DCT
4:19-cv-00772
Tormasi v. Western Digital Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Walter A. Tormasi (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Western Digital Corp. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Walter A. Tormasi (Appearing Pro Se)
- Case Identification: 4:19-cv-00772, N.D. Cal., 02/12/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's principal executive office being located in San Jose, California, within the Northern District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hard disk drives incorporating dual-stage actuator technology infringe a patent related to actuator mechanisms with independently movable read/write arms.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the mechanical systems within hard disk drives used to position read/write heads over storage platters, a critical function that determines data access speed and storage density.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology based on the public availability of the plaintiff’s patent application in 2005, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-05-03 | ’301 Patent Priority Date |
| 2005-11-03 | ’301 Patent Application Publication Date |
| 2008-01-29 | ’301 Patent Issue Date |
| 2009-12-01 | Date of article describing Accused Black series 2TB drives |
| 2011-09-01 | Date of flier describing Accused RE series drives |
| 2013-02-01 | Date of article describing Accused Black series 4TB drives |
| 2015-07-01 | Date of flier describing Accused Se series drives |
| 2017-08-01 | Date of flier describing Accused Gold series drives |
| 2019-02-12 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,324,301 - Striping Data Simultaneously Across Multiple Platter Surfaces
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes hard drives as a "major bottleneck in data transportation and processing" because their data transfer rates have not kept pace with advances in microprocessors and memory (’301 Patent, col. 3:15-21). Conventional actuators that move all read/write arms in unison are a primary performance limitation, while multi-drive RAID 0 solutions suffer from disadvantages in cost, power consumption, and reliability (’301 Patent, col. 3:36-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a single hard drive that incorporates an "actuator with independently movable arms" and a corresponding custom electronic architecture (’301 Patent, Abstract). This allows different read/write heads to move independently and simultaneously access data on different platter surfaces, enabling a RAID 0-like data striping capability within a single physical drive unit (’301 Patent, col. 4:55-63). One embodiment describes a dual-stage system, where a primary actuator provides coarse, unitary movement and secondary "microactuators or microelectromechanisms" affixed to the arm tips provide "precise independent secondary positioning" (’301 Patent, col. 6:11-29).
- Technical Importance: This approach was designed to dramatically increase the read/write speed of a single hard drive without the physical space, power, and cost disadvantages of using multiple, separate drives in a traditional RAID array (’301 Patent, col. 4:56-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 41 and dependent claims 61, 62, and 63 (Compl. ¶26).
- Independent Claim 41 consists of two essential elements:
- An actuator mechanism, said mechanism comprising at least two arms, said arms assigned to different circular carrier surfaces within an information storage and retrieval apparatus;
- and means for moving said arms simultaneously and independently across corresponding carrier surfaces with a component of movement in a radial direction with respect to said carrier surfaces.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other unspecified claims (Compl. ¶33).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's hard disk drives that feature "dual-stage actuator systems" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint specifically identifies the "Black series," "RE and Se series," and "Gold series" drives and alleges more broadly that the technology is contained within the "entire line of WD-branded and HGST-branded hard drives" with storage capacities of 2 terabytes or greater (Compl. ¶19-22).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused functionality is described as a "dual-stage actuator system" where a "primary actuator provides coarse displacement using conventional electromagnetic principles" and a "secondary actuator uses piezoelectric motion to fine tune the head positioning" (Compl. ¶20). This system is alleged to enable the "independent positioning of the read/write heads" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint positions Defendant as "one of the largest vendors of hard disk drives," generating over $20 billion in annual revenue, suggesting the accused products have a significant market presence (Compl. ¶2).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 7,324,301 - Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 41) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An actuator mechanism, said mechanism comprising at least two arms, said arms assigned to different circular carrier surfaces within an information storage and retrieval apparatus; | Defendant's hard drives contain actuator mechanisms with multiple arms that position read/write heads over multiple platter surfaces. The complaint references "dual-arm actuators" in accused products. | ¶18, ¶19 | col. 4:61-63 |
| and means for moving said arms simultaneously and independently across corresponding carrier surfaces with a component of movement in a radial direction with respect to said carrier surfaces. | The complaint alleges Defendant's "dual-stage actuator system" constitutes this means. The system's primary actuator provides coarse movement while a secondary piezoelectric actuator provides independent fine-tuning. | ¶18, ¶20, ¶27 | col. 6:11-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Claim 41 recites a "means for moving said arms... independently," a means-plus-function limitation governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA). A central legal dispute will be whether the accused structure—a primary magnetic actuator combined with a secondary piezoelectric actuator—is structurally equivalent to the corresponding structures disclosed in the ’301 patent’s specification for performing the claimed function.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the accused secondary actuator's function of "fine tun[ing] the head positioning" (Compl. ¶20) is the same as the "independently moving the read/write heads to specific tracks" function described in the patent (’301 Patent, col. 6:25-27). The analysis may turn on the degree of independent movement afforded by the accused secondary actuator and whether it enables the independent data striping envisioned by the patent or serves a more limited purpose, such as vibration damping or correcting for minor track misalignments.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "means for moving said arms simultaneously and independently"
- Context and Importance: As a means-plus-function limitation, the construction of this term is not a simple matter of defining the words but requires identifying the function ("moving said arms simultaneously and independently") and the corresponding structure disclosed in the patent's specification that performs it. The outcome of the infringement analysis for claim 41 hinges on whether the accused dual-stage actuator is the same as, or structurally equivalent to, that disclosed structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification discloses an embodiment comprising a "primary actuator mechanism" for "initial general positioning" and "secondary actuator mechanisms" such as "microactuators or microelectromechanisms" that provide "precise independent secondary positioning" (’301 Patent, col. 6:11-29). Plaintiff may argue this language directly maps onto the accused system of a primary actuator for "coarse displacement" and a secondary actuator for "fine tun[ing]" (Compl. ¶20).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the primary disclosed structure involves fully independent arms, each with a separate electromagnetic coil allowing for large-scale, independent radial movement across the entire platter surface, as depicted in FIG. 1 and described at col. 4:50-54. It may further argue that the function of "independently moving" requires the ability to access different cylinders simultaneously for data striping, a capability that a secondary actuator used merely for "fine tuning" might not possess.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶36). The primary factual basis for this allegation is the publication of the plaintiff's patent application on November 3, 2005 (Compl. ¶38). The complaint alleges that Defendant’s technology departments "customarily and routinely review all published patent applications" in the relevant field and therefore had actual knowledge of the application (Compl. ¶39). It further contends that Defendant only began developing and implementing the accused technology after this publication date, with the delay attributed to necessary research and development time (Compl. ¶40-41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: how the court construes the means-plus-function limitation "means for moving said arms...independently." The case will likely turn on whether the accused dual-stage actuator is deemed structurally equivalent to the specific primary/secondary actuator embodiment disclosed in the ’301 patent’s specification.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical function: does the accused secondary actuator's "fine tuning" capability perform the same function as the "precise independent secondary positioning" described in the patent? The dispute may focus on whether the accused feature enables the independent track access necessary for the patent's data-striping objective or performs a more limited track-following or vibration-control function.
- A third central question relates to willfulness: can the plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to support the allegation that Defendant had actual knowledge of the patent application as early as 2005 and that the timing of its product development was a result of copying, rather than a parallel innovation in a technologically advancing field?