DCT
1:18-cv-01995
Realtime Data LLC v. SolarWinds Worldwide LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (New York)
- Defendant: SolarWinds Worldwide, LLC. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat; Bayard, P.A.
- Case Identification: Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. SolarWinds Worldwide, LLC., 1:18-cv-01995, D. Del., 12/17/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has transacted business and committed acts of alleged infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SolarWinds Backup products and 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 compressing digital data to increase the speed and efficiency of data storage and retrieval, a critical function in areas such as enterprise data backup.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that several claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 were "confirmed as patentable in a Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 31, 2017," a fact that may be presented to suggest the patent's robustness against certain invalidity challenges.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-12-11 | Priority Date for ’728 Patent |
| 1998-12-11 | Priority Date for ’751 Patent |
| 1999-03-11 | Priority Date for ’530 Patent |
| 1999-03-11 | Priority Date for ’908 Patent |
| 2008-08-19 | Issue Date for ’530 Patent |
| 2015-06-09 | Issue Date for ’728 Patent |
| 2015-08-25 | Issue Date for ’908 Patent |
| 2017-05-30 | Issue Date for ’751 Patent |
| 2017-10-31 | PTAB Final Written Decision Confirms ’908 Patent Claims as Patentable |
| 2018-12-17 | 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 that different data compression techniques have varying levels of effectiveness depending on the content of the data being compressed, making it difficult to select an optimal method for a given data block (’728 Patent, col. 2:30-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system that first analyzes a block of data to identify its parameters or attributes, excluding analysis based solely on a descriptor (like a file extension). If specific parameters are identified, one or more "content dependent" compression encoders are used. If not, a "single" (or default) data compression encoder is used instead. This allows the system to adapt its compression strategy to the data itself (’728 Patent, col. 12:4-40; Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This adaptive approach to compression sought to improve efficiency by intelligently selecting a compression pathway based on the data's intrinsic characteristics rather than relying on a single, potentially suboptimal, algorithm for all data types (Compl. ¶1).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶9).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- 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 of the data... wherein the analyzing... excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor;
- 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; and
- perform data compression with the single data compression encoder, if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are not identified.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶19).
U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 - "Data feed acceleration" (issued May 30, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the problem of data transmission bottlenecks, particularly in financial data feeds, where large quantities of data must be transmitted with minimal latency (’751 Patent, col. 2:7-22).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a data server that accelerates data feeds by analyzing the content of a data block (excluding analysis based solely on a descriptor), selecting an appropriate encoder, and compressing the data using a "state machine." The key performance outcome is that the time required to compress and then store the data block is less than the time it would have taken to store the data block in its original, uncompressed form (’751 Patent, col. 12:5-24; Abstract).
- Technical Importance: By compressing data faster than it could be stored raw, this method aimed to overcome storage and network bandwidth limitations, thereby reducing latency in time-sensitive data-rich environments (Compl. ¶1).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 25 (Compl. ¶26).
- Independent Claim 25 requires:
- A data server implemented on one or more processors and one or more memory systems;
- 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 configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value;
- 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 data server configured to store the compressed data block;
- 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 reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶37).
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 system for increasing data storage and retrieval speed. It proposes a "data accelerator" that receives a data stream, compresses different blocks of data within that stream using different compression techniques, and stores the compressed stream on a memory device faster than the original stream could have been stored (Compl. ¶44; ’530 Patent, Abstract). A descriptor is stored with the data to indicate which compression technique was used, facilitating decompression (Compl. ¶44).
Asserted Claims
Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that SolarWinds Backup's use of different compression techniques, such as "block-level deduplication" and "build-in compression," infringes this patent (Compl. ¶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, discloses a system with a memory device and a "data accelerator" to speed up data storage. The accelerator 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 being faster than storing the data in uncompressed form (Compl. ¶65; ’908 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims
Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶68).
Accused Features
The complaint accuses SolarWinds Backup of infringing by using a first compression technique (allegedly deduplication) and a second, different compression technique (allegedly another built-in compression) to accelerate storage (Compl. ¶70).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are SolarWinds’ products and services, primarily "SolarWinds Backup," and the hardware systems on which they operate (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes SolarWinds Backup as a system offering "fast backup and rapid restore with built-in compression and deduplication" (Compl. ¶12). A key accused feature is the "True Delta" deduplication technology, which "tracks byte-level changes between backups" and operates at the "block level," allowing the system to transmit only the changes rather than the full file (Compl. ¶14, 16).
- The product is alleged to run on various operating systems, including Windows, GNU/Linux, and Apple OS X, which utilize one or more processors (Compl. ¶13). A table from Defendant's marketing materials lists compatible operating systems for the "BACKUP" product, providing context for the hardware environments in which infringement is alleged to occur (Compl. p. 7).
- The complaint positions the accused products as commercially significant tools that "can shrink backup windows from hours to minutes" (Compl. ¶18).
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 software runs on operating systems such as Windows, GNU/Linux, or Apple OS X, which use one or more processors. | ¶13 | col. 11:20-23 |
| one or more content dependent data compression encoders; | The accused products perform "block-level deduplication," which is alleged to be a content dependent data compression encoder. | ¶14 | col. 12:4-6 |
| and a single data compression encoder; | The accused products are alleged to comprise a single data compression encoder, separate from the deduplication feature. | ¶15 | col. 12:7-8 |
| wherein the processor is configured: to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes...wherein the analyzing...excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor... | The "True Delta" system analyzes data at the block and byte-level to identify changes between backups, an analysis of data content rather than just a descriptor. | ¶16 | col. 12:9-16 |
| 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 the "True Delta" system identifies changes (new data), it performs deduplication, which sends only the new data to be backed up. | ¶17 | col. 12:17-20 |
| 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. | The complaint alleges this step is met by pointing to marketing claims that the product's compression technology can "shrink backup windows." | ¶18 | col. 12:21-24 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether "deduplication," as implemented in the accused product, constitutes "content dependent data compression" as that term is used in the patent. The analysis will likely focus on whether identifying and replacing duplicative data blocks is a form of encoding.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the presence of both "content dependent" encoders (deduplication) and a "single data compression encoder." A key factual question will be what specific feature of the accused product constitutes this "single" encoder and under what circumstances it is used instead of the content dependent encoders, as the claim requires a conditional selection between the two pathways.
’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 SolarWinds Backup system runs on various operating systems that use processors and provides "world-class storage," including in the "SolarWinds private cloud." | ¶31 | col. 12:5-7 |
| the data server configured to analyze content of a data block...that excludes analysis based solely on reading a descriptor; | The "True Delta" deduplication system analyzes data content by tracking byte-level changes, rather than relying only on a descriptor. | ¶32 | col. 12:8-11 |
| the data server configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value; | The accused products are alleged to select between different compression methods, such as "Block-level deduplication and compression features." | ¶33 | col. 12:12-14 |
| the data server configured to compress data...wherein the compression utilizes a state machine; | The complaint alleges that the "True Delta" deduplication system, which tracks byte-level changes and sends only new data, performs this step. | ¶34 | col. 12:15-18 |
| the data server configured to store the compressed data block; | The accused products are alleged to have storage devices, such as cloud storage in data centers, for storing backup data. | ¶35 | col. 12:19-20 |
| wherein the time of the compressing...and the storing...is less than the time of storing the data block in uncompressed form. | The complaint alleges that the product's data reduction and acceleration features shrink backup windows "from hours to minutes," thereby performing the compression and storage faster than storing uncompressed data would take. | ¶36 | col. 12:21-24 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Does the process of identifying changed data blocks and sending only the "delta" satisfy the claim limitation of "select[ing] an encoder associated with the identified parameter"? This may hinge on whether identifying "new data" is an identified parameter that triggers the selection of the deduplication encoder.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide explicit factual support that the accused product's compression "utilizes a state machine." The infringement analysis will likely require evidence of how the accused deduplication and compression algorithms are implemented and whether their operation corresponds to the definition of a "state machine" as contemplated by the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’728 Patent:
- The Term: "content dependent data compression encoder"
- Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the plaintiff’s theory maps it directly to the accused product's "deduplication" feature (Compl. ¶14). The case may turn on whether deduplication, a technique that reduces data size by eliminating redundant blocks, falls within the patent's definition of a compression encoder that operates based on data content.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the system analyzes "parameters or attributes of the data" to select an encoder, which could be interpreted broadly to include the attribute of being "duplicative" of existing data (’728 Patent, col. 12:9-16).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of content-dependent encoding techniques like "run length, Huffman, Lempel-Ziv Dictionary Compression, arithmetic coding, data compaction, and data null suppression" (’728 Patent, col. 11:45-49). A court might find that this list suggests a narrower scope limited to traditional encoding algorithms, potentially excluding deduplication.
For the ’751 Patent:
- The Term: "wherein the compression utilizes a state machine"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint offers conclusory allegations that the accused deduplication system meets this limitation but does not explain how (Compl. ¶34). The technical reality of how "True Delta" operates will be compared against the patent's description of a "state machine," making its definition a likely point of dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification may describe a "state machine" in general functional terms, such as a system that transitions between different states based on input data, which could arguably encompass a wide range of algorithmic processes (’751 Patent, col. 4:54-60).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent may provide specific figures or embodiments depicting a finite state machine with discrete states and transitions. Such specific examples could be used to argue for a narrower construction that requires the accused product to implement a similar, formally defined state-based logic (’751 Patent, Fig. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that SolarWinds provides "user manuals, product support, marketing materials, and training materials" that actively encourage customers to use the accused compression and deduplication features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶12, 28). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the assertion that the accused products are especially adapted for infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶10, 29).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations appear to be based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges SolarWinds has had knowledge of the patents "since at least the filing of the original Complaint in this action, or shortly thereafter" and knew of its infringement "including by way of this lawsuit" (Compl. ¶11, 27, 45, 67).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can data "deduplication," a technique focused on eliminating redundant data blocks, be properly construed as a "content dependent data compression encoder" as that term is used in the ’728 patent, or is there a fundamental categorical distinction between the two technologies?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what evidence demonstrates that the accused SolarWinds Backup product utilizes a "state machine" for compression as required by the ’751 patent, and does it employ a "single data compression encoder" conditionally, as required by the ’728 patent? The complaint's reliance on high-level marketing statements may prompt early challenges regarding the factual basis for these specific technical limitations.
- A third question concerns technological overlap: the asserted patents appear to claim similar concepts of adaptive, content-aware compression for accelerating data storage. The case will likely involve distinguishing the specific contributions and claim scopes of each patent relative to the single accused product functionality.