManager schedules tasks using pre-constructed applications rather than constructing executable code blocks on the fly (Compl. ¶73).
  • Managed Service for Kafka: This is identified as a Google managed service for the Apache Kafka open-source software, a distributed event streaming platform (Compl. ¶¶13, 79). The complaint alleges this service operates by adding existing protocol header information to API messages based on message type, rather than "selectively indicating" that context be obtained (Compl. ¶¶79, 22-23). It also alleges the system uses a bootstrap server to assign categories and inform clients, rather than routing transactions to a default server when no pre-assigned server is found (Compl. ¶86).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary: 8,379,538 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a machine-readable monitoring model that defines configuration of a monitoring environment; The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. ¶43 col. 6:21-23
responsive to a change occurring in said monitoring environment's configuration, said machine-readable monitoring model updating to reflect said change; Google alleges that its Kubernetes Engine's Horizontal Pod Autoscaler (HPA) adjusts the number of pod replicas based on "observed metrics" (e.g., CPU load). ¶43 col. 6:24-27
and an element of said monitoring environment reading said machine-readable model and autonomously adapting its operation to the changed configuration. Google alleges the HPA's adaptation is a response to performance metrics, not a change in the "monitoring environment's configuration" as required by the claim. ¶43 col. 6:28-31
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the definition of "monitoring environment's configuration." The complaint's non-infringement argument suggests this term is limited to the static or architectural setup of the environment. The question for the court will be whether a dynamic change in an operational state, such as crossing a performance metric threshold, can be considered a change in "configuration" under the patent's teachings.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the HPA's operation is functionally distinct from the claimed method. The complaint posits that responding to "observed metrics" is technically different from responding to a change in "configuration." Evidence will be needed to establish how the HPA operates and whether that operation aligns with the specific sequence and triggering conditions recited in Claim 7.

Claim Chart Summary: 7,251,588 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
storing metric definitions for at least one monitored component in a machine-readable format to a data storage device; Google alleges that Google Kubernetes Engine uses "hardcoded metrics." ¶49 col. 13:15-18
a monitoring tool accessing the machine-readable metric definitions to determine the metric definitions used in monitoring data collected for the at least one monitored component; The complaint's allegation that metrics are "hardcoded" implies that a monitoring tool does not access external, machine-readable definitions to determine their meaning. ¶49 col. 13:19-23
the monitoring tool accessing said monitoring data collected for the at least one monitored component; and The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. ¶49 col. 13:24-26
the monitoring tool processing the monitoring data based at least in part on the corresponding metric definitions. Because the metrics are allegedly "hardcoded," the processing is based on pre-programmed logic within the tool itself, not on externally accessed "corresponding metric definitions." ¶49 col. 13:27-29
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The analysis may focus on what constitutes "hardcoded metrics" versus "machine-readable metric definitions." Practitioners may question whether configuration files, which are machine-readable and define metric properties, could fall within the claim scope, even if Google considers them part of a "hardcoded" system.
    • Technical Questions: The primary question is factual: how does the monitoring system within GKE actually learn about and interpret the metrics it collects? The dispute will require evidence demonstrating whether the monitoring tool's logic for interpreting a given metric (e.g., its name, unit, type) is self-contained or whether it relies on reading a separate data structure where that metric is defined.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "monitoring environment's configuration" (from '538 Patent, Claim 7)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because Google's non-infringement argument hinges on distinguishing a change in "configuration" from a change in "observed metrics." The scope of this term will likely determine whether the operation of the accused Horizontal Pod Autoscaler falls inside or outside the claim.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the model in the context of a dynamically changing environment, stating it "enables elements of a monitoring system to recognize configuration changes in the system being monitored and autonomously adapt thereto" ('538 Patent, col. 2:25-29). This broad purpose could support an interpretation that includes significant operational state changes.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract notes the model "maintains configuration of a monitoring environment," and the claims tie adaptation directly to a "change occurring in said... configuration." This language may support an argument that "configuration" refers to the structural or topological makeup of the system (e.g., the set of monitored components, the reporting network topology), rather than fluctuating performance data generated by that system.

  • The Term: "machine-readable metric definitions" (from '588 Patent, Claim 13)

  • Context and Importance: Google's assertion that GKE uses "hardcoded metrics" directly contrasts with this claim term. The viability of Google's non-infringement defense will depend on whether the way GKE defines and processes metrics can be excluded from the definition of this term.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the definitions may be stored in "any suitable form of computer-readable storage medium, such as memory (e.g., RAM), a hard drive, optical disk, floppy disk, tape drive, etc." and can be in the form of a "database or any other suitable data structure" ('588 Patent, col. 8:50-54). This suggests the format is flexible and could encompass a wide range of file types, including configuration files.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the problem being solved as one where a user must "hard-code the monitoring tool for understanding the monitoring data" ('588 Patent, col. 2:39-42). This might support a narrower interpretation where "machine-readable metric definitions" must be part of a dynamic "introspection" system that is functionally distinct from any static configuration files that are compiled or packaged with the monitoring tool itself.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each patent-in-suit, Google affirmatively pleads that it does not indirectly infringe and "has not caused, directed, requested, or facilitated any such infringement, much less with specific intent to do so" (e.g., Compl. ¶44, ¶50, ¶56). This language is a direct rebuttal of the knowledge and intent elements required to establish claims for induced and contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not an allegation made by Google. However, the complaint establishes a basis for a potential counterclaim of willfulness by Defendants. The complaint details a history of communications beginning in April 2021, including multiple letters from Defendants identifying specific patents and accusing Google's products of infringement, thereby establishing pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶¶9-15).

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

This declaratory judgment action will likely focus on the interplay between the specific claim language of the legacy HPE patents and the operational realities of modern, open-source cloud infrastructure. The central questions for the court appear to be:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms rooted in the patents' specific context, such as "monitoring environment's configuration" ('538 patent), be construed broadly enough to read on the metric-driven, dynamic operations of modern systems like Kubernetes, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the triggering conditions for the claimed methods?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Across several patents (e.g., '588, '332, '686), Google’s non-infringement positions are based on specific allegations about how its products actually function (e.g., using "hardcoded metrics," deploying updates via new pods rather than "hot deployment"). The case will require a deep factual analysis to determine if the accused Google services operate in the specific manner claimed by the patents or if they achieve similar results through technically distinct, non-infringing methods.
  • A final question concerns the functional role of system components: Do the components in Google's managed services perform the same roles as those recited in the claims? For instance, in the context of the '244 patent, does a Kafka server function as a passive "fault tolerant storage system" for message passing, or does it play a more active processing role that distinguishes it from the claimed "messaging paradigm"?