DCT
1:13-cv-00264
Infinite Data LLC v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Infinite Data, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP (with Russ, August & Kabat as Of Counsel)
- Case Identification: 1:13-cv-00264, D. Del., 02/19/2013
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation that has conducted business and allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s networked computer systems, which utilize InfiniBand technology, infringe a patent related to methods for efficient message-passing in multiprocessor systems.
- Technical Context: The patent addresses methods for optimizing data transfer in high-performance computing networks, a technology foundational to large-scale data processing systems used in sectors such as finance.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the asserted patent. Notably, an ex parte reexamination certificate for the patent was issued in November 2014, after the complaint was filed. This proceeding confirmed the patentability of claims 5-8, which includes the primary claim (Claim 5) detailed in the complaint's infringement allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-11-18 | '530 Patent Priority Date |
| 1998-08-04 | '530 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-02-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2014-11-20 | '530 Patent Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issued |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,790,530 - "Message-passing multiprocessor system"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes an inefficiency in prior art parallel computer systems, which typically used either a memory-mapped transfer technique or a Direct Memory Access (DMA) based transfer technique ('530 Patent, col. 2:13-17). The patent asserts that neither approach was optimal for all scenarios, as the best method depends on the characteristics of the messages being sent (e.g., small control messages versus large data messages) ('530 Patent, col. 2:28-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a network interface designed to optimize performance by supporting different transfer mechanisms ('530 Patent, col. 4:5-9). As depicted in Figure 2, the network interface (200) connects a node's internal bus (300) to a broader interconnection network (100). Crucially, the interface's sender component (210) includes a DMA controller (212) that can directly read large data messages from the node's local shared memory (350), bypassing the main processor for the bulk data transfer and thus increasing efficiency ('530 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 5:23-29). This architecture allows a system to use efficient DMA-based transfers for large data payloads while handling smaller control messages through other means ('530 Patent, col. 5:41-55).
- Technical Importance: This hybrid approach aimed to provide more flexible and efficient data handling in high-performance computing, potentially reducing latency and increasing bandwidth by tailoring the transfer method to the specific message type.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the '530 Patent and provides a detailed infringement theory for independent method claim 5 (Compl. ¶8, ¶9).
- The essential elements of independent claim 5 are:
- (a) A processor at a source node requests a message transfer by storing control information or data transfer information into a "temporary storage means" within the network interface.
- (b) The network interface reads the data portion of the message from the local shared memory.
- (c) The network interface packetizes the message and transfers the resulting packet to a destination node.
- (d) The network interface at the source node receives an acknowledgement packet from the destination node.
- (e) The network interface enables a "transfer completing interrupt."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are identified as Defendant’s "network computer system products and services that use Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA)" and, more specifically, "networked computer systems operating according to the InfiniBand specification" (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that these systems infringe by practicing the method of claim 5 (Compl. ¶9). The core of the infringement allegation is that Defendant's use of "the InfiniBand interconnection technology" satisfies all steps of the claimed method (Compl. ¶9).
- The complaint does not provide further technical detail regarding the specific operation of Defendant's systems or their market positioning.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Claim Chart Summary
- The complaint's infringement theory in paragraph 9 tracks the language of claim 5.
'530 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) requesting transfer of the messages to the network interface...wherein the requesting step a) comprises the step of storing control message or data transfer information...into the temporary storage means for transmission in the network interface... | Defendant's systems allegedly perform this step when a processor requests a message transfer, which involves storing control or data transfer information in the network interface. | ¶9 | col. 11:24-30 |
| b) reading out the data portion of data message to be transferred from the local shared memory by the network interface at the source node; | Defendant's systems allegedly read the data portion of a message from local shared memory via the network interface. | ¶9 | col. 11:35-39 |
| c) packetizing the messages by the network interface...to produce a message packet and transfer the message packet to the destination node; | Defendant's systems allegedly packetize messages at the network interface and transfer the packets to a destination. | ¶9 | col. 11:40-43 |
| d) receiving an acknowledgement packet from the destination node by the network interface at the source node; | Defendant's systems allegedly receive an acknowledgement packet from the destination node at the source node's network interface. | ¶9 | col. 11:47-50 |
| e) enabling a transfer completing interrupt. | Defendant's systems allegedly enable a transfer completing interrupt upon successful message transfer. | ¶9 | col. 11:64-12:1 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that the "InfiniBand" standard inherently practices the claimed method. A central issue for the court may be whether the operations defined by the InfiniBand standard necessarily align with the specific limitations of claim 5. For example, does the InfiniBand protocol mandate a "transfer completing interrupt" as claimed, or does it permit other notification mechanisms (e.g., polling) that may fall outside the claim's scope?
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegations are pleaded at a high level of generality. A key technical question will be evidentiary: what proof can Plaintiff offer that Defendant’s specific implementation of InfiniBand technology meets every claim limitation? For instance, what evidence demonstrates that Defendant's systems utilize a "temporary storage means for transmission in the network interface" for storing initial transfer requests, as required by step (a)? The complaint does not identify the specific hardware or software components that allegedly perform this function.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "temporary storage means for transmission in the network interface" (Claim 5(a))
- Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the location and nature of the component that receives the initial transfer request from the processor. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused InfiniBand systems contain a structure that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether a standard network buffer qualifies, or if a more specific hardware configuration is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent body refers to this element as the "message send buffer 213" ('530 Patent, col. 11:27-28). Plaintiff may argue this supports a construction covering any buffer within the network interface that temporarily holds transfer-related information before packetization.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "message send buffer 213" as specifically comprising "a DMA data buffer and two message transfer buffers" ('530 Patent, col. 5:18-21). A defendant could argue this specific, multi-component structure limits the scope of the term, excluding systems with a more generic, unitary buffer.
The Term: "enabling a transfer completing interrupt" (Claim 5(e))
- Context and Importance: This term defines the final step of the claimed method, which notifies the processor of a successful transfer. The dispute may turn on whether the accused systems use a formal "interrupt" or a different type of status notification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that any signaling mechanism from the network interface that informs the processor of a completed transfer satisfies this limitation, regardless of its specific electronic implementation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s flowchart in Figure 7 shows this as a discrete final step (S110) that is conditional on the interrupt being in an "enable state" (S109) ('530 Patent, Fig. 7). A defendant could argue this requires a specific, state-dependent hardware interrupt signal, as opposed to a mere status flag that the processor could poll.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations of Defendant's knowledge of the patent and its intent to cause infringement. The prayer for relief includes a request for a finding of indirect infringement, but the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus exclusively on direct infringement (Compl. ¶8-9; Prayer for Relief ¶A).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint states that Plaintiff "reserves the right to request such a finding" of willfulness pending discovery (Compl. ¶10). This constitutes a placeholder allegation without a present factual basis for pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical mapping: can Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the standardized functions of the accused InfiniBand technology meet each specific limitation of claim 5, or will discovery show a material divergence between the accused systems' operations and the patent's narrowly-defined method steps, such as "enabling a transfer completing interrupt"?
- The outcome may also depend on claim construction: will the court construe the term "temporary storage means for transmission in the network interface" broadly to encompass any network interface buffer, or will it be limited to the specific multi-component buffer architecture disclosed in the patent's detailed description, thereby narrowing the set of potentially infringing technologies?
- A third question relates to the sufficiency of the pleadings: given the complaint's recitation of claim language without detailed factual support linking it to the accused technology, a threshold issue may be whether the allegations meet the plausibility standard required to proceed to discovery, particularly regarding how the InfiniBand standard is alleged to practice each claimed step.