Realtime Data LLC v. Hitachi Vantara Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (New York)
  • Defendant: Hitachi Vantara Corporation (Delaware) and Hitachi, Ltd. (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01164, D. Del., 08/03/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Hitachi Vantara is a Delaware corporation, has transacted business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s data storage products and operating systems infringe four U.S. patents related to systems and methods for data compression and accelerated data storage.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for increasing the speed and efficiency of data storage by analyzing data content to select and apply different compression techniques, such as deduplication and lossless compression algorithms.
• 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. This post-grant review outcome may be raised to suggest the patent's claims have withstood scrutiny after issuance.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1998-12-11	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728
1999-03-11	Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,415,530 & 9,116,908
2000-10-03	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751
2008-08-19	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530
2015-06-09	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728
2015-08-25	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908
2017-05-30	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751
2017-10-31	PTAB Final Written Decision confirms claims of ’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 addresses the problem that different data compression techniques have varying levels of effectiveness depending on the content of the data being compressed, and a single approach is often inefficient (’728 Patent, col. 1:29-45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that first analyzes a block of data to identify certain parameters or attributes within the data itself. Based on this analysis, the system selects between two types of compression: a "content dependent" encoder (e.g., one that works well for repetitive data) or a "single data compression encoder" (e.g., a general-purpose algorithm) for data that lacks those specific attributes (’728 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-24).
• Technical Importance: This adaptive approach to compression allows storage systems to apply more specialized, efficient compression techniques when the data is suitable, while reverting to a reliable default for other data types, potentially improving overall storage speed and capacity (Compl. ¶1).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶9).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A system with 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.
  • The processor performs content dependent data compression if the parameters/attributes are identified.
  • The processor performs data compression with the single data compression encoder if the parameters/attributes are not identified.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶17).

U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 - “Data feed acceleration,” issued May 30, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge of slow data feeds, where the time required to store large blocks of uncompressed data creates a bottleneck in data processing and transmission systems (’751 Patent, col. 1:19-27).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a data server that accelerates data feeds by compressing data before storage. The server analyzes the content of a data block, selects an appropriate encoder, compresses the data using a "state machine," and then stores the compressed block. The key is that the combined time for compression and storage is less than the time it would have taken to store the data in its original, uncompressed form (’751 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-12).
• Technical Importance: This technique aims to overcome storage hardware limitations by reducing the amount of data that needs to be written, thereby increasing the effective throughput of a data system (Compl. ¶26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 25 (Compl. ¶24).
• The essential elements of Claim 25 include:
  • A data server configured to analyze the content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute, or value, excluding 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 requirement that the time of compressing and storing is less than the time of storing the block in uncompressed form.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 - “System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval,” issued August 19, 2008 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses bandwidth limitations in memory storage devices that hinder system performance (’530 Patent, col. 1:20-33). The solution is a "data accelerator" that receives a data stream, compresses different blocks within that stream using different compression techniques, and stores the compressed stream faster than the original stream could have been stored, along with descriptors to enable proper decompression (’530 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶41, 43).
• Accused Features: Hitachi's SVOS architecture is accused of infringement because its data reduction engine allegedly uses different compression techniques (e.g., deduplication and LZ4 compression) on different data blocks to accelerate storage (Compl. ¶44, 50, 51).

U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 - “System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval,” issued August 25, 2015 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

• Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’530 Patent, this invention concerns a data accelerator that improves storage speed by compressing different data blocks with different techniques (’908 Patent, col. 1:11-23). The system is configured to compress a first data block with a first technique and a second data block with a second, different technique, with the compression and storage process occurring faster than storing the data in uncompressed form (’908 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶65).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Hitachi's SVOS products infringe by using a first compression technique (deduplication via SHA-1 hashing) and a second compression technique (e.g., LZ4 algorithm) to accelerate data storage (Compl. ¶66, 32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Instrumentalities include Hitachi’s Storage Virtualization Operating System (SVOS), Unified Compute Platform HC Series, Unified Compute Platform 6000, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, Hitachi Content Platform, Hitachi NAS Platform 4000 Series, and associated hardware (Compl. ¶8, 23, 40, 61).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products incorporate an "adaptive data reduction engine" that performs data compression to increase storage efficiency and system throughput (Compl. ¶12, 18). This engine is alleged to perform block-level deduplication by segmenting data into chunks, using a crypto hash algorithm (SHA-1) to identify duplicate chunks, and replacing redundant copies with a reference (Compl. ¶13, 15). The complaint also alleges the products use a separate lossless data compression algorithm, LZ4 (Compl. ¶14, 17). Figure 3 of the complaint depicts the "Hitachi SVOS All-Flash Architecture," showing a multi-stage process where data is written to cache, processed for deduplication, and then compressed before being written to persistent storage (Compl. p. 14, Fig. 3). Hitachi allegedly markets these features as providing "highest system throughput and response time consistency" (Compl. ¶18, 26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’728 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a processor;	Hitachi's SVOS 7 system includes a processor that manages an "adaptive data reduction engine."	¶12	col. 2:5-7
one or more content dependent data compression encoders;	The accused products perform block-level deduplication, which identifies and removes duplicate data chunks based on their content.	¶13	col. 1:63-65
and a single data compression encoder;	The accused products are built on the lossless data compression LZ4 algorithm.	¶14	col. 2:1-4
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 SVOS 7 system analyzes data content to identify duplicate chunks using a crypto hash fingerprint (SHA-1 algorithm).	¶15	col. 2:8-15
to perform content dependent data compression...if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are identified;	If duplicate data chunks (the identified attribute) are found, the system performs deduplication by replacing redundant copies with a reference.	¶16	col. 2:16-19
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 and removed, it is subsequently compressed using the LZ4 algorithm.	¶17	col. 2:20-24

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Hitachi’s process, which appears to apply deduplication and then compression sequentially as shown in Figure 3 of the complaint (Compl. p. 14, Fig. 3), meets the claim's conditional logic of performing one type of compression "if" an attribute is identified and another "if" it is not.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that deduplication is a "content dependent" method and LZ4 is the "single data compression encoder." The litigation may explore whether Hitachi's system analyzes data content to choose between these methods, as the claim language suggests, or whether it simply applies them as distinct stages in a fixed data reduction pipeline.

’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, such as the SVOS architecture shown in Figure 3, comprise processors and memory systems (e.g., System Cache, Persistent Storage).	¶28	col. 2:1-4
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 SVOS 7 system analyzes data content using a crypto hash fingerprint (SHA-1 algorithm) to identify duplicate chunks.	¶29	col. 2:5-7
the data server configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value;	The accused products select between deduplication and other compression methods as part of their data reduction functions.	¶30	col. 2:7-9
the data server configured to compress data in the data block with the selected encoder...wherein the compression utilizes a state machine;	The deduplication process, based on a crypto hash fingerprint, and other compression functions are alleged to utilize a state machine.	¶31	col. 2:9-12
the data server configured to store the compressed data block;	The SVOS architecture includes memory systems like Persistent Storage that store the deduplicated and compressed data blocks.	¶32	col. 2:12-13
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.	Hitachi's marketing materials state that the SVOS data reduction engine is "optimized for highest system throughput," which allegedly satisfies this performance requirement.	¶33	col. 2:13-16

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A question for the court will be the meaning of "select an encoder." The analysis will examine whether Hitachi’s system, which performs multiple data reduction steps, performs an act of "selection" as required by the claim, or if it applies a predetermined sequence of operations.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that the combined compression and storage time is less than the time for uncompressed storage, citing Hitachi’s claims of high throughput (Compl. ¶33). This raises a factual question of proof regarding the actual performance of the accused products under the specific conditions required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’728 Patent - Claim 1

• The Term: "content dependent data compression"
• Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the '728 Patent identifies Hitachi's deduplication feature as the "content dependent" encoder. The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether deduplication, which removes redundant data blocks based on their content, falls within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples including "data dependent encoding" and "dictionary compression," suggesting the term is not limited to a single algorithm but covers a class of techniques whose operations rely on the data's substance (’728 Patent, col. 1:63-65).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the specific embodiments described in the patent define the term more narrowly, potentially raising the question of whether Hitachi's particular implementation of deduplication matches the patent's disclosure.

’751 Patent - Claim 25

• The Term: "select an encoder"
• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation depends on whether Hitachi's system, which employs both deduplication and other compression, performs an act of "selection." If the system applies these techniques serially in all cases, the question arises whether any "selection" has occurred.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's description of a system with multiple encoders could support an interpretation where "selecting" includes configuring the system to use one or more available encoders from a set of options (’751 Patent, col. 11:40-45).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "select an encoder associated with the identified parameter" could be argued to require a specific, content-based choice between mutually exclusive compression pathways, rather than the sequential application of multiple techniques.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents-in-suit. The allegations are based on Hitachi providing user manuals, product support, marketing, and training materials that allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the accused data compression and deduplication features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶11, 26, 45, 65). Contributory infringement is also alleged for the ’530 Patent, asserting the accused products are especially adapted for infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶46).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’728, ’751, and ’530 Patents since at least the filing of an "original Complaint," and knowledge of the ’908 Patent since the filing of a "First Amended Complaint" (Compl. ¶10, 25, 42, 64). This suggests the allegations of willful infringement are based on post-suit conduct.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of functional operation: does Hitachi’s multi-stage data reduction architecture, which allegedly performs deduplication and then compression, meet the claim language of patents like the '728 Patent, which describe a conditional process of analyzing data and then performing one type of compression or another?
• A key question will be one of claim construction: can the term "select an encoder," as used in the '751 Patent, be construed to read on a system that applies multiple data reduction techniques in a predetermined sequence, or does the term require a choice between alternative, mutually exclusive processing paths?
• A central evidentiary question will be one of performance metrics: what technical evidence will be required to demonstrate that the accused products satisfy the performance-based limitations in patents like the '751 and '530 Patents, which require the combined act of "compressing and storing" to be faster than storing the data in its original, uncompressed form?