DCT
1:17-cv-01543
Realtime Data LLC v. Cohesity Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (New York)
- Defendant: Cohesity Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat; Bayard, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01543, D. Del., 10/31/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s data storage and management products infringe three patents related to adaptive data compression systems and methods.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is data compression, a fundamental process for increasing the efficiency of data storage and transmission in modern computing and enterprise data systems.
- Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728, one of the patents-in-suit, was the subject of an inter partes review (IPR). The proceeding concluded with a certificate confirming the patentability of claims 1-10, 15, 20, and 24. This outcome may affect potential invalidity defenses against the asserted Claim 1 of this patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-12-11 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 |
| 1998-12-11 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,717,203 |
| 2000-10-03 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 |
| 2014-05-06 | U.S. Patent No. 8,717,203 Issues |
| 2015-06-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 Issues |
| 2016-11-14 | IPR against '728 Patent Filed (IPR2017-00179) |
| 2017-01-30 | IPR against '728 Patent Filed (IPR2017-00808) |
| 2017-05-30 | U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 Issues |
| 2017-06-28 | IPR against '728 Patent Filed (IPR2017-01690) |
| 2017-10-31 | 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 problem that different data compression techniques have varying levels of effectiveness depending on the content of the data being compressed; a single method is rarely optimal for all data types (U.S. 8,717,203 B2, col. 2:27-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that first analyzes a data block to identify its parameters or attributes. Based on this analysis, the system selects between two paths: if specific attributes are identified, it uses one or more "content dependent" encoders; if not, it uses a "single data compression encoder." This allows the system to apply a more specialized compression technique when the data's content is recognizable, and a general-purpose technique otherwise (’728 Patent, Abstract; US8717203B2, col. 6:49-67).
- Technical Importance: This adaptive, multi-path approach to compression aimed to improve overall storage and transmission efficiency by avoiding the performance penalty of applying a suboptimal compression algorithm to a given data block.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’728 Patent, col. 27:24-41; Compl. ¶9).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A system 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, where this analysis "excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor."
- The processor is configured to perform content dependent data compression if parameters are identified.
- The processor is configured to perform data compression with the single data compression encoder if parameters are not identified.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶11).
U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 - "Data feed acceleration"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the need to reduce latency and increase bandwidth efficiency for the transmission of broadcast data, such as financial market data feeds, over communication channels (’751 Patent, col. 1:50-2:6).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that accelerates data transmission by compressing a data block using a selected encoder to create a compressed block, where the compression process "utilizes a state machine." The system is designed such that the total time to compress and store the data is less than the time it would take to store the uncompressed data. The use of state machines, which can maintain context based on prior data, allows for more efficient compression of structured data feeds (’751 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-15).
- Technical Importance: This technology sought to decrease the end-to-end delay in delivering time-sensitive information, a critical factor in applications like high-frequency financial trading.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 25 (’751 Patent, col. 25:25-45; Compl. ¶25).
- Essential elements of Claim 25 include:
- A system with a data server implemented on processors and memory.
- The data server is configured to analyze the content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute, or value, where the analysis "excludes analysis based solely on reading a descriptor."
- The data server is configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter.
- The data server is configured to compress the data block with the selected encoder, where the compression "utilizes a state machine."
- The data server is configured to store the compressed data block.
- A performance limitation: "wherein the time of the compressing the data block and the storing the compressed data block is less than the time of storing the data block in uncompressed form."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶27).
U.S. Patent No. 8,717,203 - "Data compression systems and methods"
Technology Synopsis
This patent relates to the decompression side of an adaptive compression system. It describes a system that analyzes an incoming data packet to identify "recognizable data tokens" that indicate whether the data was encoded using content-dependent or content-independent compression. Based on the token, the system selects and applies the appropriate decompression decoder to reconstruct the original data block (’203 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts independent Claim 14 (’203 Patent, col. 27:52-28:28; Compl. ¶42).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that when the Accused Instrumentalities decompress data, such as to recover data from a backup, they infringe the ’203 Patent by utilizing multiple formats of compression and selecting the appropriate decompression method (Compl. ¶45-51).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies Cohesity's "DataProtect," "DataPlatform Virtual Edition," "DataPlatform Cloud Edition," and "Hyperconverged Nodes" hardware appliances (including models C2100, C2300, C2500, C3500, and others) as the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶8, 24, 41).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to be systems for enterprise data management that "consolidate backup data, files, objects, analytics and test/dev copies" (Compl. ¶5, 11, 19). A core technical function identified in the complaint is the use of data reduction technologies, specifically "global data deduplication across the scale-out platform" and further compression of the "unique deduplicated blocks" (Compl. ¶13-14). Deduplication is a technique that reduces storage needs by eliminating redundant copies of data, storing only one unique instance. The complaint alleges these features provide efficiency and scalability (Compl. ¶5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a processor; | The Accused Instrumentalities require a processor to operate, such as Intel Xeon CPUs. | ¶12 | col. 6:49-51 |
| one or more content dependent data compression encoders; | The Accused Instrumentalities perform block-level data deduplication, which is alleged to be a form of content dependent data compression. | ¶13 | col. 6:52-54 |
| and a single data compression encoder; | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to further "Compress the unique deduplicated blocks," which is identified as the single data compression encoder. | ¶14 | col. 6:61-63 |
| 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 Accused Instrumentalities analyze data blocks to determine if they are duplicative of previously stored data, an analysis alleged not to rely solely on a descriptor. | ¶15 | col. 6:55-60 |
| 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; | If a data block is identified as a duplicate (a parameter/attribute), the system performs deduplication (content dependent compression) by storing a pointer instead of the data block. | ¶16 | col. 6:52-54 |
| 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. | If a data block is not a duplicate (i.e., parameters are not identified), it is a unique block that is then further compressed. | ¶17 | col. 6:61-67 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether "data deduplication" legally constitutes "content dependent data compression" as contemplated by the patent. A central dispute may be whether the two-step process alleged—(1) identifying and linking duplicate blocks, then (2) compressing unique blocks—maps onto the claimed two-path system of choosing between a content-dependent encoder and a "single" general encoder.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question will be how the accused system analyzes data to identify duplicates. The infringement theory depends on this analysis not being "based solely on a descriptor." If the accused system uses data hashes to identify duplicate blocks, a dispute could arise as to whether a hash is a "descriptor" of the data block, which could potentially place the system outside the scope of the claim.
U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a data server implemented on one or more processors and one or more memory systems; | The Accused Instrumentalities require processors and include memory systems for functions like backup. | ¶29 | col. 7:59-62 |
| the data server configured to analyze content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute, or value...that excludes analysis based solely on reading a descriptor; | The system performs data deduplication, which analyzes data content to identify duplicate blocks. | ¶30 | col. 8:16-20 |
| the data server configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value; | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to select between deduplication and other compression methods. | ¶31 | col. 8:21-23 |
| the data server configured to compress data...wherein the compression utilizes a state machine; | The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the compression (deduplication and further compression) utilizes a state machine. | ¶32 | col. 8:1-5 |
| the data server configured to store the compressed data block; | The Accused Instrumentalities have storage devices for backups to store compressed data. | ¶33 | col. 8:31-33 |
| wherein the time of the compressing...and the storing...is less than the time of storing the data block in uncompressed form. | The complaint alleges that the data reduction features result in the combined compress-and-store operation being faster than storing the uncompressed data. | ¶34 | col. 8:34-38 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary point of contention will likely be the "state machine" limitation. The complaint provides no specific facts explaining how the accused deduplication or compression algorithms utilize a state machine in the manner claimed by the patent. This will likely require expert testimony and evidence beyond the pleadings.
- Evidentiary Questions: The claim includes a performance-based limitation requiring the compress-and-store operation to be faster than an uncompressed store. This element is not a structural feature but a performance outcome, which will necessitate factual evidence, such as benchmark testing, to prove or disprove infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"content dependent data compression encoders" (’728 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory, which equates it with the accused products' data deduplication functionality (Compl. ¶13). The viability of the infringement case for the '728 and '203 patents may depend on whether data deduplication, which replaces a redundant data block with a pointer, falls within the legal construction of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the patent family describes analyzing a data stream to identify a "data type," which is a broad concept that could arguably include the "duplicative" status of a data block (U.S. 8,717,203 B2, Abstract). This may support an interpretation where any compression technique that adapts based on analyzing data content is "content dependent."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of content-dependent compression based on identifying specific data formats like "ASCII, binary, or unicode" (U.S. 8,717,203 B2, col. 3:34-36). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to encoders that analyze and adapt to the underlying format or structure of the data, not merely its identity as a duplicate of another block.
"excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor" (’728 Patent, Claim 1; ’751 Patent, Claim 25)
- Context and Importance: This negative limitation is critical, as it distinguishes the patented invention from simpler methods that might switch compressors based on metadata (e.g., a file extension). The complaint alleges the accused analysis is not based solely on a descriptor (Compl. ¶15, 30). Practitioners may focus on this term because modern deduplication systems typically use cryptographic hashes to identify duplicate blocks; the case could turn on whether such a hash is construed as a "descriptor."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Plaintiff's likely view): The patent family specification contrasts its content analysis with systems that rely on "file type descriptors . . . appended to file names" (U.S. 8,717,203 B2, col. 2:65-67). This could support a narrow construction of "descriptor" as limited to explicit metadata external to the data content itself.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Defendant's likely view): A defendant may argue that a "descriptor" is any piece of information that represents or indicates an attribute of the data block. Under this view, a hash calculated from the block's content could be considered a "descriptor," potentially placing the accused system's analysis outside the claim scope.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents. The basis for inducement is that Cohesity's "user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and training materials" allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶11, 27, 44).
Willful Infringement
The complaint does not explicitly plead willfulness. However, it alleges that Cohesity had knowledge of the patents "since at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶10, 26, 43). The prayer for relief seeks a finding of an "exceptional case" and an award of attorneys' fees, which are remedies often associated with findings of willful infringement or litigation misconduct (Compl. p. 24, ¶e).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused products' architecture—which the complaint frames as using data deduplication followed by further compression—maps onto the patents' claimed two-path system of selecting between "content dependent" and "single" or "content independent" encoders? The construction of "content dependent data compression" and whether it reads on deduplication will be central.
- A second key issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: for the '751 patent, which contains performance and operational limitations, can Plaintiff provide extrinsic evidence to substantiate its conclusory allegations that the accused systems' compression "utilizes a state machine" and that its compress-and-store operation is quantifiably faster than an uncompressed store operation, as required by the claim language?
- A final dispositive question will concern the scope of a negative limitation: how will the court construe the phrase "excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor"? The outcome may depend on whether the analysis method used by the accused deduplication systems, which likely involves data hashing, is found to be analysis of "content" itself or analysis based on a "descriptor" derived from that content.