DCT
1:17-cv-01676
Realtime Data LLC v. Reduxio Systems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (New York)
- Defendant: Reduxio Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat; Bayard, PA.
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01676, D. Del., 11/20/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has transacted business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s data storage products and services infringe four U.S. patents related to data compression, data feed acceleration, and accelerated data storage.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is data compression, a fundamental process for increasing the efficiency of data storage and network transmission by reducing the number of bits required to represent data.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 were confirmed as patentable in a Final Written Decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 31, 2017, suggesting the patent survived an inter partes review (IPR) validity challenge shortly before the complaint was filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-03-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 Priority Date |
| 1998-12-11 | U.S. Patent No. 8,717,203 Priority Date |
| 1998-12-11 | U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 Priority Date |
| 1999-03-11 | U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 Priority Date |
| 2014-05-06 | U.S. Patent No. 8,717,203 Issued |
| 2015-06-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 Issued |
| 2015-08-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 Issued |
| 2017-05-30 | U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 Issued |
| 2017-10-31 | '908 Patent Claims Confirmed Patentable by PTAB |
| 2017-11-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 - Data compression systems and methods (Issued June 9, 2015)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the technical challenge that different data compression techniques are optimal for different types of data, and that conventional methods relying on file-type descriptors to select a compression method are often inadequate or impractical (’203 Patent, col. 1:25-2:67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system that analyzes the actual content of a data block to identify inherent parameters or attributes. Based on this analysis, the system selects between two types of compression: a "content dependent" compression if specific attributes are found, and a "single" (or content-independent) compression if they are not (’728 Patent, Abstract; ’203 Patent, Fig. 13A). This allows for dynamic, optimized compression without relying on external file descriptors (’203 Patent, col. 1:50-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach enables more efficient, adaptive data compression in systems that handle heterogeneous data streams where the data type is not known in advance.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶9).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A processor;
- One or more content dependent data compression encoders;
- A single data compression encoder;
- Wherein the processor is configured to:
- analyze data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes, excluding analysis based solely on a descriptor;
- perform content dependent data compression with the content dependent encoders if parameters are identified; and
- perform data compression with the single encoder if parameters are not identified.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶18).
U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 - Data feed acceleration (Issued May 30, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need to accelerate data transmission and storage, particularly in latency-sensitive applications like financial data feeds, where the time taken to store uncompressed data can be a bottleneck (’751 Patent, col. 1:17-21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a data server that accelerates data handling by ensuring that the combined time to compress a data block and store the compressed version is less than the time it would take to simply store the original, uncompressed block (’751 Patent, Abstract). The system analyzes the data block's content to select an appropriate encoder and utilizes a "state machine" for the compression process, enabling a net time savings and thus "accelerating" the overall data feed (’751 Patent, col. 2:20-30).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a framework for increasing the effective throughput of storage systems by integrating compression not just as a space-saving tool, but as a time-saving one.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claim 25 is asserted (Compl. ¶25).
- The essential elements of Claim 25 are:
- A data server implemented on one or more processors and memory systems;
- The data server is configured to:
- analyze content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute, or value, excluding analysis based solely on a descriptor;
- select an encoder associated with the identified parameter;
- compress the data block with the selected encoder, wherein the compression utilizes a state machine; and
- store the compressed data block;
- Wherein the time of compressing and storing the compressed block is less than the time of storing the uncompressed block.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶35).
U.S. Patent No. 8,717,203 - Data compression systems and methods
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,717,203, "Data compression systems and methods," issued May 6, 2014 (Compl. ¶40).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’728 Patent, describes a decompression system. It is configured to receive a data packet containing compressed data blocks and analyze "recognizable data tokens" within the packet to determine whether to apply content-dependent or content-independent decompression techniques to restore the original data (Compl. ¶42).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 14 is asserted (Compl. ¶42).
- Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to form a system for decompressing data that utilizes multiple compression formats (e.g., deduplication and general compression) and uses control information in data packet headers to determine which decompression format to apply when recovering data from backup (Compl. ¶¶45-49).
U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 - System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval," issued August 25, 2015 (Compl. ¶57).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for accelerated data storage that uses a "data accelerator" to compress different data blocks with different compression techniques. A key feature is that the combined act of compressing and storing the data occurs faster than storing the data in its original, uncompressed form, thereby increasing storage throughput (Compl. ¶59).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶62).
- Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to include a data accelerator that uses two different compression techniques (identified as deduplication and general compression) to compress data blocks, and that this compression and storage process occurs faster than storing the uncompressed data (Compl. ¶¶63-64).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Reduxio's "NoDup, BackDating, NoRestore, NoMigrate, and Tier-X products and services, and the system hardware on which they operate" (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are "flash storage solutions" that perform data reduction by combining "both deduplication and compression...for maximum savings for practically any data" (Compl. ¶¶11, 12). The core accused functionality is analyzing incoming data blocks to perform block-level deduplication (storing only one copy of duplicate blocks) and general data compression "on the fly" (Compl. ¶¶13-14). This is alleged to reduce the amount of data stored and accelerate storage operations (Compl. ¶34).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'728 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a processor; | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to include Intel Xeon processors. | ¶12 | col. 13:20-22 |
| one or more content dependent data compression encoders; | The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly perform block-level deduplication, which the complaint asserts is a form of content dependent data compression. | ¶13 | col. 6:1-15 |
| and a single data compression encoder; | The Accused Instrumentalities are alleged to perform general data compression "on the fly" in addition to deduplication. | ¶14 | col. 1:50-54 |
| 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 complaint alleges the products analyze data blocks to determine if they are duplicative of previously stored data, an analysis based on content, not a descriptor. | ¶15 | col. 1:55-59 |
| 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; | It is alleged that if a data block is identified as a duplicate, the system performs deduplication (the alleged content dependent compression). | ¶16 | col. 1:59-62 |
| 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. | It is alleged that the products perform general data compression on the data. The complaint implies this is done when the data is not identified as duplicative, though it is not explicitly stated. | ¶17 | col. 1:62-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be one of claim scope: does the term "content dependent data compression encoder" as used in the patent, which provides examples based on analyzing data types like ASCII or binary, read on the function of "deduplication," which analyzes data for redundancy?
- Technical Questions: The claim requires a specific logic flow (analyze, then choose between content-dependent or single compression). A key technical question is whether the Accused Instrumentalities actually perform this sequential decision-making, or if deduplication and compression are applied in a different manner, such as in parallel or as a single, integrated process.
'751 Patent 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 products are alleged to be data servers with Intel Xeon processors and flash memory/storage systems. | ¶29 | col. 1:5-8 |
| 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 complaint alleges the data server analyzes data blocks to identify duplicates for deduplication purposes. | ¶30 | col. 2:20-24 |
| the data server configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value; | The complaint alleges the system selects between "deduplication or other compression." | ¶31 | col. 2:24-26 |
| the data server configured to compress data in the data block with the selected encoder to produce a compressed data block, wherein the compression utilizes a state machine; | The complaint alleges data is "deduped and compressed on the fly," but provides no specific factual support for the use of a "state machine." | ¶32 | col. 2:26-28 |
| and the data server configured to store the compressed data block; | The system is alleged to have storage media, such as flash storage, for storing the compressed data blocks. | ¶33 | col. 2:28-30 |
| 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 alleges this is true "due to the data reduction and acceleration features" but provides no specific performance data. | ¶34 | col. 2:30-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide factual support for how the accused products meet the "state machine" limitation, which may become a key point of dispute regarding the actual operation of the accused systems.
- Evidentiary Questions: The claim includes a performance-based limitation ("the time of...compressing...and storing...is less than..."). This raises the evidentiary question of whether Plaintiff can demonstrate through testing or internal documents that the accused systems meet this requirement under infringement scenarios.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’728 Patent
- The Term: "content dependent data compression"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff’s infringement theory for the '728 Patent appears to equate this term with the accused products' "deduplication" feature. The viability of this theory may depend entirely on whether the court construes this term broadly enough to cover redundancy analysis, as opposed to only the data-type analysis described in the patent's specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims a system that "analyze[s] data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes of the data" (’728 Patent, Claim 1). This broad language could support an interpretation where identifying any attribute based on content, including redundancy, qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the parent '203 patent provides examples of content-dependent analysis focused on identifying "data types" such as "ASCII, binary, or unicode" (’203 Patent, col. 6:1-15). This could support a narrower construction limited to analysis of data format or type, rather than mere duplication of bit patterns.
For the ’751 Patent
- The Term: "state machine"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint offers no specific facts explaining how the accused products' compression process "utilizes a state machine" (Compl. ¶32). The definition of this term will be critical, as a narrow construction requiring a specific hardware or software architecture could present a significant hurdle for the plaintiff's infringement case.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: If the term is not explicitly defined in the patent, Plaintiff may argue for its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass any process that progresses through a sequence of states, potentially broadening the scope to cover various software algorithms.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification may describe specific embodiments of compression systems that use particular state-based logic or hardware structures (’751 Patent, Fig. 2). Defendant may argue that these embodiments define the scope of "state machine" as used in the claims, limiting it to the specific implementations disclosed.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on Defendant’s purported affirmative acts of providing user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and training that allegedly instruct and encourage end-users to use the accused products in their "normal and customary way," which Plaintiff contends constitutes direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶11, 27, 44, 62).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of each patent-in-suit "since at least the filing of this Complaint or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶¶10, 26, 43, 61). This allegation appears to be aimed at establishing a basis for post-filing willful infringement and does not assert pre-suit knowledge of the patents.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can patent terms such as "content dependent data compression," which are described in the specification in the context of analyzing data types (e.g., ASCII text), be construed broadly enough to cover the accused products' function of "deduplication," which analyzes data for redundancy? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be pivotal for several of the asserted patents.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical and performance proof: the complaint makes specific allegations about the internal architecture (e.g., use of a "state machine") and performance (e.g., compression and storage being faster than storage alone) of the accused products. The case may turn on what factual evidence, beyond marketing materials, is produced to substantiate these claims about how the accused systems actually operate and perform.
- A third central question will concern patent validity and estoppel: the complaint highlights that claims of the ’908 Patent survived an IPR challenge. This raises the question of what invalidity arguments, if any, the defendant can raise against that patent without being barred by statutory estoppel, and whether the PTAB’s prior decision will influence the court’s view of the patent’s strength.