DCT
1:19-cv-00031
Realtime Data LLC v. Masergy Communications Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO (New York)
- Defendant: Masergy Communications, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.; Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00031, D. Del., 01/07/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s networking products and services, including its Managed SD-WAN and WAN Optimization offerings, infringe four patents related to systems and methods for data compression and accelerated data handling.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for analyzing and compressing data streams in real-time to increase the effective bandwidth of data networks and accelerate data storage, a critical function in modern wide-area networking (WAN) and cloud computing environments.
- 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 of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on October 31, 2017." This post-grant review by the U.S. Patent Office may suggest a strengthened position regarding the validity of those specific claims against certain prior art challenges.
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 |
| 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 Final Written Decision confirms patentability of asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 |
| 2019-01-07 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,054,728 - Data compression systems and methods
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint does not quote the patent’s background, but the claims address the challenge of efficiently compressing data streams where the type of data may vary. A single, static compression algorithm may be inefficient if data characteristics change from one block to the next.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an adaptive data compression system that analyzes the content of a data block to identify its specific "parameters or attributes" (’728 Patent, Abstract). The system uses this analysis to choose between different types of encoders. If specific content attributes are identified, it applies one or more "content dependent" encoders; otherwise, it uses a default "single data compression encoder" as a fallback (’728 Patent, Abstract). This allows the system to select a more suitable compression technique for a given piece of data on the fly.
- Technical Importance: This approach enables more intelligent and efficient data compression in environments like high-speed networks where data content is heterogeneous and unpredictable.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶9).
- Claim 1 of the ’728 Patent 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, excluding analysis based solely on a descriptor;
- And to perform compression with either the content dependent encoder(s) or the single data compression encoder based on whether said parameters or attributes are identified.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶12).
U.S. Patent No. 9,667,751 - Data feed acceleration
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The claims address the technical problem of data storage and retrieval bandwidth acting as a performance bottleneck (’751 Patent, Claim 25). Storing large amounts of uncompressed data can be slower than the rate at which a system can process it.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a data server system that compresses and stores a data block in less time than it would take to store the same data block in its uncompressed form (’751 Patent, Claim 25). The server analyzes the content of the data block, selects an appropriate encoder, compresses the data using a state machine, and stores the compressed result, thereby accelerating the overall data storage process.
- Technical Importance: This technique aims to overcome I/O bottlenecks in data-intensive applications by making the storage process itself more efficient through high-speed, on-the-fly compression.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 25 (Compl. ¶26).
- Claim 25 of the ’751 Patent requires:
- A data server implemented on one or more processors and memory systems;
- The data server configured to analyze the content of a data block to identify a parameter, attribute, or value, excluding analysis based solely on a descriptor;
- The data server configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter;
- The data server configured to compress the data with the selected encoder to produce a compressed block, wherein the compression utilizes a state machine;
- The data server configured to store the compressed data block;
- Wherein the combined time of compressing and storing the 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. ¶28).
Multi-Patent Capsules
U.S. Patent No. 7,415,530 - System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system to accelerate data storage by compressing a data stream faster than it can be stored in its original form (’530 Patent, Abstract). A key aspect of the asserted claim is the use of two different compression techniques on two different data blocks within the same data stream, with the resulting compressed data being stored along with a descriptor that indicates which compression technique was used (Compl. ¶44; ’530 Patent, Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
- Accused Features: Masergy's WAN optimization services are accused of infringing by allegedly using at least two different compression techniques—data deduplication and another form of data compression—on incoming data streams (Compl. ¶¶53-54).
U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 - System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval
- Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’530 Patent, this patent describes a system for accelerated data storage. The asserted claim requires a data accelerator that compresses a first data block with a first compression technique and a second data block with a second, different compression technique, where the overall compression and storage process is faster than storing the data in uncompressed form (Compl. ¶65).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶65).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Masergy's services infringe by using a first compression technique (deduplication) on a first data block and a second compression technique on a second data block (Compl. ¶70).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Masergy's products and services, including "Managed SD-WAN, Managed SD-VPN, Managed WAN Optimization, and the system hardware on which they operate" (Compl. ¶8, ¶25, ¶43, ¶64).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused services are designed to provide efficient use of Wide Area Network (WAN) links by overcoming latency (Compl. ¶12). This is achieved through "data deduplication and data compression" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges these services operate on commodity hardware, such as Intel servers, and can be deployed in the cloud (Compl. ¶13, ¶31, ¶50). A diagram in the complaint depicts Masergy's "Global Software Defined Platform" connecting branch offices to headquarters and cloud services like Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure. (Compl. ¶31, p. 14). The functionality is alleged to involve analyzing data streams, dividing them into "chunks," creating a "collision-resistant hash" for each chunk, and using a global index to detect and eliminate duplicate chunks of data (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide citations to the patent specification to map claim elements to the patent's teachings. The patent citations below refer to the abstract of the provided patent document, where the general invention is described.
’9054,728 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a processor | The accused services are deployed on commodity hardware such as Intel servers, which include processors. | ¶13 | ’728 Patent, Abstract |
| one or more content dependent data compression encoders | The accused services perform data deduplication, which is described as a content dependent data compression technique. | ¶14 | ’728 Patent, Abstract |
| a single data compression encoder | The accused services perform data compression in addition to data deduplication. | ¶15 | ’728 Patent, Abstract |
| wherein the processor is configured: to analyze data within a data block to identify one or more parameters or attributes...excludes analyzing based solely on a descriptor... | The accused services analyze data to determine if it is duplicative of previously stored data by dividing it into chunks and using a hash as the chunk's identity. | ¶16 | ’728 Patent, Abstract |
| to perform content dependent data compression...if the one or more parameters or attributes of the data are identified | When a data block is identified as duplicative (a parameter), the system performs deduplication by replacing it with a reference. | ¶17 | ’728 Patent, Abstract |
| 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, the system performs data compression to shrink its size. | ¶18 | ’728 Patent, Abstract |
’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 services are deployed on commodity hardware such as Intel servers, which include processors and memory, and may also be deployed on the cloud. A diagram illustrates this architecture. (Compl. ¶31, p. 14). | ¶31 | Not provided |
| the data server configured to analyze content of a data block...that excludes analysis based solely on reading a descriptor | The accused services are alleged to perform data deduplication, which involves dividing data into chunks and using a hash of the content to detect duplicates, rather than relying only on a descriptor. | ¶32 | Not provided |
| the data server configured to select an encoder associated with the identified parameter, attribute, or value | The accused services are alleged to select between performing deduplication or another form of compression based on the analysis of the data. | ¶33 | Not provided |
| the data server configured to compress data in the data block with the selected encoder...wherein the compression utilizes a state machine | The accused services perform compression via their deployment on commodity servers, which the complaint alleges utilizes a state machine. | ¶34 | Not provided |
| the data server configured to store the compressed data block | The accused services utilize storage devices such as SSDs or cloud storage to store the results of the compression. | ¶35 | Not provided |
| 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 data reduction and acceleration features of the compression algorithms used result in this time-saving benefit. | ¶36 | Not provided |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether "data deduplication" as implemented by Masergy constitutes a "content dependent data compression encoder" as contemplated by the ’728 Patent. A related question for the ’530 and ’908 Patents is whether deduplication and a general compression algorithm qualify as two "different" compression techniques under the claims.
- Technical Questions: For the ’751 Patent, a significant point of contention may arise over the "state machine" limitation. The complaint alleges this element is met but provides no specific facts describing how Masergy's products use a state machine for compression (Compl. ¶34). Another key factual question will be proving the timing limitation of Claim 25 of the ’751 Patent—specifically, whether Masergy's process of compressing and storing a data block is demonstrably faster than simply storing the uncompressed block.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The provided documents do not contain sufficient intrinsic evidence (e.g., patent specification or prosecution history) for a detailed analysis of claim term construction. However, based on the infringement allegations, the following terms may be central to the dispute.
The Term: "content dependent data compression encoders" (’728 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is critical because the plaintiff’s infringement theory relies on equating "data deduplication" with a "content dependent data compression encoder" (Compl. ¶14). Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant will likely argue that data deduplication—a process of identifying and replacing redundant data blocks with pointers—is technically distinct from an "encoder," which typically implies a process of transforming a data block into a different, smaller representation. The patent’s own definition and examples for this term will be decisive.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of intrinsic evidence.
The Term: "state machine" (’751 Patent, Claim 25)
Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for this element is conclusory (Compl. ¶34). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine the technical evidence required. The dispute will likely center on whether the term should be given a broad, general meaning (any system that transitions between states) or a narrower one that requires a specific structure or algorithm described in the patent's specification. If the patent defines "state machine" in a specific way that Masergy's products do not implement, the infringement claim may fail.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of intrinsic evidence.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is alleged based on Defendant’s marketing materials, user manuals, and product support, which allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the accused data deduplication and compression features (Compl. ¶12, ¶28, ¶46, ¶68). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products are especially adapted for infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶10, ¶29, ¶49, ¶69).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶27, ¶45, ¶67). It further alleges that Defendant acted with knowledge or "willful blindness to the probability, that the induced acts would constitute infringement," which may form the basis for a claim of willful infringement, particularly for post-suit conduct (Compl. ¶12, ¶28, ¶46, ¶68).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may depend on the court’s determination of the following open questions:
- A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: Can data deduplication, as implemented in the accused Masergy services, be properly characterized as a "content dependent data compression encoder" under the specific disclosures of the ’728 Patent? Similarly, does Masergy's compression architecture utilize a "state machine" as that term is defined by the intrinsic evidence of the ’751 Patent?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of performance and function: Can the plaintiff provide sufficient technical evidence, beyond marketing materials, to prove the functional requirements of the claims? In particular, the case may hinge on demonstrating that the accused products meet the specific timing limitation of the ’751 Patent—that compressing and storing data is measurably faster than storing it uncompressed.