DCT
1:18-cv-01163
Realtime Data LLC v. Hedvig Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (New York)
- Defendant: Hedvig, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.; Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01163, D. Del., 08/03/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation, has transacted business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of direct and indirect infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Hedvig Distributed Storage Platform infringes four patents related to systems and methods for data compression and accelerated data storage.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for efficiently compressing data by analyzing its content and selecting appropriate compression techniques to increase the speed and reduce the cost of data storage and retrieval.
- 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, an event that may inform claim construction and validity analyses for that patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-12-11 | '728 Patent Earliest Priority Date |
| 1998-12-11 | '751 Patent Earliest Priority Date |
| 1999-03-11 | '530 Patent Earliest Priority Date |
| 1999-03-11 | '908 Patent Earliest Priority Date |
| 2008-08-19 | '530 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-06-09 | '728 Patent Issue Date |
| 2015-08-25 | '908 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-05-30 | '751 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-10-31 | PTAB Final Written Decision on '908 Patent |
| 2018-08-03 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 problem that existing memory storage devices, such as magnetic disks, have read/write data rates that are significantly slower than the input/output capabilities of modern computer buses, creating performance bottlenecks (’530 Patent, col. 1:22-32). Standard compression methods can be inefficient when applied to diverse data types.
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that analyzes an incoming block of data to identify certain "parameters or attributes" within the data itself (Compl. ¶9). If such content-specific attributes are found, the system uses one or more "content dependent" compression encoders. If no specific attributes are identified, it reverts to a "single data compression encoder," presumably a general-purpose or default algorithm. This adaptive approach aims to apply the most effective compression technique based on the data's character, thereby improving overall efficiency (’728 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This technology provides an adaptive compression framework intended to improve storage efficiency and speed in systems that handle heterogeneous data streams, which is a common scenario in enterprise storage (Compl. ¶1).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶9).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- 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 parameters or attributes, excluding analysis based solely on a descriptor;
- perform content dependent data compression 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 feeds" by improving the speed at which data can be stored. Writing uncompressed data to storage can be slow, creating a bottleneck that limits the performance of data-intensive applications (’530 Patent, col. 1:18-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a data server that analyzes the content of a data block to identify a "parameter, attribute, or value" (Compl. ¶25). Based on this analysis, the server selects an appropriate encoder, compresses the data block using a "state machine," and stores the compressed block. A key aspect of the solution is the claimed functional outcome: "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" (’751 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶25).
- Technical Importance: This method of in-line compression is intended to overcome storage I/O limitations, allowing systems to ingest and process data feeds faster than would be possible with conventional uncompressed storage methods (Compl. ¶1).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 25 (Compl. ¶25).
- The essential elements of Claim 25 include:
- a data server with a processor and memory;
- the server configured to analyze content of a data block to identify a parameter, excluding analysis based solely on a descriptor;
- the server configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter;
- the server configured to compress the data with the selected encoder, wherein the compression utilizes a state machine;
- the server configured to store the compressed data block;
- wherein the combined time of compressing and storing is less than the time of storing the uncompressed data block.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶35).
U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 - “System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval,” issued August 19, 2008.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a data acceleration system that receives a data stream containing multiple data blocks. The system uses a first compression technique on a first data block and a different, second compression technique on a second data block. The invention claims that this compression and subsequent storage on a memory device occurs faster than storing the original data stream would, and that a descriptor is stored to indicate the first compression technique used, facilitating later decompression (Compl. ¶42).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Hedvig platform’s use of both deduplication and another form of compression constitutes two "different" compression techniques, and that this process accelerates data storage (Compl. ¶¶51-52, 54).
U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 - “System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval,” issued August 25, 2015.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, similar to the ’530 Patent, claims a system with a memory device and a data accelerator. The accelerator is configured to compress a first data block with a first technique and a second data block with a different second technique. The core functional claim is that the "compression and storage occurs faster than the first and second data blocks are able to be stored on the memory device in uncompressed form" (Compl. ¶63).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶66).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Hedvig platform's use of multiple compression techniques, such as deduplication and another general compression algorithm, of meeting the claim limitations (Compl. ¶¶67-68).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Hedvig Distributed Storage Platform and the system hardware on which it operates ("Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the Accused Instrumentality as a software-defined storage platform that runs on commodity hardware (Compl. ¶12). It allegedly provides enterprise storage services including "deduplication, compression, snapshots, clones, replication, auto-tiering, multitenancy, and selfhealing" (Compl. ¶5). The infringement theory centers on two of these features: "inline global deduplication," which calculates a "unique fingerprint of data blocks and replaces redundant data with a small pointer," and "compression at the storage node level" (Compl. ¶¶13, 14). The platform is marketed as providing "performance advantages" for "production storage operations and enterprise SLAs" (Compl. ¶5).
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 run on commodity hardware, including X86 and ARM processors. | ¶12 | col. 1:18-32 |
| one or more content dependent data compression encoders | The platform performs block-level deduplication, which is alleged to be a form of content dependent compression because it analyzes the content of data blocks to find duplicates. | ¶13 | col. 13:54-56 |
| a single data compression encoder | The platform also provides a separate "compression at the storage node level that can be toggled." | ¶14 | col. 13:54-56 |
| wherein the processor is configured: to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes of the data ... | The platform's deduplication process analyzes data blocks by calculating a "unique fingerprint" to determine if the block is duplicative of previously stored data. | ¶15 | col. 12:20-41 |
| to perform content dependent data compression ... if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are identified | If a data block is identified as duplicative (a parameter is identified), the system performs deduplication by replacing the block with a pointer. | ¶16 | col. 12:42-53 |
| 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 data is not identified as duplicative, the platform performs compression using its general compression feature, which can be enabled for a Virtual Disk. | ¶17 | col. 12:42-53 |
’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 Instrumentalities use processors (e.g., X86) and memory systems (e.g., memory and flash SSD/NVMe). | ¶29 | col. 1:18-32 |
| the data server configured to analyze content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute, or value of the data block that excludes analysis based solely on reading a descriptor | The platform's deduplication process analyzes data blocks by calculating a "unique fingerprint" to identify redundant data. | ¶30 | col. 12:20-41 |
| the data server configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value | The platform selects between deduplication or other compression based on its analysis. | ¶31 | col. 12:42-53 |
| 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 | When a data block is identified as redundant, the platform replaces it with a pointer, which is alleged to be a form of compression utilizing a state machine. | ¶32 | col. 3:50-53 |
| the data server configured to store the compressed data block | The platform stores the results of its compression and deduplication processes on storage devices. | ¶33 | col. 3:1-4 |
| 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 that features like deduplication "optimize I/O," which is asserted to mean the compression and storage process is faster than storing uncompressed data. | ¶34 | col. 1:57-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Definitional Scope: A central question for all asserted patents is whether "deduplication"—the process of replacing redundant data blocks with pointers—constitutes "data compression" as the term is used in the patents. The complaint equates the two (Compl. ¶13), but this may be a point of dispute.
- Technical Operation: For the ’728 Patent, the complaint's allegation for the "if not identified" pathway relies on the general availability of a separate compression feature (Compl. ¶17). A court may need to determine if the system is actually "configured" to perform this specific conditional logic as claimed. For the ’751 Patent, the complaint conclusorily alleges the use of a "state machine" without providing technical facts to support how the accused deduplication or compression process meets this specific limitation (Compl. ¶32).
- Functional Limitation: For the ’751, ’530, and ’908 Patents, infringement requires proving that the accused compression-and-storage process is faster than simply storing the data uncompressed. The complaint relies on marketing claims of "optimizing I/O" (Compl. ¶34), which may not be sufficient technical evidence to prove this specific timing relationship is met in all or most instances of operation.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "content dependent data compression encoder" (’728 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’728 Patent hinges on whether the accused "deduplication" feature is a "content dependent data compression encoder." The defendant may argue that deduplication, while content-aware, is a distinct technology from what the patent meant by "compression encoder."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '530 patent specification, part of the same family, describes selecting an encoding technique based on the "content of the input data block" and lists various techniques including run length, Huffman, and Lempel-Ziv dictionary compression (’530 Patent, col. 11:45-51). Plaintiff may argue this supports a broad definition covering any technique that analyzes data content to reduce its size.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same section of the '530 patent specification lists specific examples of compression algorithms (’530 Patent, col. 11:40-44). Defendant may argue that the term should be limited to these or similar types of traditional compression algorithms, which operate differently than deduplication's "fingerprint and pointer" method.
The Term: "state machine" (’751 Patent, Claim 25)
- Context and Importance: This is a specific technical limitation that Plaintiff must prove. The complaint makes a bare assertion that the accused compression "utilizes a state machine" (Compl. ¶32). Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires specific evidence of the accused product's internal software architecture, which is not provided in the complaint.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '530 patent specification notes that the invention may be implemented with "dedicated finite state machines" in hardware or software (’530 Patent, col. 3:50-53). A party could argue this suggests any system that transitions through logical states (e.g., analyzing, compressing, storing) meets the limitation. The flowcharts in the patent could be argued to depict such states (e.g., ’530 Patent, FIG. 2).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "finite state machine" has a formal definition in computer science. A party could argue that the patent requires a formally defined set of states and transitions, not just a sequential software process. The reference to "dedicated processing hardware" could be used to argue for a more constrained, hardware-centric interpretation (’530 Patent, col. 3:52-59).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The allegations are based on Defendant touting performance benefits and providing customers with user manuals, product support, and marketing materials that allegedly instruct them to use the infringing compression and deduplication features (Compl. ¶¶11, 27, 45). For the ’530 Patent, the complaint also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the Accused Instrumentality is especially designed for infringement and has no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶47).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patents "since at least the filing of the original Complaint in this action, or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶¶10, 26, 43, 65). This frames the willfulness claim as being based on post-suit conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the technical process of "deduplication," which involves identifying and replacing redundant data blocks with pointers, be construed to fall within the meaning of patent terms like "content dependent data compression encoder" and a "compression technique"? The outcome of this claim construction dispute will likely be pivotal for all four asserted patents.
- A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof for technical function: can the Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused platform meets highly specific claim limitations for which the complaint offers little factual support? This includes whether the accused compression "utilizes a state machine" (’751 Patent) and whether the accused compression-and-storage process is demonstrably "faster than" storing the same data uncompressed (’530, ’751, ’908 Patents).
- A final question will concern conditional logic: for the ’728 patent, the infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the accused platform is configured to execute the specific two-pathway logic required by Claim 1—using a content-dependent encoder if a parameter is found, and a single encoder if not—or if it merely offers these functionalities as independent, user-selectable options.