DCT

4:24-cv-02220

Hewlett Packard Enterprises Co v. Inspur Group Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:24-cv-02220, N.D. Cal., 04/15/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper for the foreign defendants as they may be sued in any judicial district. For the U.S.-based defendants, venue is based on their alleged regular and established places of business within the Northern District of California, from which they conduct activities giving rise to the alleged infringement.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ enterprise server products and related software infringe five U.S. patents concerning server network management, power consumption monitoring, remote device emulation, and storage array configuration.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to foundational aspects of data center and enterprise server management, which are critical for ensuring operational efficiency, system reliability, and remote administration capabilities.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff made multiple attempts to contact Defendants to discuss licensing, beginning in August 2021, and sent a letter in February 2022 identifying the asserted patents and exemplary infringing products. It further alleges that after Defendant Inspur Group was placed on the U.S. Department of Commerce's Entity List in March 2023, Defendants began rebranding their products under the names "Aivres" and "KAYTUS" to allegedly conceal their infringing conduct.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-06-22 U.S. Patent No. 8,108,508 Priority Date
2005-10-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,218,566 Priority Date
2005-10-20 U.S. Patent No. 7,634,671 Priority Date
2009-07-14 U.S. Patent No. 8,335,891 Priority Date
2009-12-15 U.S. Patent No. 7,634,671 Issued
2010-01-27 U.S. Patent No. 9,229,737 Priority Date
2012-01-31 U.S. Patent No. 8,108,508 Issued
2012-07-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,218,566 Issued
2012-12-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,335,891 Issued
2016-01-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,229,737 Issued
2021-08-11 HPE alleges first attempt to contact Inspur for licensing
2022-02-04 HPE sends letter identifying patents and infringing products
2023-03-06 Inspur Group added to Department of Commerce Entity List
2023-05-01 Inspur Systems, Inc. allegedly renamed Aivres Systems, Inc.
2023-09-18 Inspur Asset Holdings, Inc. allegedly renamed Betapex Inc.
2024-04-15 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,218,566 - "Systems and methods for making serial ports of existing computers available over a network," issued July 10, 2012.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inefficiency of using dedicated "terminal servers" to connect legacy serial devices to a network, citing their cost, energy use, and physical space requirements. It also notes that using a server's own hardware for this purpose is problematic, as the serial port becomes unavailable if the server's operating system crashes or the server is powered down (’566 Patent, col. 1:21-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using an independent management processor that can take exclusive control of a computer's serial port. This processor can disable the computer's own local serial controller (e.g., a UART) and make the serial port directly accessible over the network, even if the host computer is off or has crashed. The management processor can also return control to the local controller when needed (’566 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-21).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided reliable, out-of-band network access to serial devices connected to servers, improving remote management capabilities and reducing the need for separate, costly hardware (Compl. ¶82).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2 through 18 (Compl. ¶80).
  • Exemplary independent claim 1 requires:
    • A system with a "serial controller" for local control of a "serial port" on a networked computer.
    • A "management processor" associated with the computer, which can operate in two modes.
    • In a first mode, the management processor "disables local control" by the serial controller and "takes control" of the serial port for "network access".
    • In a second mode, the management processor "returns control" of the port to the serial controller.

U.S. Patent No. 7,634,671 - "Determining power consumption in IT networks," issued December 15, 2009.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the difficulty of managing power consumption in data centers. Manually inventorying devices and calculating total power is described as "labor intensive and error-prone," especially as modern devices dynamically alter their power usage (’671 Patent, col. 1:55 - col. 2:4).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for automated, real-time power monitoring. The method involves using an "autodiscovery tool" to identify devices on an IT network, sending management requests to obtain their power consumption data, and centrally collecting the returned values. This collected data can then be used to determine if a device's consumption is outside a normal range and to trigger an alarm (’671 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This automation improves data center reliability and efficiency by providing real-time data for power and thermal management, which is essential as data centers grow in scale and complexity (Compl. ¶95).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶93).
  • Exemplary independent claim 1 requires a method comprising the steps of:
    • "running an autodiscovery tool" to discover network devices.
    • "directing management requests" to the devices to obtain their "electric power consumption values".
    • "centrally collecting" the returned values.
    • "determining" if a value is "beyond a low value or beyond a high value".
    • "triggering an alarm" if the value is beyond the low or high value.

U.S. Patent No. 9,229,737 - "Method and system of emulating devices across selected communication pathways through a terminal session," issued January 5, 2016.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses performance limitations, specifically low bandwidth, encountered during remote terminal sessions when performing data-intensive tasks like loading an operating system. The invention provides a method for a management processor to emulate a mass storage device from a remote system over a selected, potentially higher-bandwidth, communication pathway to improve the speed and reliability of remote administration (’737 Patent, Background; Compl. ¶108).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶106).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Server Products are alleged to use a management processor to emulate a mass storage device over a selected communication pathway during a terminal session, as detailed in an unprovided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 107, 109).

U.S. Patent No. 8,335,891 - "Method and system for configuring a storage array," issued December 18, 2012.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the memory limitations (typically 1 MB "base memory") that constrain storage configuration utilities running on a host processor during system boot-up. The invention describes a system where the configuration utility runs on the storage array controller itself, which has its own, more abundant RAM. A separate user interface module runs on the host processor to relay information between the user and the array controller, enabling more sophisticated configuration tasks (’891 Patent, col. 2:1-21; Compl. ¶121).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶119).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Server Products are alleged to contain an array controller that runs a configuration utility and a host processor that receives menu information from, and sends user instructions to, the array controller, as detailed in an unprovided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 120, 122).

U.S. Patent No. 8,108,508 - "Web server chip for network manageability," issued January 31, 2012.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent aims to solve issues with traditional network management agents, which burden a host processor's resources and fail if the host system crashes. The invention is a dedicated chip with an embedded processor that operates independently as a manageability web server. This allows network management functions to persist even if the host is offline, without consuming host CPU cycles (’508 Patent, col. 1:11 - col. 2:2; Compl. ¶134).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶132).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Server Products are alleged to include a chip that performs network management functions independently of the host processor, as detailed in an unprovided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 133, 135).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies a broad category of "Accused Server Products" which includes general-purpose, rack, high-density, and AI servers, as well as related software (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 22, 29). Specific examples cited include the Inspur NF5280M5 and NF5180M5 servers and the Inspur ISPIM management software (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 27, 30).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are enterprise-grade servers. The complaint alleges these products were initially marketed under the "Inspur" brand and, following Inspur's placement on a U.S. government entity list, were rebranded and sold as "Aivres" and "KAYTUS" products with substantially the same infringing technology (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 41-42). The complaint provides an archived photo of a server bearing the "inspur" logo, which it alleges was for sale in the United States (Compl. p. 12). Plaintiff also cites Defendants' marketing materials, which allegedly describe Inspur as one of the "world's top 3 server vendors" (Compl. ¶58). The complaint includes a screenshot from the Inspur USA website highlighting its U.S. marketing presence (Compl. p. 21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference external exhibits (Exhibits 6-10) that contain detailed claim charts, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint itself. Accordingly, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

'566 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Server Products, such as the exemplary Inspur NF5180M5, meet every limitation of claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 81, 83). The infringement theory posits that these servers include a management processor that can disable the local serial controller's access to a physical serial port, take control of that port for network-based management, and later return control to the local controller, thereby practicing the claimed dual-mode operation (Compl. ¶81).

'671 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Server Products, when used with the accused Inspur ISPIM software, practice the method of claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 94, 96). The theory is that the ISPIM software functions as an "autodiscovery tool" to identify network devices, queries them for power consumption data, aggregates this data centrally, and includes functionality to compare the data against thresholds and trigger alarms, thus meeting the claimed method steps (Compl. ¶94).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the ’566 Patent, a likely point of contention will be the meaning of "disable local control." The court may need to determine if this requires actively rendering the local serial controller inert, or if merely intercepting or bypassing its communication path is sufficient to meet the claim limitation.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’671 Patent, a key factual question is whether the accused ISPIM software performs the specific functions of "determining" if a power value is beyond a high or low threshold and "triggering an alarm" based on that determination, as required by the claim, or if it simply presents raw data to a user for manual interpretation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '566 Patent:

  • The Term: "disable local control" (from claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's mechanism. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the accused management processor's interaction with the local serial controller constitutes "disabling" its control.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses broader phrasing such as "removing control" (’566 Patent, col. 7:49-50) and the management processor "handles the connection with the serial ports" (’566 Patent, col. 4:9-10), which a plaintiff may argue supports any implementation that effectively severs the local controller's authority, including a bypass.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites disabling control "by the serial controller." A defendant may argue this points to a more direct action upon the controller itself, rather than simply rerouting the data path around it, suggesting a narrower, more active form of disabling.

For the '671 Patent:

  • The Term: "autodiscovery tool" (from claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The applicability of the asserted method claim hinges on whether the accused ISPIM software is, or contains, an "autodiscovery tool." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the required level of sophistication for the accused software's network-scanning function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the step simply as "An autodiscovery tool is run to discover the network devices," without further qualification (’671 Patent, Abstract). This could support an interpretation that any automated process for identifying devices on a network meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description states the autodiscovery tool is used to "determine the topology of the managed IT network" and deposit the collected data into a "relational database scheme" (’671 Patent, col. 7:46-51). This language could support a narrower construction requiring a tool that not only finds devices but also maps their interconnections.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint pleads induced infringement for all five patents. It alleges Defendants provide the Accused Server Products to customers with instructions (e.g., through user manuals and customer support) that encourage and facilitate the use of the claimed technologies, with the specific intent to cause infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 84, 97, 110, 123, 136).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement for all five patents, asserting that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge at least as of February 4, 2022, from a letter sent by HPE that identified the patents-in-suit and exemplary infringing products (Compl. ¶¶ 86, 99, 112, 125, 138). The complaint further alleges that Defendants' refusal to engage in licensing discussions after multiple outreach attempts constitutes "egregious conduct" and "willful blindness" justifying enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶ 89, 102, 115, 128, 141).

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

  • A central question will be one of corporate and product identity: Can Plaintiff successfully prove that the rebranded "Aivres" and "KAYTUS" products are technologically contiguous with the original "Inspur" products, and that the various defendant entities operate as a single enterprise for infringement purposes, as alleged in the complaint?
  • A second key issue will be one of willful conduct: The complaint contains detailed factual allegations regarding pre-suit notice. A determinative question for damages will be whether Defendants' alleged refusal to engage with Plaintiff's licensing outreach rises to the level of egregious conduct and willful blindness required to support a finding of willful infringement.
  • The case will also present a core evidentiary challenge: As the complaint's infringement theories rely on unprovided claim chart exhibits, a primary focus during discovery will be on Plaintiff's ability to produce technical evidence demonstrating that the accused products—particularly their internal management processors and software—perform the specific functions required by each asserted claim.