DCT
1:18-cv-01199
Realtime Data LLC v. Softnas Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (New York)
- Defendant: SoftNAS, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01199, D. Del., 08/07/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation that has transacted business and allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud data storage products and services infringe four U.S. patents related to data compression and accelerated data storage methods.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is data compression, a fundamental process for increasing the efficiency of data storage and transmission, particularly significant in the context of cloud computing and enterprise data management.
- 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 suggests that the validity of those specific claims has previously been challenged and upheld in an administrative proceeding, a point that may be relevant to future validity disputes.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-12-11 | Priority Date for ’728 and ’751 Patents |
| 1999-03-11 | Priority Date for ’530 and ’908 Patents |
| 2008-08-19 | U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 Issues |
| 2015-06-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 Issues |
| 2015-08-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 Issues |
| 2017-05-30 | U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 Issues |
| 2017-10-31 | PTAB Final Written Decision Confirms ’908 Patent Claims as Patentable |
| 2018-08-07 | 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’s background describes the challenge that different data compression techniques are effective on different types of data; a single technique may perform poorly or even expand data that is already compressed. (’728 Patent, col. 2:42-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that analyzes an incoming data block to identify certain "parameters or attributes" within its content. (’728 Patent, Abstract). If such attributes are found, the system applies one or more "content dependent" compression encoders. If not, it uses a "single data compression encoder," effectively a default or general-purpose method. (’728 Patent, col. 13:20-43). This creates an adaptive compression system that selects a suitable algorithm based on the data itself.
- Technical Importance: This adaptive approach aims to improve overall compression efficiency across diverse datasets and avoid the counterproductive outcome of expanding already-compressed data in storage systems.
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶9). The essential elements are:
- A system comprising: a processor; one or more content dependent data compression encoders; and 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 one or more content dependent data compression encoders if the parameters or attributes are identified; and
- perform data compression with the single data compression encoder if the parameters or attributes are not identified.
The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶11).
U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 - "Data feed acceleration," issued May 30, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The technology addresses the performance bottleneck created by memory storage devices, whose physical read/write data rates are often significantly slower than a computer’s processing capabilities, thereby limiting overall system speed for data-intensive operations. (’530 Patent, col. 2:20-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a data server that accelerates data storage by compressing data before writing it to memory. The system is configured such that the combined time required to compress a data block and store the resulting compressed block is less than the time it would take to store the original, uncompressed data block. (’751 Patent, Abstract). This is achieved by analyzing the data block's content to select an appropriate encoder that can achieve the requisite speed and compression ratio.
- Technical Importance: By making the storage process faster than a direct write of uncompressed data, the invention purports to overcome the physical I/O limitations of storage hardware, thereby improving performance.
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts independent Claim 25 (Compl. ¶25). The essential elements are:
- A data server implemented on one or more processors and one or more memory systems;
- The data server configured to analyze the content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute, or value, where the analysis excludes being based solely on a descriptor;
- The data server configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value;
- The data server configured to compress the data in the data block with the selected encoder, wherein the compression utilizes a state machine;
- The data server configured to store the compressed data block;
- Wherein the time of compressing the data block and 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. 7,415,530 - "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval," issued August 19, 2008
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical problem of data storage and retrieval bandwidth being limited by the physical constraints of memory devices (Compl. ¶42; ’530 Patent, col. 2:20-32). The proposed solution is a "data accelerator" that receives a data stream, compresses different data blocks within that stream using different compression techniques, and stores the compressed stream faster than the original uncompressed stream could have been stored, along with descriptors indicating which compression technique was used for each block. (’530 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶42).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities function as a data accelerator by using different techniques—specifically, "compression and deduplication"—on different data blocks to achieve faster storage and by storing a descriptor (a pointer to an existing block) for deduplicated data. (Compl. ¶52, ¶54, ¶55).
U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 - "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval," issued August 25, 2015
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, part of the same family as the ’530 Patent, also targets the problem of data storage bottlenecks caused by the physical speed limitations of memory devices (Compl. ¶63; ’908 Patent, col. 2:23-35). The invention is a system with a "data accelerator" configured to compress a first data block with a first technique and a second data block with a different, second technique, where the overall compression and storage process is faster than storing the data in its original, uncompressed form. (’908 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶63).
- Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to use a data accelerator that employs two different compression techniques, "deduplication" and "another compression," on different data blocks to make the storage process faster than it would be otherwise. (Compl. ¶67).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are a suite of cloud storage products including SoftNAS Cloud, SoftNAS Cloud File Storage, SoftNAS Cloud Enterprise, SoftNAS Cloud File Gateway, and the hardware on which they operate. (Compl. ¶8, ¶24, ¶41, ¶62).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as providing data storage services that include "deduplication, compression, storage snapshots, writable clones, [and] thin provisioning" (Compl. ¶11). The two key functionalities for this dispute are "inline block deduplication" and a separate "compression" feature (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). Deduplication is described as a process of identifying and eliminating duplicate data blocks by checksumming them with a hash function (Compl. ¶13). The general compression feature is described as an alternative that "saves disk space, but requires more of CPU space" (Compl. ¶31). A visual in the complaint illustrates deduplication by showing 600 GB of redundant data blocks being reduced to 100 GB of unique stored blocks (Compl. p. 14, FIG. at ¶33). The products are marketed as providing "the best of both NAS and object storage," positioning them as versatile solutions for enterprise and cloud environments (Compl. ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'9,054,728 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a processor; one or more content dependent data compression encoders; and a single data compression encoder | The accused products include a CPU, a "block-level deduplication" feature alleged to be a content dependent encoder, and a separate general "compression" feature alleged to be the single data compression encoder. | ¶12, ¶13, ¶14 | col. 13:20-25 |
| 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 blocks for duplication by checksumming them using a hash function, which is an analysis of the data's content rather than a descriptor. | ¶15 | col. 13:26-34 |
| 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 a data block is identified as a duplicate (the alleged parameter), the system performs deduplication (the alleged content dependent compression). | ¶16 | col. 13:35-39 |
| 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 a data block is not identified as a duplicate, the system performs general compression. A diagram in the complaint shows this general compression reducing 100 MB to 42.5 MB. (Compl. p. 7). | ¶17 | col. 13:40-43 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether "inline block deduplication" qualifies as a "content dependent data compression encoder" as contemplated by the ’728 Patent. A related question is whether the accused products automatically perform the claimed three-step conditional logic (analyze, then choose deduplication or general compression) or if these are merely two independent features that a user can enable separately.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the general "compression" feature is invoked specifically and automatically as a fallback when the analysis for deduplication finds no duplicate blocks? The complaint describes them as distinct options (Compl. ¶31), which suggests a potential mismatch with the claim's required conditional flow.
'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 products include a CPU, RAM, and SSD caching, constituting a data server. | ¶29 | col. 18:61-63 |
| 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 data server performs "inline block deduplication" by using a hash function to checksum data blocks, which constitutes analysis of the block's content. | ¶30 | col. 18:64-67 |
| the data server configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value | The system selects between "deduplication or other compression" based on the identification of duplicate data. | ¶31 | col. 19:1-3 |
| the data server configured to compress data in the data block with the selected encoder...wherein the compression utilizes a state machine | The process of deduplication, which involves identifying and eliminating duplicate blocks via hashing, is alleged to be a form of compression that utilizes a state machine. | ¶32 | col. 19:4-7 |
| the data server configured to store the compressed data block | When a block is deduplicated, no new data is written; instead, a "reference count is simply incremented," which is the alleged method of storing the compressed block. A visual in the complaint depicts this process (Compl. p. 14, FIG. at ¶33). | ¶33 | col. 19:8-9 |
| 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 | SoftNAS is quoted stating that its compression "improves performance by reducing read and write I/O" because the time to compress/decompress is "quicker than the time it takes to read and write the uncompressed data to disk." | ¶34 | col. 19:10-13 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The construction of "state machine" will be critical. A key question is whether the process of hashing data, checking for duplicates, and incrementing a reference counter can be properly characterized as compression that "utilizes a state machine" within the meaning of the patent.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the combined time of "compressing and storing" to be faster than just "storing" uncompressed data. The complaint relies on a marketing statement to support this allegation (Compl. ¶34). A central factual dispute may be whether this performance benefit is actually achieved in practice under various operating conditions.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’728 Patent:
- The Term: "content dependent data compression encoder"
- Context and Importance: The plaintiff’s infringement theory maps this term to the accused "deduplication" feature. The viability of the infringement case for the ’728 Patent may depend on whether deduplication—a process of eliminating redundant data blocks—falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the patent's adaptive approach from systems with multiple, non-adaptive compression options.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’530 patent, from which the '728 patent claims priority, describes data compression generally as being "widely used to reduce the amount of data required to process, transmit, or store a given quantity of information." (’530 Patent, col. 2:49-52). This broad purpose could support including any data reduction technique, like deduplication, as a form of compression.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The ’728 patent specification explicitly lists examples of encoding techniques such as "run length, Huffman, Lempel-Ziv Dictionary Compression, [and] arithmetic coding." (’728 Patent, col. 11:45-49). A party could argue that this list implicitly limits the scope of "encoder" to these types of algorithmic transformations, rather than the block-replacement mechanism of deduplication.
For the ’751 Patent:
- The Term: "state machine"
- Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that the accused deduplication process "utilizes a state machine." The definition of this term is therefore critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its technical meaning can be specific, and a mismatch between the patent's usage and the accused product's operation could be a dispositive non-infringement argument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent itself does not provide an explicit definition for "state machine," which could support an argument that the term should be given its ordinary meaning in the context of a software process with distinct operational states (e.g., analyzing a block, finding a duplicate, incrementing a counter).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’530 patent refers to implementing the invention using "dedicated finite state machines." (’530 Patent, col. 3:52). This could support a narrower construction limited to formally defined finite-state automata or hardware-based implementations, which may differ from the software-based logic of the accused deduplication feature.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all four asserted patents. The factual basis for this allegation is that SoftNAS provides customers with user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and training materials that allegedly instruct and encourage them to use the accused features (e.g., deduplication and compression) in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶11, ¶27, ¶44, ¶66). The complaint also asserts contributory infringement of the ’530 Patent, alleging the Accused Instrumentality is especially designed for infringing use and has no substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶47).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on knowledge of the patents and the alleged infringement "since at least the filing of the original Complaint in this action, or shortly thereafter." (Compl. ¶10, ¶26, ¶43, ¶65). This primarily frames the willfulness claim on post-suit conduct. The inducement counts also allege knowledge or "willful blindness" as a basis for intent. (Compl. ¶11, ¶27, ¶44, ¶46).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent terms "content dependent data compression encoder" (’728 Patent) and compression that "utilizes a state machine" (’751 Patent) be construed to cover the accused products’ "inline block deduplication" feature, which operates by hashing data blocks and replacing duplicates with pointers rather than applying a traditional compression algorithm?
- A second key issue will be one of functional operation: does the accused system perform the specific conditional logic required by Claim 1 of the ’728 Patent—analyzing data content and then automatically selecting between deduplication and a separate compression method—or are these simply two independent, user-selectable features?
- A third central question will be one of evidentiary proof: for the patents requiring storage "acceleration" (’751, ’530, and ’908 Patents), what factual evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the combined time to compress and store a data block is actually less than the time required to simply store that same block in uncompressed form under real-world operating conditions?