DCT

4:17-cv-03181

Nutanix Inc v. Un

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:17-cv-03181, N.D. Cal., 06/02/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Nutanix alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant Uniloc USA resides in the district and Defendant Uniloc Luxembourg is an alien entity. The complaint also asserts that venue for prior suits filed by Uniloc against Nutanix in the Eastern District of Texas is improper under the Supreme Court's recent decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its enterprise cloud computing products do not infringe five patents owned or licensed by Defendants related to the management and maintenance of software on a network.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to methods for centrally managing, distributing, and updating software applications and user preferences in a client-server network environment.
  • Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action was filed by Nutanix shortly after the Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017 decision in TC Heartland, which altered the standard for patent venue. The filing follows two prior infringement lawsuits filed by Uniloc against Nutanix in the Eastern District of Texas, one in October 2016 asserting four of the patents-in-suit and another in March 2017 asserting the fifth.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1994-12-28 Earliest Priority Date (’228 Patent)
1998-12-14 Earliest Priority Date (’578, ’293, ’466, ’766 Patents)
2000-08-29 ’228 Patent Issued
2001-11-27 ’578 Patent Issued
2003-01-21 ’466 Patent Issued
2016-10-24 Uniloc files suit in E.D. Tex. on ’578, ’293, ’466, ’766 Patents
2017-03-06 Uniloc files suit in E.D. Tex. on the ’228 Patent
2017-05-22 U.S. Supreme Court issues TC Heartland decision on patent venue
2017-06-02 Nutanix files Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in N.D. Cal.

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,324,578 - "Methods, Systems and Computer Program Products for Management of Configurable Application Programs on a Network"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of managing software in a distributed network with mobile users and diverse hardware, where maintaining user-specific preferences and centralized administrative control is challenging (US 6,324,578 B1, col. 1:18-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where an "on-demand server" manages a given application using two separate program files: an "application launcher" distributed to clients and a "configuration manager" used by an administrator. The launcher allows a user to set their personal preferences, while the manager allows an administrator to set system-wide preferences. When the user runs the application, the server combines both sets of preferences to create a customized instance of the program (US 6,324,578 B1, Abstract; col. 3:45-67).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to provide a seamless and consistent user experience across heterogeneous networks while centralizing administrative and license-management control, a key challenge in late 1990s client-server computing (US 6,324,578 B1, col. 4:1-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific independent claims asserted by Uniloc, stating only that Uniloc alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 6,510,466 - "Methods, Systems and Computer Program Products for Centralized Management of Application Programs on a Network"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for user mobility and hardware portability in networked environments, where users moving between different client stations often face inconsistent application access and behavior (US 6,510,466 B1, col. 1:47-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a server that provides applications "on-demand." In response to a user's login request, the server establishes a user-specific desktop interface (e.g., in a web browser) that displays icons only for applications the user is authorized to access. When the user selects an icon, the server provides an executable instance of that application to the client, customized with the user's stored preferences (US 6,510,466 B1, Abstract; col. 3:51-67).
  • Technical Importance: The system provides a "user-based" rather than a "client-based" computing environment, allowing a user's authorized software and personal settings to follow them across different physical machines on the network (US 6,510,466 B1, col. 3:1-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific independent claims asserted by Uniloc, stating only that Uniloc alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. 6,110,228 - "Method and Apparatus for Software Maintenance at Remote Nodes"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a centralized system for software maintenance where source code resides only at a central service site. A customer at a remote node sends a service request; the central site performs the necessary research, applies fixes, rebuilds the software, and returns only the updated, ready-to-run executable code to the customer over the network. This avoids distributing source code and centralizes the complex task of managing software updates and dependencies (US 6,110,228, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶54).
  • Accused Features: The complaint does not identify specific accused features, referring generally to "Nutanix products" (Compl. ¶55).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities generally as "Nutanix products" and "Nutanix's technology" (Compl. ¶31, Prayer for Relief ¶A).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes Nutanix as a leader in enterprise cloud computing that provides a cloud platform leveraging "web-scale engineering and consumer-grade design to natively converge compute, virtualization and storage into a resilient, software-defined solution" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not describe the functionality of any specific accused product. Instead, it incorporates by reference Uniloc's complaints from prior litigation, which Nutanix alleges are "facially deficient" and fail to articulate a factual basis for infringement (Compl. ¶30, ¶36, ¶42, ¶48, ¶54).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not articulate a factual basis for its non-infringement allegations or provide any mapping of the accused technology to patent claims. Its central allegation is that Uniloc's infringement contentions in prior litigation are deficient and fail to map the accused products to the claim elements (Compl. ¶30, ¶36, ¶42, ¶48, ¶54). As such, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an infringement analysis.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify specific claims at issue or detail any potential claim construction disputes, and therefore provides no basis for an analysis of key claim terms.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Nutanix asserts that it "has not and does not induce any infringement" of any claims of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶31, ¶37, ¶43, ¶49, ¶55). The complaint does not provide specific facts to support this assertion.

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

The complaint frames the dispute around procedural and pleading-standard issues rather than technical merits. The central questions for the case at this stage appear to be:

  • A primary issue will be one of venue and jurisdiction: Will this declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California proceed, or will it be dismissed or transferred in view of the prior-filed infringement suits by Uniloc in the Eastern District of Texas? The resolution may depend on the application of the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision to the facts of the underlying cases.
  • A key threshold question will be one of pleading sufficiency: As framed by Nutanix, the dispute centers on whether Uniloc’s infringement contentions, incorporated by reference, meet federal pleading standards by articulating a plausible theory of infringement against Nutanix's technology.
  • Should the case proceed to the merits, a central technical question may be one of technological scope: Can claim terms originating from the context of managing individual software applications in traditional client-server networks of the late 1990s be construed to cover modern, fully-integrated "enterprise cloud platforms" that converge compute, storage, and virtualization?