DCT
1:17-cv-00925
Realtime Data LLC v. Spectra Logic Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (New York)
- Defendant: CommVault Systems, Inc. (Delaware); Spectra Logic Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.; Russ, August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00925, D. Del., 07/10/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as both Defendants are incorporated in the state of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ joint data storage and management solutions, which combine CommVault’s software with Spectra Logic’s hardware, infringe four patents related to data compression and accelerated data storage and retrieval.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for making data storage more efficient and faster, primarily through adaptive data compression and deduplication, which are critical functions in enterprise data backup and archiving systems.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants have had knowledge of the asserted patents since at least the filing of an Original Complaint on February 27, 2017, which may form the basis for allegations of post-suit willful infringement. Plaintiff also notes that it has licensed patents in its portfolio to other major technology companies.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-03-11 | Priority Date for ’530, ’728, and ’908 Patents |
| 2000-10-03 | Priority Date for ’204 Patent |
| 2008-08-19 | U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 Issues |
| 2014-05-06 | U.S. Patent No. 8,717,204 Issues |
| 2015-06-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 Issues |
| 2015-08-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 Issues |
| 2017-02-27 | Original Complaint Filing Date (establishes alleged knowledge) |
| 2017-07-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 - "Data compression systems and methods"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the significant performance gap between fast computer components (like CPUs and data buses) and slower mass storage devices (like magnetic disk drives), which creates a bottleneck in data storage and retrieval operations (’530 Patent, col. 2:20-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that intelligently selects between different types of compression encoders for a given block of data. The system analyzes the data block's content to identify certain parameters or attributes; if found, it uses one or more "content dependent" encoders, but if not, it uses a "single data compression encoder." (’728 Patent, Abstract). This allows the system to apply a more specialized compression technique when appropriate, while reverting to a general-purpose one otherwise, thereby optimizing compression efficiency.
- Technical Importance: This adaptive approach allows a data storage system to apply the most effective compression tool for a given data block, such as using deduplication for redundant backup data while using a different algorithm for unique data, thereby improving overall storage efficiency and speed.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶12).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A system for compressing data, comprising a processor, one or more content dependent data compression encoders, and a single data compression encoder.
- The processor is configured to analyze data within a data block to identify parameters or attributes, excluding analysis based solely on a descriptor.
- If parameters are identified, the processor performs content dependent data compression.
- If no parameters are identified, the processor performs data compression with the single data compression encoder.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶22).
U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 - "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem that memory storage devices "severely limit the performance" of computer systems because their read/write data rates are profoundly slower than the input/output capabilities of modern data buses (’530 Patent, col. 2:20-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "data accelerator" system that compresses an incoming data stream at a rate faster than a target memory device can store the data in its original, uncompressed form (’530 Patent, Abstract). The system is designed to handle a data stream containing different types of data by compressing a first data block with a first compression technique and a second data block with a different, second technique, and then storing a "descriptor" that indicates which technique was used for later decompression (’530 Patent, col. 18:25-42). This method effectively increases the storage bandwidth of the memory device.
- Technical Importance: This "acceleration" allows systems to use slower, more cost-effective storage media while still keeping pace with high-speed data streams, bridging the performance gap between system buses and storage hardware.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A system comprising a memory device and a data accelerator coupled to the memory device.
- A data stream is received, containing a first and a second data block.
- The data stream is compressed by compressing the first block with a first compression technique and the second block with a second, different technique.
- The compressed stream is stored on the memory device, with the compression and storage occurring faster than storing the uncompressed stream.
- A first data descriptor is stored on the memory device, indicating the first compression technique to enable decompression.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶53).
U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 - "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval"
Technology Synopsis
Belonging to the same family as the ’530 Patent, this patent addresses the bottleneck caused by slow data storage devices. The claimed solution is a system with a memory device and a data accelerator that compresses different data blocks using different compression techniques, and where the "compression and storage occurs faster than" the uncompressed data could be stored (Compl. ¶75). Asserted Claim 1 is similar to that of the ’530 Patent but does not require the storage of a data descriptor.
Asserted Claims
Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶75).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the joint solution’s use of both "deduplication and compression" constitutes the use of two different compression techniques to accelerate data storage onto the Verde disk systems (Compl. ¶79, ¶52).
U.S. Patent No. 8,717,204 - "Methods for encoding and decoding data"
Technology Synopsis
This patent discloses a method for processing and transmitting data efficiently. The method involves recognizing a characteristic of the data, selecting an appropriate encoder, and using a state machine to compress the data to a ratio of over 4:1 (Compl. ¶97). A key aspect is that the combined time for compressing and transmitting the data is less than the time it would take to transmit the data in uncompressed form, thereby reducing latency.
Asserted Claims
Independent method Claim 12 (Compl. ¶97).
Accused Features
The accused features are the data processing methods in the joint solution that recognize data characteristics (e.g., for deduplication), select an encoder, and compress the data at a high ratio to enable faster point-to-point transmission to a client (Compl. ¶¶ 100-105). The complaint points to client-side compression reducing network load as an infringing feature (Compl. ¶105, ¶68).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names a "Joint Accused Instrumentality" that combines products from both defendants. This includes Spectra Logic's Spectra nTier Verde disk storage hardware and CommVault's Simpana software (versions 8 and later), CommVault Windows CommServe® Server, and/or CommVault Media Agent Servers (Compl. ¶11). The products of each company are also accused individually (Compl. ¶25, ¶41).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused instrumentality is a data management platform providing backup, archiving, and data protection services (Compl. ¶4). Its relevant technical functions include "source-based deduplication" and standard "compression" (Compl. ¶17, ¶18). Deduplication identifies and eliminates redundant blocks of data before storage, while compression uses algorithms to reduce the size of the remaining data (Compl. ¶17, ¶19). The complaint provides a data flow diagram illustrating how source data is processed by CommVault Media Agents before being stored on Spectra Logic disk targets (Compl. p. 30, Figure 2). Plaintiff alleges this combination of functionalities lowers storage costs and improves backup performance (Compl. ¶4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
9,054,728 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a system for compressing data, comprising; a processor; | The accused software must run on hardware containing a processor. | ¶16 | col. 29:4 |
| one or more content dependent data compression encoders; | The accused instrumentality performs source-based deduplication, which is alleged to be a form of content-dependent compression. | ¶17 | col. 29:5 |
| and a single data compression encoder; | The accused instrumentality features a standard compression option. | ¶18 | col. 29:6 |
| wherein the processor is configured: to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes of the data wherein the analyzing...excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor... | The system analyzes data to determine if it is duplicative of previously stored data, an analysis alleged to be based on content rather than just a descriptor. | ¶19 | col. 29:7-16 |
| to perform content dependent data compression with the one or more content dependent data compression encoders if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are identified; | When data is identified as duplicative, the system performs deduplication by not storing the redundant data block. | ¶20 | col. 29:22-26 |
| and to perform data compression with the single data compression encoder, if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are not identified. | When data is not identified for deduplication, the system applies standard compression. | ¶21 | col. 29:27-32 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether "source-based deduplication" as implemented in the accused products falls within the scope of a "content dependent data compression encoder" as that term is used in the patent. A defendant may argue that deduplication is a distinct data reduction technique, not an "encoder."
- Technical Questions: The infringement case may turn on how the accused system analyzes data for deduplication. The claim requires analysis that "excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor." The evidence will need to show whether the accused products' analysis goes beyond descriptors to examine actual data content in a way that meets this negative limitation.
7,415,530 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a system comprising: a memory device; and a data accelerator, wherein said data accelerator is coupled to said memory device, | The system includes Spectra Logic's Verde disk systems ("memory device") and CommVault software and servers ("data accelerator"). | ¶45 | col. 18:25-28 |
| a data stream is received by said data accelerator... said data stream includes a first data block and a second data block, | The CommVault Media Agent Servers receive an incoming stream of data for backup, which consists of multiple data blocks. | ¶46, ¶47 | col. 18:28-31 |
| said data stream is compressed by said data accelerator to provide a compressed data stream by compressing said first data block with a first compression technique and said second data block with a second compression technique, said first and second compression techniques are different, | The system applies both "deduplication" (first technique) and standard "compression" (second technique), which are alleged to be different from each other. | ¶48, ¶49 | col. 18:31-36 |
| said compressed data stream is stored on said memory device, | The deduplicated and compressed data is written to the nTier Verde disk systems. | ¶50 | col. 18:36-37 |
| said compression and storage occurs faster than said data stream is able to be stored on said memory device in said received form, | Plaintiff alleges that the use of deduplication and compression provides "fast, efficient backups" and improves performance speeds by reducing the data set size. | ¶51 | col. 18:37-40 |
| a first data descriptor is stored on said memory device indicative of said first compression technique, and said first descriptor is utilized to decompress the portion of said compressed data stream associated with said first data block. | The complaint alleges the system "would evidently store a first data descriptor" such as a checksum, fingerprint, or metadata to manage the deduplicated data. | ¶52 | col. 18:40-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The definition of "data accelerator" will be critical. A defendant may argue that its general-purpose software and servers do not meet the specific structural and functional definition of the "accelerator" described in the ’530 Patent specification.
- Evidentiary Questions: The "occurs faster than" limitation is a performance requirement that will likely require technical testing and evidence to prove. The complaint's reliance on marketing statements about "fast, efficient backups" may not be sufficient to establish literal infringement. Further, the allegation for the "data descriptor" element is based on inference ("evidently stores," Compl. ¶52), raising the question of what direct evidence Plaintiff can provide to meet this limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "content dependent data compression encoders" (’728 Patent)
Context and Importance: Plaintiff's infringement theory for the ’728 Patent depends on this term being construed to encompass the accused "source-based deduplication" feature. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant will likely argue that deduplication is a data-reduction or data-elimination technique, distinct from the common technical meaning of an "encoder," which transforms a data stream into a different representation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not cite intrinsic evidence from the patent defining this term. A party arguing for a broader view might point to general statements in the patent family about using various compression techniques to reduce data volume, suggesting the term should not be limited to specific algorithmic transformations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower view may note that the specification of the parent ’530 patent lists traditional compression techniques and does not explicitly mention deduplication, suggesting the inventors did not contemplate it as an "encoder" (’530 Patent, col. 5:29-34).
The Term: "data accelerator" (’530 Patent)
Context and Importance: This term appears to be defined by the patentee and is central to the claimed system. The infringement dispute for the ’530 and ’908 patents will likely turn on whether the combination of CommVault software and server hardware meets the patent's definition of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader scope may focus on the functional aspects, highlighting language that a data accelerator's purpose is to "provide an effective increase of the data storage and retrieval bandwidth of a memory storage device" (’530 Patent, col. 2:61-63), a function the accused products allegedly perform.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope could point to the structural details in the patent's abstract, which describes the accelerator as including "one or a plurality of high speed data compression encoders that are configured to... compress data at a rate equivalent to or faster than the transmission rate of an input data stream" (’530 Patent, Abstract). They might also point to Figure 1, which depicts the accelerator as a distinct hardware or software module situated between the input stream and the storage device.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement against both defendants for all four patents. The allegations are based on Defendants marketing the accused products and providing "user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and training materials to actively induce the users" to enable and use the accused compression and deduplication features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14, ¶28, ¶44, ¶60, ¶78, ¶88, ¶99, ¶112).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that both Defendants have had knowledge of the patents-in-suit and their infringement since at least February 27, 2017, the filing date of a prior "Original Complaint" (Compl. ¶13, ¶27, ¶43, ¶59, ¶77, ¶98, ¶111). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge forms a basis for post-suit willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: can data "deduplication," a technique for eliminating redundant data blocks, be construed as a "content dependent data compression encoder" as required by the ’728 patent? Similarly, does the accused combination of software and server hardware meet the specific structural and functional definition of a "data accelerator" as described in the ’530 and ’908 patents?
- A second central issue will be one of evidentiary proof of performance: can the plaintiff demonstrate through technical evidence that the accused products' compression and storage process "occurs faster than" an uncompressed data stream could be stored, a critical functional limitation of the ’530 and ’908 patents? The resolution of this question may depend on the specific metrics and conditions under which performance is measured.
- A third question will be one of functional operation: for the ’728 patent, does the accused products' analysis of data for deduplication purposes operate on the data's content in a manner that satisfies the negative limitation of "exclud[ing] analyzing based solely on a descriptor"? This may require a detailed examination of the accused deduplication algorithms.