Invincible IP LLC v. Alibaba Cloud US LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Invincible IP LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Alibaba Cloud US LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Gawthrop Greenwood, PC
• Case Identification: 1:21-cv-00956, D. Del., 06/30/2021
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud computing platforms and services infringe five patents related to data center power management, message queue processing, dynamic resource allocation, and secure virtual machine migration.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue address fundamental challenges in modern cloud computing infrastructure, focusing on efficiency, performance, and security in large-scale, virtualized data centers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,938,634: USER GENERATED DATA CENTER POWER SAVINGS (Issued Jan. 20, 2015)

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes that conventional power optimization in data centers is performed at the hardware level without input from users. Users often lack the specific hardware knowledge to provide relevant optimization information, creating an information gap. (’634 Patent, col. 1:21-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system allowing users to embed "hardware independent power saving codes" into their applications. A component within the data center, such as a "paravirtualized driver," interprets these generic codes and converts them into "device power management messages" that are specific to the underlying hardware, thereby enabling or disabling devices to conserve power. (’634 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:20-44).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to empower application developers to influence hardware-level power management, potentially enabling more granular and context-aware energy savings in virtualized data center environments. (’634 Patent, col. 4:1-9).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • identifying user-provided hardware independent power saving codes from multiple virtual machines within the data center;
    • converting at least a portion of the codes into a device power management message specific to a computing system in the data center, which includes identifying the relevant portion of the codes and performing the conversion; and
    • providing the device power management message to the computing system, which is then operative to enable or disable one or more devices in accordance with the message.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," which may suggest an intent to assert additional claims later in the proceedings (Compl. ¶14).

U.S. Patent No. 8,954,993: LOCAL MESSAGE QUEUE PROCESSING FOR CO-LOCATED WORKERS (Issued Feb. 10, 2015)

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies an inefficiency in data centers where co-located software "workers" (e.g., processes on the same server) communicate through network-based message queues. This requires data to traverse the network even when the sender and receiver are on the same physical machine, introducing unnecessary latency. (’993 Patent, col. 1:25-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for detecting when a local "producer worker" sends a message to a remote datacenter queue that a local "consumer worker" also uses. The system stores the message in a local "queue cache" on the first server. When the consumer worker requests a message from that queue, it is served directly from the local cache, bypassing the network. A "command channel" helps maintain consistency between the local cache and the remote queue. (’993 Patent, col. 2:41-51; Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: This technique sought to optimize inter-process communication for co-located tasks in a distributed cloud architecture, reducing internal data center network traffic and improving application performance. (’993 Patent, col. 5:5-10).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • detecting a producer worker at a first server sending a first message to a datacenter queue at least partially stored at a second server;
    • storing the first message in a queue cache at the first server, where the cache includes a copy or partial copy of the datacenter queue;
    • detecting a consumer worker at the first server sending a message request to the datacenter queue;
    • providing the stored first message to the consumer worker in response to the message request;
    • receiving a signal from a command channel associated with the datacenter queue; and
    • modifying the stored first message in response to receiving the signal.
  • The complaint notes infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the option to assert others (Compl. ¶26).

---

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,479,472

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,479,472, "LOCAL MESSAGE QUEUE PROCESSING FOR CO-LOCATED WORKERS," issued October 25, 2016.
• Technology Synopsis: Continuing the technology of the ’993 Patent, this invention addresses inefficiencies where software workers on the same server communicate via remote network queues. The patented method detects such scenarios, stores messages in a local cache on the server, and serves requests from a co-located consumer worker directly from this cache to avoid network latency. (’472 Patent, col. 1:24-38; col. 2:41-51).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
• Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's AlibabaMQ for Apache RocketMQ service practices the patented method of locally processing queue requests for co-located workers (Compl. ¶¶40, 43).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,635,134

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,635,134, "RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN A CLOUD COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT," issued April 25, 2017.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for managing cloud resources by monitoring the consumption rate (e.g., CPU, memory, I/O) of virtual machines (VMs). The system uses a first scheme to prioritize VMs and, if consumption rates cross a threshold, uses a second scheme to re-prioritize and potentially migrate high-consumption VMs to alternate resources to balance load and maintain performance. (’134 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-43).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
• Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges Alibaba Cloud Auto-Scaling infringes by determining VM consumption rates, prioritizing VMs using management schemes, and migrating VM resource consumption to alternate cloud resources based on predetermined thresholds (Compl. ¶¶54-59).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,678,774

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,678,774, "SECURE MIGRATION OF VIRTUAL MACHINES," issued June 13, 2017.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the security risk of virtual machine (VM) hijacking during migration. It describes a method using a "hidden process" executable by the VM to determine if a target host's geographic location is within a "particular perimeter." Migration is allowed only if the target is within the authorized perimeter, thereby preventing transfer to an insecure or unapproved location. (’774 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:16-27).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶65).
• Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that Alibaba Cloud – ‘Elastic Compute Service’ infringes by checking whether a migration target host is in the same "region or zone" (the alleged "perimeter") and allowing or denying the migration based on this determination (Compl. ¶¶69-71).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies several of Defendant's cloud services as accused instrumentalities: Alibaba Cloud, AlibabaMQ for Apache RocketMQ, Alibaba Cloud Auto-Scaling, and Alibaba Cloud – ‘Elastic Compute Service’ (Compl. ¶¶7-10).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the relevant functionalities of the accused services as they relate to the asserted patents. These include providing methods to halt power to a host to achieve power savings (Compl. ¶17), processing message queue requests between co-located producer and consumer clusters (Compl. ¶¶29-30), providing monitoring and performance metrics to manage resources via auto-scaling (Compl. ¶54), and evaluating source and target host locations for virtual machine migration (Compl. ¶69). The complaint does not provide specific details regarding the market context or commercial importance of these services.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

8,938,634 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether general user-initiated commands like "reboot" or "force stop" (Compl. ¶18) meet the patent's definition of "hardware independent power saving codes." The defense could argue these are standard operating system commands, whereas the patent describes codes inserted into an application via a specific API for power management purposes (’634 Patent, col. 4:51-54).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges "on information and belief" that a "converting" step occurs. A factual dispute may arise over what evidence shows that Alibaba Cloud's system translates a generic user command into a hardware-specific message, as required by the claim, rather than simply passing the command through existing system management layers.

8,954,993 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether an alleged "producer cluster" and "consumer group" (Compl. ¶¶30, 32) are structurally and functionally equivalent to the "producer worker" and "consumer worker" described in the patent, which are framed in the context of individual processes or virtual machines (’993 Patent, col. 4:5-12).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that an "OnsInstanceDelete" signal modifies the stored message (Compl. ¶¶34-35). A factual question for the court will be whether this signal functions as the claimed "signal from a command channel" intended to maintain consistency between a local cache and a remote queue, or if it is a general system command with a different purpose.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’634 Patent:

• The Term: "hardware independent power saving codes"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept. The outcome of the case may depend on whether generic system commands like "reboot" (Compl. ¶18) fall within its scope, or if it is limited to a more specific set of commands provided for the express purpose of power management.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the data center API providing "a set of high-level routines, object structures, or data structures that a programmer can utilize," which could be argued to encompass a range of user-initiated actions. (’634 Patent, col. 4:51-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently frames these "codes" as being defined via an API and inserted into "application code" to manage specific hardware devices (e.g., "disk access will be needed in 10 milliseconds"). This context suggests a purpose-built system distinct from general operating system commands. (’634 Patent, col. 5:6-21).

For the ’993 Patent:

• The Term: "queue cache at the first server"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism for local message storage. The dispute may focus on whether the accused functionality in AlibabaMQ is a dedicated "queue cache" as claimed, or a more general-purpose buffer that does not meet all claim limitations.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires only that the cache "includes one of a copy and a partial copy of the datacenter queue," potentially covering any local buffer that temporarily holds messages intended for the remote queue. (’993 Patent, col. 10:15-18).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the cache as part of a system where a virtual machine manager intercepts traffic and uses a "command channel" to maintain consistency with the remote queue, suggesting a more specialized architecture than a generic buffer. (’993 Patent, col. 6:1-14).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations supporting indirect infringement. The infringement counts are asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 271 generally, which encompasses direct infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement or make any factual assertions regarding pre-suit knowledge of the patents by the Defendant.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's determination of several key technical and legal questions:

• A central issue across multiple patents will be one of definitional scope: can common cloud computing terms and user actions, such as a "reboot" command or a "producer cluster," be construed to meet the specific definitions of claim terms like "hardware independent power saving code" ('634 Patent) and "producer worker" ('993 Patent) as described in the patent specifications?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural proof: as the allegations are made "on information and belief," the case will likely depend on whether discovery reveals that the internal architecture of Alibaba's cloud services performs the specific, multi-step processes claimed, such as the "converting" of generic commands into hardware-specific messages ('634 Patent) and the local "caching" of messages to bypass network latency ('993 Patent).
• For the '774 patent, the dispute may focus on whether Alibaba's use of a data center "region or zone" as a migration boundary is functionally equivalent to the claimed "particular perimeter," and whether this check constitutes the claimed "hidden process" for security purposes.