DCT
1:18-cv-01566
Realtime Data LLC v. Hypergrid Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (New York)
- Defendant: HyperGrid, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.; Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01566, D. Del., 10/11/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation, has transacted business in the district, and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hyper-converged infrastructure products and data services infringe four patents related to systems and methods for data compression and accelerated data storage.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for adaptively compressing data to increase the speed and efficiency of data storage and transmission, a critical function in modern enterprise computing and cloud infrastructure.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 were previously confirmed as patentable in a Final Written Decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This prior validation of the '908 Patent's claims may be a point of emphasis for the Plaintiff.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-12-11 | U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 Priority Date |
| 1999-03-11 | U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 Priority Date |
| 1999-03-11 | U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 Priority Date |
| 2000-10-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 Priority Date |
| 2008-08-19 | U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 Issue Date |
| 2015-06-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 Issue Date |
| 2015-08-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 Issue Date |
| 2017-05-30 | U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 Issue Date |
| 2017-10-31 | PTAB confirms claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 |
| 2018-10-11 | 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 challenge of selecting an optimal compression technique for a given piece of data when the data's type or content is not known beforehand from external metadata, such as a file header or label (Compl. ¶9).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that first analyzes the intrinsic content of a data block to identify specific "parameters or attributes." If such content-specific attributes are found, the system employs one of a set of "content dependent" encoders. If no specific attributes are identified, it reverts to a "single data compression encoder," presumably a general-purpose or default algorithm. This creates a dual-path, adaptive compression strategy based on the data itself, rather than external labels (’728 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for more efficient, on-the-fly compression decisions in storage systems and data streams where data blocks may arrive without clear external identifiers, potentially improving performance and resource utilization (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;
- The processor configured to:
- analyze data within a data block to identify parameters or attributes, where the analysis explicitly excludes relying solely on a descriptor;
- perform content dependent compression if parameters are identified; and
- perform compression with the single encoder if parameters are not identified.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).
U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 - "Data feed acceleration," issued May 30, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent is directed at accelerating data feeds by reducing the latency associated with storing data. The core problem is the performance bottleneck where storing large amounts of uncompressed data can be slower than desired (’751 Patent, Abstract).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a data server that analyzes the content of a data block to identify a characteristic, selects an appropriate encoder based on that characteristic, and compresses the data using a "state machine." The key inventive concept is a performance requirement: the combined time to compress the data block and store the resulting compressed block must be less than the time it would have taken to simply store the original, uncompressed data block (’751 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: In latency-sensitive applications like financial data feeds or high-performance storage, this method purports to turn compression from a time-consuming overhead into a net performance gain for data storage operations (Compl. ¶24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 25 (Compl. ¶26).
- The essential elements of Claim 25 include:
- A data server with one or more processors and memory systems;
- The server configured to analyze the 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 using the selected encoder and a state machine;
- The server configured to store the compressed data block;
- A timing limitation wherein the combined act of compressing and storing is faster than storing the uncompressed block.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶28).
U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 - "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval," issued August 19, 2008
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical problem of memory and disk storage devices having lower bandwidth than a computer's internal data processing capabilities, creating a bottleneck (’530 Patent, col. 2:20-32). The patented solution is a "data accelerator" that compresses a data stream by applying at least two different compression techniques to different data blocks within the stream. This process is claimed to occur faster than storing the data stream in its original form, and a "descriptor" is stored to indicate which technique was used for later decompression (’530 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44, ¶46).
- Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to infringe by using different compression techniques, such as deduplication and other general compression, on different data blocks to accelerate storage performance (Compl. ¶53, ¶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, part of the same family as the ’530 Patent, also aims to solve the data storage bottleneck problem. It describes a data accelerator that compresses different data blocks using different compression techniques. The core concept is that the combined act of compressing the blocks and storing them is faster than storing the uncompressed blocks (’908 Patent, Abstract). Unlike the asserted claim of the ’530 patent, the asserted claim here does not appear to require the storage of a separate descriptor.
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶65, ¶68).
- Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to infringe by employing a data accelerator that uses multiple compression techniques (e.g., deduplication and another form of compression) to achieve faster-than-native storage speeds (Compl. ¶70).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Accused Instrumentalities include the HyperGrid HCI solution, HyperForm, HyperVue, HyperWeave, HyperGrid Appliance, HClass, and the system hardware on which they operate (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint characterizes the accused products as a "full-stack solution" providing hyper-converged infrastructure services (Compl. ¶13). The core functionalities accused of infringement are "enterprise-level data services including encryption, deduplication, [and] compression" (Compl. ¶14).
- The complaint alleges that these features, particularly deduplication and compression, are used to reduce the amount of data stored and transmitted, thereby accelerating performance (Compl. ¶14, ¶36). Deduplication is specifically identified as a form of "content dependent" compression because it analyzes the content of data blocks to identify and eliminate duplicates (Compl. ¶14, ¶16, ¶32).
- Plaintiff alleges Defendant markets these products by touting their performance advantages, which derive from the accused compression and data reduction features (Compl. ¶11, ¶36, ¶39).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
9,054,728 Patent 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 Instrumentalities are alleged to be systems comprising a processor, a "content dependent" deduplication function, and a separate "compression" function. | ¶13, ¶14, ¶15 | col. 12:1-24 |
| 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 of the data within the data block to identify the one or more parameters or attributes of the data excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor that is indicative of the one or more parameters or attributes of the data within the data block | The system is alleged to perform deduplication, which analyzes the content of data chunks by hashing them to identify duplicates, which is not analysis of a descriptor. | ¶16 | col. 12:25-33 |
| 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 duplicate data is identified (the "parameter or attribute"), the system performs deduplication (the "content dependent data compression"). | ¶17 | col. 12:34-38 |
| 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 if no duplicate data is found, the system performs its other "compression" function. | ¶18 | col. 12:39-43 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether "deduplication," a technique that identifies and replaces duplicate data blocks with pointers, meets the claim term "content dependent data compression encoder." Defendant may argue that deduplication is technically distinct from the types of encoding contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's theory relies on a two-path system: deduplication is used if duplicate data is found, and a different compression is used otherwise. A factual question will be whether the accused systems operate in this specific conditional manner as required by the final two limitations of the claim.
9,667,751 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 are alleged to be a "full-stack solution" including compute, storage, and networking hardware. | ¶31 | col. 48:47-51 |
| 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 system's deduplication feature is alleged to analyze data content by hashing data chunks to identify duplicates, which is not based on a descriptor. | ¶32 | col. 48:52-57 |
| 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 or other compression" based on the analysis of the data block. | ¶33 | col. 48:58-60 |
| 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 system is alleged to perform compression or deduplication. The complaint does not provide specific facts explaining how this functionality utilizes a state machine. | ¶34 | col. 48:61-64 |
| the data server configured to store the compressed data block | The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly include storage devices, such as SSDs, and provide services like snapshots and replication that involve storing data. | ¶35 | col. 48:65-66 |
| 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 the products' "data reduction and acceleration features" result in cost and energy savings, which implies that the combined compression and storage process is faster than storage alone. | ¶36 | col. 48:67-49:3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused compression "utilizes a state machine" but does not provide specific factual support for this element beyond reciting the claim language. The case may turn on what technical evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that the accused deduplication or compression algorithms operate as a "state machine" within the meaning of the claim.
- Scope Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product meets the specific timing limitation—that compressing and storing is quantifiably faster than just storing? The allegations cite marketing claims of general efficiency and cost savings, which may not be sufficient to prove this precise technical requirement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- Term: "content dependent data compression encoder" (’728 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term's definition is critical to the infringement theory for the '728 Patent, which maps this element to the accused deduplication feature. The dispute will likely focus on whether deduplication, which replaces entire blocks with pointers, is a form of "encoding" in the sense contemplated by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification may describe this term broadly as any compression method that adapts based on the substance of the data itself, which could support including deduplication.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific embodiments or examples in the patent may describe encoders that operate on a symbol-by-symbol or statistical basis, which could support a narrower definition that excludes block-level replacement techniques like deduplication.
- Term: "state machine" (’751 Patent)
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint provides minimal factual detail linking it to the accused products' functionality. Its construction will determine the level of proof needed to show infringement of a key element of Claim 25.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted broadly to cover any algorithm that proceeds through a sequence of defined states, a fundamental concept in computer science that could arguably apply to many compression processes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification may define or provide examples of a "state machine" in a more limited context, such as a specific type of finite-state entropy coder, which would impose a higher burden of proof on the Plaintiff.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four patents-in-suit. Inducement is alleged based on Defendant’s marketing materials, user manuals, and product support, which allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the infringing compression and deduplication features (Compl. ¶11, ¶28, ¶46, ¶68). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products are especially adapted for use in an infringing manner and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶12, ¶29, ¶49, ¶69).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the asserted patents at least since the filing of the complaint, forming a basis for post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶10, ¶27, ¶45, ¶67). The inducement allegations also assert knowledge or willful blindness as to the infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can modern data "deduplication," which operates by identifying and replacing entire data blocks, be construed to fall within the patents' language of a "content dependent data compression encoder" that analyzes data "content"? The outcome of this question will likely determine the viability of infringement claims for multiple patents.
- A second issue will be one of technical proof: what evidence will be required to satisfy claim limitations for which the complaint offers scant factual support, such as the requirement that the accused compression "utilizes a state machine" (’751 Patent) or that the combined compression-and-storage process is demonstrably faster than storage alone (’530, ’751, and ’908 Patents)?
- A final question will be patent validity, particularly for the patents that have not been tested at the PTAB. Given the crowded field of data compression technology, the novelty and non-obviousness of the claimed methods for selecting and applying different compression techniques will likely be a central point of defense.