DCT
1:13-cv-02073
Parallel Networks Licensing LLC v. Microsoft Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Microsoft Corporation (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McKool Smith, PC; Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:13-cv-02073, D. Del., 12/20/2013
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's business in Delaware and is further supported by a prior declaratory judgment action filed by Microsoft against Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest on September 30, 2008, involving the same patents in the same district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s server software, including Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS), infringes patents related to systems and methods for managing dynamic web page generation requests by offloading tasks to improve performance.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses performance bottlenecks in web servers by using a partitioned architecture to distribute incoming requests for dynamic content across a farm of back-end servers for processing and load balancing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that both asserted patents previously survived multiple requests for ex parte reexamination, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issuing certificates confirming the patentability of amended claims in 2012. It also alleges a litigation history between the parties, including the 2008 declaratory judgment action filed by Microsoft.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1996-04-23 | Priority Date ('554 & '335 Patents) |
| 1999-04-13 | U.S. Patent No. 5,894,554 Issued |
| 2002-07-02 | U.S. Patent No. 6,415,335 Issued |
| 2008-09-30 | Microsoft files declaratory judgment action on Asserted Patents |
| 2012-07-17 | '335 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued |
| 2012-07-24 | '554 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued |
| 2012-09-11 | '335 Patent Certificate of Correction Issued |
| 2012-09-14 | Plaintiff provides notice of infringement to Microsoft |
| 2012-10-02 | '554 Patent Certificate of Correction Issued |
| 2013-12-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,894,554 - SYSTEM FOR MANAGING DYNAMIC WEB PAGE GENERATION REQUESTS BY INTERCEPTING REQUEST AT WEB SERVER AND ROUTING TO PAGE SERVER THEREBY RELEASING WEB SERVER TO PROCESS OTHER REQUESTS, Issued April 13, 1999
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in prior art web server architecture where a single server machine processing numerous simultaneous requests for dynamic web pages can "slow down significantly and become highly inefficient" ('554 Patent, col. 4:48-51). This creates a performance bottleneck that limits a website's ability to scale.
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "partitioned architecture" to solve this problem ('554 Patent, col. 4:52). An "interceptor" module at the primary web server captures an incoming request and passes it to a "dispatcher." The dispatcher, which can reside on a separate machine, intelligently routes the request to one of several available "page servers." This process releases the primary web server to immediately handle other incoming client requests while the page server generates the dynamic content, often by retrieving data from various data sources ('554 Patent, col. 4:55-col. 5:20; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This architecture provides a foundational method for load balancing and scaling web applications to handle high traffic volumes, which was a critical challenge during the rapid growth of the commercial internet ('554 Patent, col. 6:15-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the '554 Patent (Compl. ¶13). Following reexamination, a likely asserted independent claim is Claim 12.
- Independent Claim 12 (Method):
- A method for managing a dynamic web page generation request to a web server, comprising:
- "routing" the request from the web server to a "selected page server", which involves "intercepting" the request at the web server, routing it to a "dispatcher", and "dispatching" it to the selected page server, thereby "releasing" the web server to process other requests;
- "processing" the request at the page server while the web server "concurrently" processes other requests;
- "dynamically generating a Web page" by the page server, with data retrieved from data sources; and
- wherein the dispatching step includes "examining" the request, "selecting" a page server from a plurality of available servers based on "examining dynamic information regarding a load" associated with each, and sending the request to the selected server.
U.S. Patent No. 6,415,335 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING DYNAMIC WEB PAGE GENERATION REQUESTS, Issued July 2, 2002
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a division of the application that led to the '554 Patent, the '335 Patent addresses the same technical problem: the inefficiency and lack of scalability in web server architectures where a single machine must handle all processing for dynamic content requests ('335 Patent, col. 4:38-51).
- The Patented Solution: The '335 Patent discloses a similar partitioned architecture where requests are offloaded from a primary web server to a farm of page servers. The key distinction lies in the selection criteria. A page server is selected from a plurality of servers "based on dynamic information maintained for each" server, which allows the system to route the request to an appropriate and available back-end processor ('335 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:50-59). This releases the front-end web server to continue processing other requests.
- Technical Importance: This method enhances web server scalability and reliability by providing a flexible framework for distributing processing load, enabling a website to serve more users simultaneously without performance degradation ('335 Patent, col. 6:15-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the '335 Patent (Compl. ¶31). Following reexamination, a likely asserted independent claim is Claim 30.
- Independent Claim 30 (Method):
- A method for managing a dynamic web page generation request to a web server, comprising:
- "routing" a request from a web server to a "selected one of a plurality of page servers", which involves "intercepting" the request and "selecting" the page server based on "dynamic information maintained for each" of the page servers, thereby "releasing" the web server;
- "processing" the request at the selected page server while the web server "concurrently" processes other requests; and
- "dynamically generating a Web page" at the selected page server with data retrieved from one or more data sources.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) (versions 7.0 and later), including its features for Application Request Routing (ARR) and/or Component Load Balancing and Network Load Balancing (NLB), particularly when used with Microsoft's SQL Server Reporting Services (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that these Microsoft products are used for "management of dynamic Web page generation requests" (Compl. ¶11). The combination of IIS with ARR and NLB provides functionality for receiving incoming web requests and distributing them across multiple back-end servers. This load-balancing and request-routing capability is central to hosting scalable web applications (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 21). The complaint asserts that Microsoft has generated significant revenue from these products (Compl. ¶18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement contentions mapping specific product functionality to claim limitations. The following tables summarize the infringement theory based on the general allegations in the complaint.
'554 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| routing said request from said Web server to a selected page server...wherein said routing step further includes the steps of intercepting said request at said Web server, routing said request...to a dispatcher... | The combination of Microsoft IIS with the ARR feature allegedly intercepts and routes incoming web requests to back-end application servers. | ¶¶10, 13, 21 | col. 9:1-5 |
| said selected page server receiving said request and releasing said Web server to process other requests... | After forwarding a request, the front-end IIS server is released to accept new connections, freeing its resources. | ¶¶10, 20 | col. 9:1-2 |
| processing said request...by said selected page server while said Web server concurrently processes said other requests | Back-end servers running applications like SQL Server Reporting Services process the request, while the front-end IIS server handles other traffic. | ¶¶10, 20 | col. 9:6-9 |
| wherein said selection is based on examining dynamic information regarding a load associated with each of said plurality of page servers | Microsoft's NLB and ARR features allegedly use load-balancing algorithms to select a back-end server based on its load or availability. | ¶¶10, 21 | CoC p. 2 of 6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Microsoft's software architecture, which integrates features like ARR as a module within IIS, can be mapped onto the patent's arguably more delineated structure of a "web server," "interceptor," and "dispatcher." The definition of "dispatcher" will likely be a key issue.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify which of Microsoft's various load-balancing algorithms (e.g., round robin, server response time) allegedly reads on the claim limitation requiring selection based on "dynamic information regarding a load." The evidence required to prove this functional correspondence will be critical.
'335 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 30) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| routing a request from a Web server to a selected one of a plurality of page servers...releasing said Web server... | Microsoft IIS allegedly routes requests to one of multiple back-end servers, releasing the front-end server to process other requests. | ¶¶31, 38, 39 | CoC p. 1 of 8 |
| wherein said routing step further includes the steps of: intercepting said request at said Web server... | The IIS with ARR module allegedly intercepts incoming HTTP requests at the primary web server. | ¶¶31, 39 | CoC p. 1 of 8 |
| and selecting said selected page server...based on dynamic information maintained for each of said plurality of page servers... | Microsoft's ARR and NLB features are alleged to select a back-end server based on various metrics and rules, which Plaintiff may argue constitutes "dynamic information." | ¶¶31, 39 | CoC p. 1 of 8 |
| processing said request...by said selected page server while said Web server concurrently processes said other requests | Back-end application servers process the offloaded request while the front-end IIS server remains available to handle new traffic. | ¶¶31, 38 | CoC p. 1 of 8 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The term "dynamic information" in the '335 Patent appears broader than the "load" limitation in the '554 Patent. A key dispute will be how broadly this term is construed and whether it covers static or rule-based routing methods in addition to real-time performance metrics.
- Technical Questions: What specific "dynamic information" does the accused IIS/ARR system use for selection, and does it align with the patent's teachings? For example, does a pre-configured health check or a simple round-robin assignment qualify as the "dynamic information" contemplated by the patent?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "dispatcher" ('554 Patent, Claim 12)
Context and Importance
- This term is a core architectural component of the '554 Patent's claimed system. The infringement analysis may turn on whether Microsoft's ARR module, which is integrated into the IIS web server, can be considered a "dispatcher."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the dispatcher's function as receiving a request from the interceptor and sending it to an appropriate page server ('554 Patent, col. 4:60-62). A party could argue any software component that performs this routing function qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 of the patent depicts the "Dispatcher" as a distinct architectural block, separate from the "Web Server" and its "Interceptor" ('554 Patent, Fig. 4). A party could argue this implies a physically or logically separate component, not an integrated module.
The Term: "dynamic information regarding a load" ('554 Patent, Claim 12)
Context and Importance
- This limitation defines the logic for the load-balancing decision. The case may depend on whether Microsoft's products perform a selection based on "load" as construed from the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's discussion of "load-balancing" and improving a web site's performance suggests "load" could encompass any metric reflecting a server's current work level, such as active connections or CPU utilization ('554 Patent, col. 8:22-25).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires examining "dynamic information regarding a load," suggesting a specific type of real-time performance metric. A party might argue that routing algorithms not directly tied to a measured, real-time load, such as simple round-robin, do not meet this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Microsoft induces infringement by providing instructional materials, technical documentation, and downloads on its public websites (e.g., iis.net, technet.microsoft.com) that instruct and encourage customers to configure and use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 33). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the accused functionality is a material part of the invention and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 19-25, 37-43).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Microsoft's infringement has been willful based on specific knowledge of the Asserted Patents dating to at least October 2008. The alleged knowledge stems from being named in a third-party complaint for indemnification, Microsoft's own subsequent filing of a declaratory judgment action in November 2008, and a direct notice letter from Plaintiff on September 14, 2012 (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 29, 35, 47).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of architectural mapping: can the functionality of Microsoft's software, where features like Application Request Routing are integrated as modules within the IIS web server, be read onto the patents' more delineated architecture of a "web server," an "interceptor," and a "dispatcher"? The case may hinge on whether these terms are construed as functional roles or distinct structural components.
- A second critical question will be one of claim scope, particularly concerning the load-balancing logic. The dispute will likely focus on whether the various routing algorithms offered in Microsoft's products meet the '554 Patent's requirement for selection based on "load," and the '335 Patent's arguably broader criterion of selection based on "dynamic information."
- Finally, given the detailed allegations of pre-suit knowledge dating back several years, a key evidentiary question will be one of willfulness: if infringement is found, did Microsoft act with objective recklessness despite its alleged long-standing awareness of the patents and the specific infringement allegations?