DCT

1:19-cv-00064

Data Scape Ltd v. F5 Networks Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Data Scape Limited v. F5 Networks, Inc., 1:19-cv-00064, D. Colo., 01/09/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant is registered to do business there and maintains a regular and established place of business, including a corporate office and engineering location in Boulder, Colorado.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s BIG-IP software and hardware products infringe five U.S. patents related to systems and methods for synchronizing data between communication apparatuses.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves managing and synchronizing configuration data across networked devices, a core function for ensuring high availability, load balancing, and consistent policy enforcement in enterprise IT and cloud environments.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-09-21 Priority Date for ’751, ’581, ’929, ’537 Patents
2002-06-12 Priority Date for ’893 Patent
2009-11-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537 Issues
2010-05-18 U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929 Issues
2013-02-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,386,581 Issues
2017-07-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,715,893 Issues
2018-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,027,751 Issues
2019-01-09 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,027,751 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,027,751, titled "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," issued July 17, 2018.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the process of transferring data, such as music files, from a large-capacity server to a portable device as potentially cumbersome, particularly when selecting and transferring numerous files individually. It also notes potential user confusion when creating lists that could be for either organizing data on the server or for batch transfers to another device (’751 Patent, col. 2:41-60).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a communication apparatus that allows a user to create and edit a "transfer list" of data intended for a separate target apparatus. This editing can be performed regardless of whether the two devices are connected. When the system's "detector" determines a connection exists, a "controller" initiates the transfer of the data specified in the edited list, after comparing management information between the devices to determine what needs to be sent (’751 Patent, Abstract; col. 27:23-40).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a method for asynchronous data management between a primary repository and a secondary device, a foundational concept for modern playlist and file synchronization services.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶10).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A communication apparatus configured to transmit data to an apparatus.
    • A hardware storage medium configured to store management information of data to be transferred.
    • A communicator configured to communicate data with the apparatus.
    • A detector configured to detect whether the communication apparatus and the apparatus are connected.
    • An editor configured to select certain data to be transferred and to edit the management information based on the selection without regard to the connection of the two apparatuses.
    • A controller configured to control transfer of the selected data based on the edited management information when the detector detects a connection.
    • Wherein the controller is also configured to compare the edited management information with management information of data stored in the apparatus, determine a size of the selected data, and transmit data based on the result of the comparison and determination.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,386,581 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,386,581, titled "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," issued February 26, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general problem as the ’751 Patent: simplifying batch data transfers from a server-type device to another apparatus (’581 Patent, col. 2:41-60).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention discloses a communication apparatus with a controller that manages data synchronization through lists that are uniquely associated with specific external apparatuses using a "unique identification." When a particular external apparatus connects, the controller extracts the specific list associated with that device from a plurality of lists and then controls the transfer of the content registered in that list (’581 Patent, Abstract). This allows a single central device to manage distinct synchronization profiles for multiple different target devices.
  • Technical Importance: The invention describes a one-to-many synchronization model where a central hub can maintain distinct data sets for multiple endpoints, identifying them by unique identifiers.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A communication apparatus.
    • A storage unit configured to store content data to a storage medium.
    • A communication unit configured to communicate with an external apparatus.
    • A controller configured to edit a list so that content data is registered in the list.
    • Wherein the controller is further configured to uniquely associate the list with the external apparatus using a unique identification of the external apparatus.
    • Wherein the controller is further configured to extract the list associated with the external apparatus from a plurality of lists when the external apparatus is connected.
    • Wherein the controller is further configured to control transferring of content data registered in the extracted list to the external apparatus.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929, titled "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," issued May 18, 2010.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a communication system comprising a first apparatus and a second apparatus. The invention is located in the second apparatus, which contains the editor, detector, and controller for managing the transfer of selected data to the first apparatus when a connection is established, paralleling the technology of the ’751 Patent but claimed from a system perspective.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that a system of two or more BIG-IP devices infringes, where one BIG-IP device functions as the claimed "second apparatus" that manages and initiates the ConfigSync process to transfer configuration data to another BIG-IP device, the "first apparatus" (Compl. ¶¶49-55).

U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537 - "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537, titled "Communication System And Its Method and Communication Apparatus And Its Method," issued November 10, 2009.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a computer-readable storage medium containing instructions to implement a method of data transfer. The method includes steps of judging connection status, comparing identifiers of the two apparatuses, comparing lists of content on each, and then performing a two-way synchronization by transferring new data from the second to the first apparatus and deleting data from the first apparatus that is no longer on the second.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 43 (Compl. ¶67).
  • Accused Features: The accused BIG-IP software, which allegedly contains instructions for executing the ConfigSync process. This process is alleged to include comparing device configurations and synchronizing both additions and deletions between devices, particularly in versions 11.x and later (Compl. ¶¶68-73).

U.S. Patent No. 9,715,893 - "Recording Apparatus, Server Apparatus, Recording Method, Program and Storage Medium"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,715,893, titled "Recording Apparatus, Server Apparatus, Recording Method, Program and Storage Medium," issued July 25, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from a different family, claims a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions for a data transfer method. The method involves reading first and second management data from two storage mediums, identifying source data files on the first medium that are absent from the second, automatically transferring those files, and displaying the transfer status using a "symbolic figure."
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶83).
  • Accused Features: The BIG-IP software is accused of infringing by reading management data to identify configuration differences, transferring the updated data to synchronize the devices, and displaying the "sync status" for each device group, which is alleged to be the claimed "symbolic figure" (Compl. ¶¶85-88).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendant’s BIG-IP software and hardware products, and all versions and variations thereof (the “Accused Instrumentalities”) (Compl. ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies the "ConfigSync" feature of the BIG-IP system as the core infringing functionality (Compl. ¶11). ConfigSync is described as a high-availability feature that synchronizes configuration data (such as policies, profiles, and virtual IP addresses) from one BIG-IP device to other members of a "device group" (Compl. ¶¶11, 12). This ensures that all devices in a cluster maintain identical configurations to work in tandem for processing application traffic (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges that users can select specific data for synchronization through a "Sync-Only" feature, which it illustrates with a screenshot of a configuration utility user interface (Compl. ¶15; Compl. p. 6). The synchronization is alleged to occur automatically when configuration data changes and when a connection between devices is detected (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 10,027,751 - Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
[a] communication apparatus configured to transmit data to an apparatus The Accused Instrumentalities (e.g., a BIG-IP appliance) communicate and transmit configuration data to another BIG-IP appliance. ¶11 col. 3:5-14
a hardware storage medium configured to store management information of data to be transferred to the apparatus A physical BIG-IP appliance includes a storage medium (e.g., a solid state disk) that stores management information related to the configuration data to be transferred. ¶12 col. 3:18-21
a communicator configured to communicate data with the apparatus The Accused Instrumentalities use a CMI communications channel or a SOAP protocol with HTTPS to communicate data between BIG-IP devices. ¶13 col. 3:22-24
a detector configured to detect whether the communication apparatus and the apparatus are connected The BIG-IP system automatically detects and monitors the connection status of each device in a configuration group. ¶14 col. 3:25-28
an editor configured to select certain data to be transferred and to edit the management information based on the selection without regard to the connection of the communication apparatus and the apparatus The BIG-IP system allows a user to select specific types of data for synchronization at a granular level using the BIG-IP Configuration utility. A screenshot shows a "General Properties" screen for a "Sync-Only" device group where members and settings can be configured (Compl. p. 6). ¶15 col. 3:29-35
a controller configured to control transfer of the selected data stored in the communication apparatus to the apparatus via the communicator based on the management information edited by the editor when the detector detects that the communication apparatus and the apparatus are connected In automatic sync mode, a BIG-IP device automatically synchronizes its configuration data to other members of the device group only when the configuration changes and the devices are connected. ¶16 col. 3:36-44
wherein the controller is configured to compare the management information edited by the editor with management information of data stored in the apparatus The BIG-IP system uses "commit ID updates" to compare configuration information and determine which device has the latest version eligible to initiate a ConfigSync operation. ¶17 col. 4:1-4
[the controller is configured to] determine a size of the selected data in the communication apparatus The BIG-IP system determines whether pending configuration changes are greater than a configured cache size value (e.g., 1024 KB) to decide between an incremental or full synchronization. ¶18 col. 4:5-7
[the controller is configured to] transmit data in the communication apparatus based on result of the comparison and the determination The controller transmits updated data only if the comparison shows its local data is the most recent, and the type of sync (full vs. incremental) is based on the size determination. ¶19 col. 4:7-10

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the term "communication apparatus" as described in the patent's context of a music server and portable player can be construed to read on enterprise networking hardware like the accused BIG-IP systems. Similarly, whether "management information" for "musical data" extends to system-level "configuration data" for network traffic will likely be a point of dispute.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the "editor" functions "without regard to the connection" by pointing to the BIG-IP Configuration utility (Compl. ¶15). A question for the court may be what evidence shows that this configuration of a "device group" can be performed in a manner that is functionally equivalent to creating a transfer list while a target device is physically disconnected, as contemplated by the patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,386,581 - Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
[a] communication apparatus The Accused Instrumentalities (e.g., a BIG-IP appliance) communicate configuration data to another device. ¶30 col. 29:10-11
a storage unit configured to store content data to a storage medium A physical BIG-IP appliance includes a storage medium (e.g., SSD) that stores configuration data, which is identified as the claimed "content data." ¶31 col. 29:12-14
a communication unit configured to communicate with an external apparatus The Accused Instrumentalities use a CMI communications channel or SOAP with HTTPS to communicate with an external BIG-IP apparatus. ¶32 col. 29:15-16
a controller configured to edit a list so that content data is registered in the list The BIG-IP system includes a controller that allows a user to edit the data to be synchronized to a device group, thereby creating a "list" of content data. The complaint provides a diagram showing a hierarchical partition structure that can be configured (Compl. p. 14). ¶33 col. 29:17-19
[the controller is configured] to uniquely associate the list with the external apparatus using a unique identification of the external apparatus The BIG-IP system associates lists of folders or device groups with an external apparatus based on its unique identification properties, such as a certificate used for mutual authentication. ¶34 col. 29:20-23
[the controller is configured] to extract the list associated with the external apparatus from a plurality of lists ... when the external apparatus is connected When connected, the BIG-IP system automatically synchronizes only the data associated with the specific device group(s) for that apparatus, effectively extracting the relevant list of content to be synchronized. ¶35 col. 29:24-28
[the controller is configured] to control transferring of content data registered in the extracted list to the external apparatus The controller transmits updated configuration data from the extracted list to the external apparatus if the local configuration is the most recent. ¶36 col. 29:29-31

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory depends on construing a BIG-IP "device group" or a set of configuration "folders" as the claimed "list." A potential dispute is whether these system configuration constructs are equivalent to the "list" of content data described in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that the BIG-IP system maintains a "plurality of lists" and performs an "extraction" step for a specific apparatus, as required by the claim, rather than simply applying a single, predefined group policy to all members of that group upon connection.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim Term: "editor configured to select certain data ... without regard to the connection of the communication apparatus and the apparatus" (’751 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the condition under which the synchronization task is prepared. The phrase "without regard to the connection" suggests an asynchronous or "offline" editing capability. The viability of the infringement allegation hinges on whether configuring the Accused Instrumentality satisfies this requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint maps it to a configuration utility (Compl. ¶15) that an administrator uses on an active system, raising the question of whether this action is truly independent of the network connection status.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a transfer list can be edited "irrespective of the fact whether or not... communication is established between the first apparatus and the second apparatus" (’751 Patent, col. 3:32-35). This language may support an interpretation where any preparation of a transfer plan that is executed later upon connection meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary embodiment describes creating a list of musical data on a server to be transferred to a "portable recording and playback apparatus" when it is "mounted" on the server (’751 Patent, FIG. 13; col. 28:55-60). This context could support a narrower construction limited to scenarios involving physically disconnected and later connected devices, rather than always-on network appliances.

Claim Term: "uniquely associate the list with the external apparatus using a unique identification" (’581 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the ’581 Patent's contribution of managing synchronization for multiple, distinct devices. The infringement case depends on showing that a BIG-IP "device group" is a "list" that is "uniquely associated" with another BIG-IP device via a "unique identification."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges that BIG-IP systems establish trust between devices through "mutual certificate-based authentication," where "Each device member has a set of unique identification properties" (Compl. ¶34). The patent specification supports this by describing a system where a portable device has a "unique ID" and a program list in the server is assigned a corresponding ID, ensuring data is moved only to the correct device (’581 Patent, col. 24:50-60).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that a "device group" is a configuration entity that applies to a class of devices, not a "list" that is "uniquely" associated with a single "external apparatus." The patent's description focuses on a one-to-one association between a specific portable device ID and a specific transfer list ID (’581 Patent, FIG. 12A), which could be argued as distinct from a group policy applied to multiple members.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges induced infringement across all asserted patents. The basis for inducement is Defendant’s affirmative acts of promoting the Accused Instrumentalities, including through user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and training that allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the infringing "ConfigSync" feature in its normal, customary way (Compl. ¶¶21-22, 38-39, 57-58, 75-76, 90-91).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, for each patent, it alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patent and its infringement since at least the filing of the complaint, thereby establishing a basis for a claim of post-suit infringement and potential enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶20, 37, 56, 74, 89).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent claims, which originate from the technical context of synchronizing user media files between a consumer-level server and a portable player, be construed to cover the automated synchronization of system-level configuration files between enterprise-grade network appliances?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused "ConfigSync" feature, configured by a network administrator through a graphical user interface, operate in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the claimed "editor" that creates a "transfer list" "without regard to the connection," or is there a fundamental mismatch in the operational paradigm?
  • The dispute may also hinge on the construction of claim terms like "list" and "management information." The court will need to determine if a "device group" in the accused product is the same as a "list" in the claims, and whether system "configuration data" falls within the scope of "management information of data to be transferred."