DCT

1:18-cv-02062

Realtime Data LLC v. Aryaka Networks Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-02062, D. Del., 04/22/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has allegedly committed acts of direct and indirect infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN) and content delivery network (CDN) services infringe four patents related to data compression and accelerated data storage.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for analyzing and compressing data to increase the speed and efficiency of data transfer and storage, a critical function in modern networking and data management.
  • 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 by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This post-grant review outcome may be raised to suggest the patent’s resilience against certain invalidity challenges.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-12-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 Earliest Priority Date
1999-03-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 Earliest Priority Date
1999-03-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 Earliest Priority Date
2000-10-03 U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 Earliest Priority Date
2008-08-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 Issued
2015-06-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 Issued
2015-08-25 U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 Issued
2017-05-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 Issued
2017-10-31 PTAB Final Written Decision Confirms Patentability of Asserted ’908 Patent Claims
2019-04-22 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 - "Data compression systems and methods"

  • Patent Identification: 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 "data dependency" of lossless compression techniques, where the effectiveness of a single compression algorithm is highly contingent on the specific content of the data being processed, leading to inefficient compression for certain data types (’728 Patent, col. 1:49-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a data block is first analyzed to identify its intrinsic "parameters or attributes." Based on this analysis, the system decides whether to apply a "content dependent" compression technique tailored to those attributes or a "single data compression encoder" for more generic data. This adaptive approach avoids reliance on a single, potentially inefficient compression method (’728 Patent, col. 2:66-3:15; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a more robust and efficient compression system by dynamically selecting an appropriate compression technique based on the data's actual content rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach (’728 Patent, col. 2:66-3:4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method Claim 25 (Compl. ¶7).
  • The essential elements of Claim 25 include:
    • Analyzing data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes of the data.
    • Determining whether to output the data block in received or compressed form.
    • Outputting the data block based on the determination.
    • Wherein outputting in compressed form comprises determining whether to use "content dependent data compression" or a "single data compression encoder."
    • Wherein the analysis "excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor that is indicative of" the data's parameters or attributes.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims of the ’728 Patent (Compl. ¶7).

U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 - "Data feed acceleration"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751, "Data feed acceleration," issued May 30, 2017.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the substantial cost and latency associated with transmitting high-volume, real-time data feeds, such as financial market data, over communication channels. Both network bandwidth limitations and the time required for compression and encryption contribute to this latency (’751 Patent, col. 1:41-2:38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system for accelerating data feeds by using a highly tailored "state machine" for compression. This involves building a compression model based on a-priori knowledge of the data stream’s structure, such as its packet types. The system analyzes sequences of characters (n-tuples) within the data to create specific "global states" and "substates," allowing for extremely efficient, context-aware compression that significantly reduces the amount of data to be transmitted (’751 Patent, col. 9:22-10:48; FIG. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This state-machine approach enables specialized, high-ratio compression for structured data feeds, reducing latency and bandwidth requirements beyond what generic compression algorithms can typically achieve (’751 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent system 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, where the analysis excludes being based solely on reading a descriptor.
    • The data server is configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value.
    • The data server is configured to compress the data block with the selected encoder, wherein the compression utilizes a state machine.
    • The data server is configured to store the compressed data block.
    • Wherein the time for compressing and storing the data block is less than the time for storing it in uncompressed form.
  • The complaint alleges inducement to infringe "other claims of the '751 Patent" (Compl. ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 - "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval"

  • Patent Identification: 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 bottleneck created when a computer's fast internal bus must write data to a slower storage device, such as a magnetic disk (’530 Patent, col. 2:20-32). The invention is a "data accelerator" that compresses data at a high speed before storage, allowing the effective data storage rate to exceed the physical write speed of the memory device (’530 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts Claim 1 and reserves the right to assert "other claims" (Compl. ¶44, ¶46).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Aryaka’s systems that allegedly use a "data accelerator" (combining deduplication and Gzip compression as two different techniques) to compress data before storing it on a "memory device" (in-memory cache or SSD storage) (Compl. ¶42, ¶48, ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 - "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908, "System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval," issued August 25, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the ’530 Patent and discloses a similar system for overcoming storage device bandwidth limitations. The system uses a "data accelerator" to compress different data blocks with different compression techniques, enabling the combined compression and storage to occur faster than storing the data in its original, uncompressed form (’908 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts Claim 1 and reserves the right to assert "other claims" (Compl. ¶66, ¶70).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Aryaka’s systems that allegedly compress a first data block with a first technique (e.g., deduplication) and a second data block with a different technique (e.g., another compression method) before storing the compressed blocks on a memory device (e.g., SSD storage) (Compl. ¶68).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Aryaka's "products and services, e.g., Smart CDN, SmartCONNECT, and the system hardware on which they operate" (Compl. ¶8).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused products are deployed on Aryaka's private network to deliver cloud-based, software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN) services (Compl. ¶14). The core accused functionality is the use of "proprietary compression and data deduplication technologies" to "reduce bandwidth consumed when transmitting data between locations, by eliminating redundancy within data flows" (Compl. ¶13). This deduplication allegedly "eliminates the transmission of redundant data sent more than once over the network" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint also alleges that if data is not compressed via deduplication, the system uses Gzip algorithms to reduce the amount of data transferred (Compl. ¶9, ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'9,054,728 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
analyzing, using a processor, data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes of the data within the data block The accused instrumentalities analyze data to determine if it is duplicative of previously transmitted or stored data. ¶14 col. 2:66-3:4
determining, using the processor, whether to output the data block in a received form or in a compressed form The accused instrumentalities determine whether to apply compression (e.g., deduplication or Gzip) to a data block or to output it in its received form. ¶16 col. 3:5-8
outputting...the data block in the received form or the compressed form based on the determination, wherein the outputting...in the compressed form comprises determining whether to compress...with content dependent data compression...or to compress...with a single data compression encoder The accused instrumentalities perform deduplication, which is alleged to be content-dependent compression. If deduplication is not applied, the system allegedly uses Gzip, which is alleged to be a single data compression encoder. ¶17 col. 3:9-15
and wherein the analyzing...excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor that is indicative of the one or more parameters or attributes of the data... The analysis to identify duplicative data allegedly does not rely only on a descriptor. ¶18 col. 3:16-21
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The negative limitation "excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor" may be a central point of dispute. A key question will be what constitutes a "descriptor" in the context of the patent and whether Aryaka's methods for identifying duplicative data (which may involve hashing or other signature-based techniques) fall inside or outside that definition.
    • Technical Questions: A factual question may arise regarding the decision-making process in the accused products. What evidence does the complaint provide that the system makes an active determination between "content dependent data compression" (allegedly deduplication) and a "single data compression encoder" (allegedly Gzip), as required by the claim structure, versus simply applying them in a fixed, sequential manner?

'9,667,751 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a 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 accused instrumentalities perform deduplication, which analyzes data blocks to identify redundancy. ¶30 col. 9:22-29
select an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value The accused instrumentalities allegedly select an encoder (e.g., a deduplication algorithm) based on the analysis of the data's content. ¶31 col. 9:30-32
compress data in the data block with the selected encoder to produce a compressed data block, wherein the compression utilizes a state machine The accused instrumentalities allegedly perform "byte-level data deduplication algorithm, termed Advanced Redundancy Removal (ARR)," which uses "a history buffer," alleged to be a state machine. ¶32 col. 9:33-40
store the compressed data block The accused instrumentalities use storage devices such as "large in-memory cache and SSD storage" to store compressed data. ¶33 col. 9:41-43
wherein the time of the compressing...and the storing...is less than the time of storing the data block in uncompressed form The compression and deduplication allegedly "result in higher throughput over the WAN, ultimately leading to faster application performance," suggesting the process is faster than uncompressed storage. ¶34 col. 9:44-48
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the accused system's use of a "history buffer" for its deduplication algorithm constitutes the "state machine" required by the claim. The defense may argue for a narrower construction based on the specification's detailed description of building global states and substates from n-tuple sequences, a structure potentially more complex than a simple history buffer.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that the claimed speed requirement is met because the accused products provide "faster performance" (Compl. ¶34). A key evidentiary question will be whether this marketing-level claim of "faster performance" can be substantiated with technical evidence proving that the specific steps of "compressing... and... storing" are faster than the single step of "storing the data block in uncompressed form," as required by the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Patent: ’728 Patent

    • The Term: "analyzing... excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor"
    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is central to defining the type of analysis required to infringe. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused product's method for identifying data characteristics (e.g., for deduplication) is more than just reading a pre-existing "descriptor." Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation determines whether simple, signature-based data identification methods fall within the claim's scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is broad, suggesting that any analysis that goes beyond reading a pre-defined tag or header and instead examines the actual content of the data block could meet the limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses identifying "parameters or attributes of the data," which could imply a more sophisticated analysis than simply generating a hash or signature. The abstract distinguishes this analysis from one "based solely on a descriptor," suggesting the two are fundamentally different approaches.

  • Patent: ’751 Patent

    • The Term: "state machine"
    • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on whether the accused deduplication algorithm, which uses a "history buffer," is a "state machine." The construction of this term will be critical to determining if a system that changes its output (compressed vs. a pointer to existing data) based on past inputs falls within the claim scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "state machine" is not explicitly defined in the patent, which may support giving it a broader, ordinary meaning that could encompass any system whose operation depends on its history, such as a deduplication buffer.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific example of a state machine built from "global states" and "substates" based on "a-priori knowledge of the data stream" and counts of "n-tuple sequences" (’751 Patent, col. 9:36-55). This detailed embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction that requires a more complex, structured state model than a simple history buffer.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four patents-in-suit. Inducement is based on allegations that Aryaka provides user manuals, product support, and marketing materials that actively encourage and instruct customers on using the infringing compression features (Compl. ¶12, ¶26, ¶44, ¶66). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products are especially adapted to perform the patented methods and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶10, ¶27, ¶47, ¶67).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Aryaka has had knowledge of the patents "since at least the filing of the original Complaint in this action, or shortly thereafter" (Compl. ¶11, ¶25, ¶43, ¶65). These allegations may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement.

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

  • A central issue will be one of definitional scope: does Aryaka's process of analyzing data for deduplication constitute "analyzing... [which] excludes analyzing based only on a descriptor" as required by the '728 and '751 patents, or do Aryaka's methods effectively rely on hash-based signatures that function as descriptors?
  • A second core issue will be one of technical equivalence: does the accused deduplication system, which allegedly uses a "history buffer," meet the '751 patent's requirement of a "state machine," particularly when the specification details a more complex architecture of global and local states derived from the data's structure?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of performance verification: for the system claims requiring that compression and storage be faster than uncompressed storage (e.g., '751, '530, and '908 patents), what technical proof will be required to substantiate this performance benchmark beyond generalized marketing claims of "faster application performance"?