DataCloud Tech LLC v. Bandwidth Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DataCloud Technologies, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Bandwidth Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt, LLC; Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00109, D. Del., 01/27/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation in the state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s network infrastructure, user dashboards, and API rate-limiting systems infringe four patents related to anonymous network communication, remote file management, and file access rate regulation.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern foundational aspects of network security and cloud services, including methods for anonymizing user traffic, providing remote administrative control over data, and managing system resources.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant was informed of Plaintiff's patent portfolio by a letter dated December 14, 2020. U.S. Patent No. RE44,723 is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,907,421. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,209,959 and 8,762,498 share a common priority application. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate was issued for the ’498 patent on July 12, 2024, canceling all claims (1-20), which raises a threshold question regarding the viability of the infringement count for that patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 - "Apparatus, System, And Method For Communicating To A Network Through A Virtual Domain Providing Anonymity To A Client Communicating On The Network"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem that on the World Wide Web, a user's activity and identity can be easily traced, leading to privacy threats like unwanted e-mails and data collection. (’959 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:7). Existing solutions like standard proxy servers are described as merely providing an alternate, but still traceable, identity. (’959 Patent, col. 2:8-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system architecture comprising three distinct logical components—a "deceiver," a "controller," and a "forwarder"—that work in concert to create a temporary, anonymous communication session. The system intercepts a user's request, uses the controller to resolve the true destination, and then routes all traffic through the forwarder, which masks the IP addresses of both the client and the destination server from each other for the duration of the session. (’959 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:33-44; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technology proposed a method for creating dynamic, session-specific "virtual namespaces" that could provide enhanced anonymity and enable new forms of community-based or role-based network interaction. (’959 Patent, col. 2:48-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
• Claim 1 requires a method with the following essential elements:
  • In response to a client request to communicate with a destination website, setting up a forwarding session using a forwarder disposed between the client and the destination server.
  • Employing the forwarder to transfer packets bilaterally, wherein the session is implemented such that neither the client nor the destination server is aware of the forwarder's employment.
  • Employing a controller that communicates with the forwarder and a domain name server (DNS) to resolve the destination website's name.
  • Employing a deceiver that communicates with the client and the controller; the deceiver receives the client's initial request and initiates the controller's query to the DNS.
  • Initiating the forwarding session after the controller receives the resolved name from the DNS and communicates with the forwarder.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

---

U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298 - "Remote Access And Retrieval Of Electronic Files"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of remote data access systems, particularly for corporate users who often lack the ability to not only access their data but also to manage or control the underlying "data directory structure" where the files are stored. (’298 Patent, col. 2:15-24). It also notes that such systems often fail to provide confirmation that data has been successfully delivered. (’298 Patent, col. 2:4-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system, including a server-side computing application, that gives participating users the ability to remotely control data directory structures. An authenticated user can query a "profile data store" to see accessible directories and then select a directory for modification, with the system also providing notification of data delivery to specified targets. (’298 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:37-54).
• Technical Importance: This technology sought to provide remote users with more robust, desktop-like control over their network-based files, moving beyond simple viewing and downloading to include active management of the file system's organization. (’298 Patent, col. 4:30-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 13 (Compl. ¶34).
• Claim 13 requires a method with the following essential elements:
  • Receiving a request for remote management control of data directory structures from a user.
  • Processing the request by providing data directory structure information from a profile store if the user's access is deemed valid.
  • Querying the profile store for the directory structures accessible to that user.
  • Wherein a single directory structure from among a plurality of structures is selected by the user for modification.
  • Delivering desired data to identified targets and generating a notification of said delivery.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

---

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,762,498

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,762,498, "Apparatus, System, And Method For Communicating To A Network Through A Virtual Domain," issued June 24, 2014.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent, which shares a priority date with the ’959 patent, discloses a method for routing network requests by using a controller to determine a destination IP address based on a "virtual namespace" provided by a device. The controller establishes a correlation between the destination IP address and a forwarder's IP address, then instructs the forwarder to send the request data to the destination, thereby managing traffic through a virtualized routing mechanism. (Compl. ¶¶40, 41, 46).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶45).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Bandwidth's website infrastructure, specifically its use of TLS and SNI Routing involving a router and a WWW server, infringes this patent. (Compl. ¶¶45, 46).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. RE44,723

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,723, "Regulating File Access Rates According To File Type," issued January 21, 2014.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a computer-implemented method for regulating system resources by controlling the rate at which processes can access files. The method involves intercepting a "system call" that attempts to access a file, determining if the process that made the call is associated with a specific access rate for that "type of the file," and then regulating the process's access to the file at the determined rate. (Compl. ¶¶51, 57).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶56).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that "Bandwidth Rate Limiting," a system for accounts with Messaging APIs that limits resource access (e.g., to one message per second), infringes this patent. (Compl. ¶¶55, 57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies three accused instrumentalities: (1) "Bandwidth's website infrastructure and its employ of TLS"; (2) the "Bandwidth Dashboard and the 911 Access Dashboard" (collectively, the "Dashboards"); and (3) the "Bandwidth rate limiting system for accounts with Messaging APIs." (Compl. ¶14).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The website infrastructure is alleged to use a combination of a front-end server switch, a firewall, a DNS, and a router to manage communications between an internet user and Bandwidth's destination web servers (e.g., bandwidth.com). (Compl. ¶24). The complaint alleges these components operate to create a forwarding session that obscures the direct connection between the client and the server. (Compl. ¶24).
  • The Dashboards are alleged to be web-based applications that provide users with remote management capabilities. Users are assigned roles ("Account Admin," "Basic Users") that determine their access to various data and functions, which are stored in a "profile data store." (Compl. ¶35). The complaint alleges users can select from available options like "Billing Reports" or "Configuration" for modification. (Compl. ¶35).
  • The rate limiting system is alleged to be a feature of Bandwidth's Messaging APIs that "limits resource access one message per second." (Compl. ¶57). This functionality is accused of regulating a process's access to a file based on a pre-determined rate. (Compl. ¶57).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'959 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether Bandwidth's conventional network components (a "router," a "firewall," a "front-end server switch") can be mapped to the patent's highly specific and functionally defined "deceiver," "controller," and "forwarder" elements. The court may need to determine if these claim terms require a dedicated, purpose-built architecture or if they can read on generic components performing routine network functions.
  • Technical Questions: The allegation that "neither the client or the destination server is aware of the employment of the forwarder" (Compl. ¶24) may raise an evidentiary challenge. The complaint's support for this—the existence of a direct TCP connection—may be scrutinized to determine if it sufficiently proves the functional unawareness required by the claim.

'298 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The central dispute may focus on the meaning of "remote data directory structure management." The question for the court will be whether this term, as used in the patent, covers the management of user roles, permissions, and access to pre-defined functional categories (as alleged in Compl. ¶35), or if it is limited to the management of the underlying file system hierarchy itself (e.g., creating, deleting, or renaming folders on a disk).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "deceiver" (from ’959 Patent, Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The complaint maps this term to a generic "router." (Compl. ¶24). The patent, however, requires the "deceiver" to perform a specific function: upon receiving a client request, it "initiates the controller to query the domain name server." Practitioners may focus on this term because the viability of the infringement theory depends on whether a standard network router performs this specific, active-initiating role as part of its normal operation, rather than simply forwarding packets.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the deceiver, controller, and forwarder are "applications" and "can all be on a single computer, or separate computers," suggesting the terms refer to logical functions rather than specific hardware. (’959 Patent, col. 6:36-42).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 and Figure 1 explicitly lay out a sequence where the deceiver (104) receives a packet from the client (101) and then forwards a query to the controller (106). (’959 Patent, Fig. 1, steps 1-2; col. 7:4-10). This specific, multi-step interaction could support a narrower construction that requires more than the passive packet-forwarding function of a typical router.

---

• The Term: "data directory structure" (from ’298 Patent, Claim 13)
• Context and Importance: The complaint alleges this term reads on "webpages and functions accessible to discrete users" and a list of account settings like "Billing Reports" and "Campaign Management." (Compl. ¶35). The infringement case hinges on whether "managing" these high-level application features is equivalent to managing a "data directory structure." Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed narrowly to mean a file-system-level directory (like a folder), the accused Dashboard functionality might fall outside the claim scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background discusses the need for users to have "data management and storage control (e.g. control over the directory structure)," which could be argued to encompass any user-facing organizational paradigm. (’298 Patent, col. 2:16-17).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly discusses the invention in the context of where data is "stored" and the "underlying data directory structure in which the data is stored," suggesting a connection to the physical or logical storage hierarchy. (’298 Patent, col. 3:64-65). The claim's requirement that a user selects a structure "for modification" could imply altering the structure itself, not just the data within it.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific counts for indirect or induced infringement. The allegations focus on Defendant's direct infringement by making and using the accused systems that perform the patented methods. (Compl. ¶¶22, 33, 44, 55). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit at least as early as December 14, 2020, via a letter from Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶15). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of functional mapping: Do Bandwidth's conventional network systems, which employ standard components like routers, firewalls, and APIs, perform the specific, multi-component, and coordinated functions required by the system claims of the ’959, ’498, and ’723 patents? Or does the complaint attempt to map complex, integrated system claims onto generalized, routine network operations?
• A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: For the ’298 patent, can the term "data directory structure" be construed broadly to cover the management of user permissions and access to high-level dashboard features, or is its meaning limited to the technical manipulation of file-system-level directories?
• A dispositive threshold question will be one of claim viability: For the ’498 patent, given that an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate has issued canceling all claims, what legal basis remains for pursuing the corresponding count of infringement?