DCT

1:22-cv-00496

Corrigent Corp v. Dell Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00496, D. Del., 08/16/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are incorporated in the State of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's Dell PowerEdge MX7000 networking products infringe two patents related to hidden failure detection in modular systems and Media Access Control (MAC) address learning in distributed network bridges.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to Ethernet switching and routing, particularly methods for ensuring reliability and managing traffic in carrier-grade telecommunications networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The current filing is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint notes that the original complaint was filed on April 19, 2022, establishing a date for the purpose of post-filing willfulness allegations. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the asserted patents, are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-05-30 '369 Patent Priority Date
2005-10-18 '369 Patent Issue Date
2006-05-19 '400 Patent Priority Date
2009-09-22 '400 Patent Issue Date
2022-04-19 Original Complaint Filing Date
2024-08-16 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,957,369 - "HIDDEN FAILURE DETECTION"

Issued October 18, 2005.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Electronic equipment can suffer from "hidden failures," where idle components fail but the failure goes undetected until the component is activated for use, causing an unexpected service interruption (Compl. ¶19; ’369 Patent, col. 1:11-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for non-intrusively self-testing idle components in a communication system without disrupting normal traffic. The system designates one idle line as an "aid trace" and configures its corresponding module to loop back traffic. It then selects another idle line for testing, configures a central switch to connect the tested line to the aid line, and sends test traffic. If the traffic does not return to the sending module correctly, a hidden failure is detected and reported (’369 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:6-23). The complaint reproduces Figure 1 of the patent, which illustrates a modular apparatus comprising a main module, subsidiary modules, and a backplane capable of implementing this solution (Compl. ¶19).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled proactive fault detection in complex, modular telecommunications systems, improving overall network reliability and resiliency, which were key requirements for service providers (Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶32).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 15 are:
    • A modular electronic apparatus comprising a backplane with traces for data transfer.
    • A main module plugged into the backplane, containing a switch with ports.
    • At least first and second subsidiary modules plugged into the backplane, connected to the main module by traces, some of which are sometimes idle.
    • A system control processor operative to:
      • select a first idle trace as an "aid trace" and instruct the first subsidiary module to loop back traffic.
      • select a second idle trace for testing.
      • configure the switch to link the ports associated with the aid trace and the trace under test.
      • cause test traffic to be transmitted over the second idle trace, through the switch, to the aid trace, and back to the second subsidiary module.
      • report a failure if the test traffic does not return within a predetermined time.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims... including claim 15," reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 7,593,400 - "MAC ADDRESS LEARNING IN A DISTRIBUTED BRIDGE"

Issued September 22, 2009.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for improved methods of MAC address learning in distributed bridging systems, such as Layer 2 virtual private networks (VPLS), particularly when multiple physical ports are combined into a logical link aggregation (LAG) group (Compl. ¶24; ’400 Patent, col. 2:60-3:2).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a communication method for a distributed MAC bridge. Each line card in the bridge maintains its own forwarding database (FDB). When an ingress line card receives a data packet, it checks its FDB for the packet's source MAC address. If no record of the source MAC's association with the ingress port exists, the line card creates a new record in its own FDB and sends a message to all other member line cards, instructing them to add the new association to their respective FDBs. This synchronizes MAC address tables across the distributed system, preventing unnecessary flooding of future packets (’400 Patent, Claim 1). The complaint includes Figure 3 from the patent, a flowchart that illustrates a method for this type of MAC learning (Compl. ¶24).
  • Technical Importance: This method facilitates efficient and synchronized MAC learning across multiple line cards in a distributed system, which is critical for the performance and proper operation of advanced networking services like VPLS (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • Configuring a network node with multiple line cards to operate as a distributed MAC bridge in a Layer 2 network.
    • Configuring a link aggregation (LAG) group of parallel physical links.
    • Providing each member line card with its own forwarding database (FDB).
    • Receiving a data packet on an ingress port.
    • Conveying the data packet toward its destination.
    • If the destination MAC address is unknown, flooding the packet via only one LAG port.
    • Checking the packet's source MAC address against the ingress line card's FDB.
    • If the FDB does not contain a record of the source MAC association, creating and adding a new record to the FDB and sending a message of the association to each other member line card.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims... including claim 1," reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: Dell PowerEdge MX7000 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint identifies the Accused Products as "routers and switches" (Compl. ¶27). It alleges that Defendants market, advertise, and sell these products, and promote them through materials such as the "Dell EMC PowerEdge MX Networking Deployment Guide" and "PowerEdge MX I/O Guide" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint asserts that these materials "describe and tout the use of the subject matter claimed in the Asserted Patents" (Compl. ¶30, 34). The complaint does not, however, provide a detailed technical description of the Accused Product's internal architecture or specific operational modes, instead incorporating by reference external claim chart exhibits that were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference Exhibits 3 and 4, which it describes as comparisons of the asserted claims to the Accused Products (Compl. ¶32, 41). As these exhibits were not provided, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that the Dell PowerEdge MX7000 products directly infringe the asserted claims of the '369 and '400 patents (Compl. ¶32, 41). For the '369 Patent, the infringement theory is that the MX7000 is a modular apparatus that performs the claimed method of non-intrusive self-testing of its idle components (Compl. ¶32-35). For the '400 Patent, the theory is that the MX7000, when operating as a distributed bridge, performs the claimed method of learning MAC addresses and synchronizing that information across its constituent line cards (Compl. ¶41-44).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Architectural Mapping: A likely point of dispute will be whether the architecture of the modern Dell PowerEdge MX7000 maps to the "main module" and "subsidiary modules" structure of the '369 Patent, or the "distributed media access control (MAC) bridge" with "member line cards" of the '400 Patent. The parties may contest whether the functions of the claimed components are performed by corresponding or equivalent structures in the accused device.
    • Functional Operation: A core technical question will be whether the Accused Product actually performs the specific functions as claimed. For the '369 Patent, this raises the question of whether the MX7000's diagnostic routines use the specific "aid trace" and loopback configuration required by claim 15. For the '400 Patent, a key question is whether the MX7000's method for updating its forwarding tables constitutes "sending a message of the association to each member line card" as recited in claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "system control processor" (’369 Patent, Claim 15)

  • Context and Importance: Infringement of claim 15 hinges on identifying a "system control processor" in the accused device that performs the lengthy, specific sequence of testing operations. The construction of this term will determine whether a general-purpose management processor or a distributed processing architecture can satisfy the limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines the processor functionally by what it is "operative to" do, rather than by a specific hardware structure. The specification provides examples of processors ("MPC8265 and MPC8250") but does not appear to limit the invention to them, which may support a broader, more functional definition (’369 Patent, col. 6:44-48).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description distinguishes between a "system control processor 42 in main module 22" and "subsidiary processors 44," suggesting a specific distributed control architecture (’369 Patent, col. 6:40-44). A party could argue that this context requires a specific command-and-control relationship between distinct processors, potentially narrowing the scope.

  • Term: "sending a message of the association to each member line card" (’400 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This final step of claim 1 defines the synchronization mechanism. The viability of the infringement allegation depends on whether the accused product's method of propagating MAC address information across its internal components qualifies as "sending a message."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim term "message" is not explicitly defined or limited to a specific protocol. A party might argue that any data transmission between line cards that serves to communicate the new MAC address association—such as a broadcast packet on an internal control bus—falls within the ordinary meaning of the term.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's Figure 3 explicitly shows "SYNCUPDATE" paths and a "SEND SYNCUPDATE" step, which may suggest that "sending a message" requires a discrete, packetized communication intended for synchronization, as opposed to other potential mechanisms like a shared memory update or a hardware-level signal (’400 Patent, Fig. 3, step 82).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The allegations are based on Defendants' promotional materials, data sheets, manuals, and guides, which allegedly instruct and encourage end-users to operate the Accused Products in a manner that directly infringes the asserted claims (Compl. ¶33-35, 43-44). It further alleges the products are especially made for an infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶35, 44).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have had knowledge of the asserted patents at least since the filing date of the original complaint on April 19, 2022. This forms the basis for an allegation of post-filing willful infringement (Compl. ¶33, 42). There are no allegations of pre-suit knowledge.

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

This case presents a dispute centered on applying patent claims drafted for a specific network architecture to modern, potentially more complex, networking hardware. The resolution will likely depend on the court's determination of the following questions:

  • A central issue will be one of architectural equivalency: Can the "main module/subsidiary module" structure of the '369 Patent and the "distributed MAC bridge" of the '400 Patent be read to cover the integrated architecture of the Dell PowerEdge MX7000? The construction of terms like "system control processor" will be pivotal.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: What evidence will demonstrate that the accused product performs the specific operational steps recited in the claims? For the '369 patent, this involves the "aid trace" loopback test, and for the '400 patent, the "sending a message" synchronization method. The outcome may depend heavily on evidence from product source code and internal design documents rather than public-facing materials.