DCT

1:23-cv-01249

OptiMorphix Inc v. Oracle Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01249, D. Del., 11/01/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Oracle is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud infrastructure, middleware, and networking products infringe eight patents related to network traffic optimization, data transport acceleration, media transcoding, and content caching.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational challenges in delivering data, particularly video and web content, efficiently over bandwidth-constrained or variable networks like the mobile internet.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that the patents-in-suit were developed at Bytemobile, Inc. and Citrix Systems, Inc., with Bytemobile being acquired by Citrix in 2012. To support allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willfulness, the complaint lists numerous U.S. patents assigned to Oracle that cite the patents-in-suit as relevant prior art, with some citations dating back to 2008.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-01-01 Bytemobile, Inc. founded
2001-04-12 U.S. Patent No. 7,099,273 Priority Date
2001-05-11 U.S. Patent No. 7,444,418 Priority Date
2001-05-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,031,314 Priority Date
2001-05-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,586,871 Priority Date
2006-04-18 U.S. Patent No. 7,031,314 Issued
2006-08-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,099,273 Issued
2007-07-10 U.S. Patent No. 9,191,664 Priority Date
2007-12-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,521,901 Priority Date
2008-10-28 U.S. Patent No. 7,444,418 Issued
2009-09-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,586,871 Issued
2010-07-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,429,169 Priority Date
2012-03-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,167,021 Priority Date
2012-07-01 Bytemobile acquired by Citrix Systems, Inc.
2013-04-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,429,169 Issued
2013-08-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,521,901 Issued
2015-11-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,191,664 Issued
2015-12-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,167,021 Issued
2023-11-01 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,031,314 - Systems and Methods for Providing Differentiated Services Within a Network Communication System (Issued Apr. 18, 2006)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that as network applications became more diverse, the underlying network infrastructure was often ill-equipped to provide application-specific or subscriber-specific services (e.g., performance optimization, value-added data processing) for data flowing through it (Compl. ¶ 17; ’314 Patent, col. 1:37-42). Identifying and processing these specific data streams within the existing infrastructure could incur a significant performance penalty (Compl. ¶ 18; ’314 Patent, col. 1:52-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "service module" within the network infrastructure that intercepts data packets between a client and a server (Compl. ¶ 19; ’314 Patent, Fig. 1A). If the connection matches predefined criteria for a particular service, the module "breaks" the direct end-to-end connection by terminating it and establishing two new, separate connections: one between the client and the service module, and another between the service module and the server (’314 Patent, col. 2:39-48). This allows a service application on the module to process the data transparently before forwarding it (Compl. ¶ 19; ’314 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture provided a method for network operators to insert value-added services into the data path without requiring modification to the end-user's client or the destination server, a key capability for managing and monetizing network traffic (Compl. ¶ 19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 27 (Compl. ¶ 96).
  • Claim 27 (System Claim) Elements:
    • A memory unit storing instructions and a processor to execute them.
    • Classifying a connection requested between a client and a server to determine if it matches a predetermined service criteria.
    • Forming a first connection (client-to-module) and a second connection (module-to-server) in response to a match.
    • Using the first and second connections to redirect at least a portion of the data to the service application associated with the criteria.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,099,273 - Data Transport Acceleration and Management Within a Network Communication System (Issued Aug. 29, 2006)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings in the conventional Transport Control Protocol (TCP), particularly in networks with variable or asymmetric conditions like wireless networks (Compl. ¶ 25). Traditional TCP assumes symmetric channels and often misinterprets random packet loss (due to fading, etc.) as network congestion, causing it to unnecessarily reduce transmission rates. This leads to inefficient bandwidth use and poor performance for applications like streaming video that require a steady data flow (’273 Patent, col. 1:38-41, col. 2:1-6).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides systems and methods for data transport acceleration that utilize a "transmit timer" to implement timer-based, rather than purely acknowledgement-based, flow control (’273 Patent, col. 3:34-40). The period of this timer is periodically adjusted based on network measurements, such as the smoothed round-trip time (RTT) and the congestion window size, to create a more stable and efficient data flow that is less susceptible to the "bursty" nature of conventional TCP (’273 Patent, col. 3:40-47).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve the performance of TCP over unreliable or asymmetric links, a critical challenge with the rise of 3G and mobile data services (Compl. ¶ 3).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 125).
  • Claim 1 (Method Claim) Elements:
    • Establishing a connection between a sender and a receiver.
    • Measuring round trip times of data packets.
    • Determining a congestion window parameter.
    • Transmitting additional data packets to the receiver "in response to expiration of a transmit timer."
    • The period of the transmit timer is "based on the round trip time measurements and the congestion window parameter."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,444,418 - Transcoding Multimedia Information Within a Network Communication System (Issued Oct. 28, 2008)

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the problem of transmitting multimedia content where the encoded transmission rate is greater than the available rate of the communication channel, a common issue in bandwidth-constrained wireless networks (Compl. ¶ 36). The solution involves intercepting the data, estimating the available transmission rate, and transcoding the media to a lower bitrate that matches the channel's capacity before forwarding it to the receiver (Compl. ¶ 37).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 152).

Accused Features

Oracle WebRTC Session Border Controller and Oracle Communications Session Border Controller, which allegedly perform transcoding of multimedia information (Compl. ¶ 135).

U.S. Patent No. 7,586,871 - Platform and Method for Providing Data Services in a Communication Network (Issued Sep. 8, 2009)

Technology Synopsis

The patent relates to a communication node that processes data between two networks and can efficiently provide data services like content filtering (Compl. ¶¶ 41-42). The node detects an event, determines whether to suspend the data communication for service based on that event, and processes the suspended data. This allows return data to pass through without further processing, improving efficiency (Compl. ¶ 43).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 174).

Accused Features

Oracle Cloud Infrastructure products and services, including Threat Intelligence and Network Firewall functionality, which allegedly monitor, suspend, and process data communications based on detected events and configured rules (Compl. ¶¶ 161, 165, 167).

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,169 - Systems and Methods For Video Cache Indexing (Issued Apr. 30, 2013)

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses inefficient content caching that arises from the use of dynamic URLs, which can lead to multiple cache entries for the same content or entries with expired references (Compl. ¶ 48). The invention proposes indexing content in a cache based on a "characterization of the content rather than the URL," for example by using a hash function on the content data itself, to create a more efficient and reliable cache index (Compl. ¶ 50).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 200).

Accused Features

Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), which allegedly uses caching rules that identify descriptors for content (e.g., "URL_PART_CONTAINS") and computes an index to locate entries in a cache data structure (Compl. ¶¶ 183, 187-188).

U.S. Patent No. 8,521,901 - TCP Burst Avoidance (Issued Aug. 27, 2013)

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the problem of TCP packet bursts in high-speed data networks, which can cause packet loss and inefficient bandwidth use (Compl. ¶ 56). The solution implements a "packet scheduler layer" between the network layer and the transport layer of a device, which smooths the delivery of TCP packets by delaying them to mitigate bursts (Compl. ¶ 58).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 221).

Accused Features

Oracle Communications Session Border Controller, which allegedly receives TCP packets, determines if they are part of a bursty transmission, calculates a delay time, and delivers the packet to a receiving layer based on that delay (Compl. ¶¶ 209, 214-216).

U.S. Patent No. 9,167,021 - Measuring Web Browsing Quality of Experience in Real-Time at An Intermediate Network Node (Issued Dec. 22, 2015)

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the difficulty of accurately measuring the download time of a complete web page at an intermediate network node, especially when content is distributed across multiple servers or involves dynamic URLs (Compl. ¶¶ 63-64). The invention provides a method to measure Quality of Experience (QoE) by grouping related HTTP transactions into "page units" and then computing a "page unit time" (Compl. ¶ 65).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 246).

Accused Features

Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) and Oracle Cloud Management (OCM), including Application Performance Monitoring, which allegedly capture HTTP interactions, group them into sets, and delineate a "page unit" for calculating metrics like "average time spent on a page" (Compl. ¶¶ 230, 232, 241-242).

U.S. Patent No. 9,191,664 - Adaptive Bitrate Management for Streaming Media Over Packet Networks (Issued Nov. 17, 2015)

Technology Synopsis

The patent is directed to solving challenges in delivering streaming media over capacity-limited, shared wireless links, which are prone to bandwidth fluctuations and packet loss (Compl. ¶ 71). The solution involves an adaptive bitrate manager that monitors feedback to estimate network conditions and adjusts the media's encoding bitrate in response, optimizing the user's viewing experience (Compl. ¶ 73).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 9 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 272).

Accused Features

Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI), including Media Services, Media Streams, and Media Flow functionality, which allegedly perform adaptive bitrate management by receiving an optimal session bitrate, allocating it between audio and video, and encoding the media accordingly (Compl. ¶¶ 255, 260, 262, 264).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • For the ’314 Patent: Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (including Oracle Traffic Management and Oracle Network Load Balancer) and Oracle Fusion Middleware Release 11g and later (including Oracle Traffic Director) (Compl. ¶ 79).
  • For the ’273 Patent: Oracle Linux Release 7.5 and later, which includes the TCP BBR (Bottleneck Bandwidth and Round-trip propagation time) congestion control algorithm (Compl. ¶¶ 106, p. 32).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused Oracle products are core components of its cloud computing and enterprise software offerings. Products like Oracle Traffic Director and Network Load Balancer manage and direct network traffic for scalability and reliability (Compl. ¶¶ 85, 87). Oracle Linux is a widely used enterprise operating system, and its inclusion of modern TCP congestion control algorithms like BBR is a feature designed to improve network performance for internet-based applications (Compl. p. 33).
  • Plaintiff alleges these products, through their traffic management and data transport functionalities, are central to Oracle's cloud and networking business and directly compete in the technology spaces pioneered by the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’314 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 27) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a memory unit for storing data an instructions which when executed by the processor cause the processor to operate so as to: classify a connection that has been requested between the client and the server to determine whether the connection matches a predetermined service criteria... The Oracle products analyze attributes of a connection request (e.g., source, destination, protocol) and compare them against a set of rules or conditions ("Load Balancer Policies") that constitute predetermined service criteria. ¶¶ 83, 85-86, p. 26 col. 2:32-39
form a first connection between the client and the service module and a second connection between the service module and the server in response to the connection matching the predetermined service criteria When a connection matches the criteria, the Oracle products (acting as the service module) establish an initial connection with the client and a subsequent connection with the back-end server. A diagram in Oracle's documentation depicts this two-connection architecture. ¶¶ 87-88, p. 27 col. 2:42-48
and use the first connection and the second connection to redirect at least a portion of data communicated between the client and the server to the service application associated with the predetermined service criteria. The products allegedly use the established connections to manage data flow, directing it to specific service applications based on the matched criteria. ¶¶ 91-92 col. 2:56-62

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether Oracle’s Traffic Director or Load Balancer, which function as reverse proxies, meet the claim limitation of "terminating a connection ... and opening a separate connection." The defense may argue that standard proxy behavior is distinct from the specific "break and re-establish" mechanism described in the patent's specification. The complaint's visual evidence from Oracle's documentation, which depicts separate connections between the client, the Traffic Director, and the server, may be used by the Plaintiff to argue the structures are equivalent (Compl. p. 27).
  • Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on what constitutes a "service application" in Oracle's architecture. The patent describes applications for email compression or web acceleration. The question will be whether the routing and load balancing rules themselves, as shown in the complaint's "Load Balancer Policies" visual (Compl. p. 26), qualify as the claimed "service application" to which data is redirected.

’273 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
measuring round trip times of data packets sent from the sender to the receiver; The Oracle products (implementing TCP BBR) measure the round-trip propagation time (RTprop) by tracking the lowest observed round-trip time (RTT). ¶ 111 col. 3:59-62
determining a congestion window parameter that specifies a maximum number of unacknowledged data packets that may be sent to the receiver; The Oracle products calculate a congestion window (cwnd) parameter based on estimated bottleneck bandwidth and RTT. ¶¶ 117, 119-120 col. 1:45-48
and transmitting additional data packets to the receiver in response to expiration of a transmit timer, the period of the transmit timer based on the round trip time measurements and the congestion window parameter. The Oracle products utilize "round-trip time-based pacing," where the sending rate is adapted based on network conditions, including the minimum RTT estimate. This pacing allegedly functions as the claimed "transmit timer," with its period determined by the RTT and congestion window. ¶¶ 116, 121, p. 35 col. 3:34-47

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central dispute will likely be one of technical equivalence: does the "pacing" mechanism of TCP BBR, as implemented by Oracle, meet the limitations of a "transmit timer" whose "period" is "based on" RTT and the congestion window? The patent specification discloses that the timer's period "may be determined by the ratio of the smoothed round trip time and the smoothed congestion window" (’273 Patent, col. 3:40-43). The infringement analysis will turn on whether BBR's pacing rate calculation is functionally the same as or equivalent to this claimed method.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question will be whether the accused Oracle Linux products transmit packets "in response to expiration of a transmit timer," as the claim requires. The defense may argue that BBR's pacing is a continuous rate-based system, not a discrete, timer-expiration-driven one. Plaintiff's evidence, such as the statement that "BBR paces every data packet," will be used to argue that this pacing is functionally a series of rapid, back-to-back timer expirations (Compl. p. 35).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’314 Patent

  • The Term: "terminating a connection...and opening a separate connection"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core mechanism of the invention. Its construction will determine whether standard reverse proxy or load balancing architectures, which mediate connections, fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from passive routing and potentially from conventional proxy servers.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's goal is to "break the end-to-end connection" to insert services (’314 Patent, col. 2:43-45). This functional language may support a construction that covers any mechanism achieving that result, including a reverse proxy.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites two distinct actions: "terminating" and "opening." Specific embodiments describe forming "two separate connections: a client-side connection ... and a server-side connection" (’314 Patent, col. 2:45-48), which could be argued to require a more explicit "break-then-re-establish" process than that of a typical proxy.

For the ’273 Patent

  • The Term: "transmit timer"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central element of the asserted independent claim. Whether Oracle's BBR "pacing" is a "transmit timer" will be a dispositive issue for infringement. The patent positions this as a move away from purely acknowledgement-based systems, so the definition of what constitutes a timer-based system is critical.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes its invention as providing "timer-based data flow control, instead of the acknowledgement-based flow control" of conventional TCP (’273 Patent, col. 3:36-39). This suggests the term could be construed broadly to cover any mechanism that regulates transmission rate based on time intervals rather than solely on received ACKs.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specifies that the timer's "period" is based on the ratio of RTT and the congestion window (’273 Patent, col. 3:40-43). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific calculation for a discrete time period, which Oracle might argue is different from BBR's continuous pacing-rate calculation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for all eight patents. The allegations are based on Oracle providing documentation, user manuals, technical guides, and training materials that allegedly instruct customers and end-users to configure and use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patents (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 97, 100, 126, 129).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The complaint bases this on post-suit knowledge via the lawsuit itself, and more pointedly on alleged pre-suit knowledge. For each patent, the complaint provides an extensive list of U.S. patents owned by Oracle that cite the patent-in-suit or its family as prior art. For the ’314 patent, this alleged knowledge dates back to at least July 2008 (Compl. ¶ 99), and for the ’273 patent family, to at least July 2008 as well (Compl. ¶ 128).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical equivalence across time: can the functions described in patents from the early- to mid-2000s be read to cover the technical operation of modern, sophisticated cloud networking and data transport systems? Specifically, the case may turn on whether Oracle's implementation of TCP BBR pacing constitutes the claimed "transmit timer" system of the ’273 patent, and whether its traffic management architecture performs the specific "connection breaking" function claimed in the ’314 patent.
  • A second central question will be one of corporate knowledge: does Oracle's citation to the patents-in-suit across dozens of its own patents, over a period of more than a decade, suffice to establish pre-suit knowledge of the patents and their infringement for the purpose of willfulness? This will likely involve a fact-intensive inquiry into how patent prosecution and product development are siloed or integrated within a large corporation like Oracle.
  • A third question will be one of definitional scope: across the portfolio, the case will involve construing foundational networking terms like "service module" ('314 patent), "packet scheduler layer" (’901 patent), and "page unit" (’021 patent). The outcomes of these claim construction disputes will likely determine whether Oracle's accused features fall within the bounds of the patent claims.