DataCloud Technologies, LLC v. Allied Telesis, Inc.

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DataCloud Technologies, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Allied Telesis, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01451, D. Del., 12/20/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant being a Delaware corporation that conducts substantial business, offers products for sale, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s network management products and services infringe five patents related to file synchronization, anonymous network communication, remote access, and cross-platform program scheduling.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue involve foundational methods for managing, securing, and coordinating data and processes across complex, distributed computer networks.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was notified of its potential infringement of the Asserted Patents via a letter dated December 8, 2022, a fact which forms the basis of the willfulness allegation. The complaint also notes that Certificates of Correction have been issued for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,156,499 and 8,370,457.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,139,780 - System And Method For Synchronizing Files In Multiple Nodes

Issued November 21, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge of maintaining file consistency across multiple, geographically distributed local area networks (LANs) within a large enterprise. Conventional synchronization methods are presented as inefficient, either by performing unneeded updates or by creating excessive network traffic when multiple nodes require the same update simultaneously (’780 Patent, col. 1:29-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hierarchical system comprising a central node and multiple local nodes. The central node maintains a database that records all update information for files across all local nodes. A local node does not automatically receive updates; instead, before accessing a local file, a proxy on the local node checks the central database to see if its version is current. If the local copy is outdated, it downloads the latest version from the central file server, thereby performing synchronization only when necessary (’780 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-39). This architecture is illustrated in the patent's Figure 1 (’780 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This "on-demand" pull-based synchronization model was designed to reduce network communication traffic compared to systems that automatically "pushed" every update to every node, a significant consideration for managing bandwidth in distributed enterprise systems at the time (’780 Patent, col. 2:5-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
• Independent Claim 1 requires a method for synchronizing files between local nodes via a central node, comprising the steps of:
  • storing one copy of each shared file in each local file server
  • creating a first table in each local database to store information on local file copies
  • creating a second table in the central database to record all update information on file copies in all local file servers
  • updating a copy of a file in one of the local file servers
  • adding a new item of update information to the second table
  • downloading the updated file from the local server and uploading it to the central file server as the latest edition
  • determining if another local file server’s copy needs to be updated
  • downloading the latest edition from the central file server to the other local server if an update is needed

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

Issued April 24, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the privacy risks inherent in standard internet protocols like HTTP, which allow servers to record a client's e-mail address, web history, and other identifying information. Existing solutions like proxy servers are described as inadequate because they merely substitute one persistent, trackable identity for another (’959 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:9).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a "DNS Misdirection" system composed of three distinct logical components: a "deceiver," a "controller," and a "forwarder." When a client requests a destination website, the request is intercepted by the deceiver. The deceiver communicates with the controller, which resolves the true destination IP address and selects a forwarder. The controller then "deceives" the client by returning the forwarder's IP address as if it were the destination's IP. The client then unknowingly communicates with the forwarder, which transparently relays traffic to the real destination, thereby masking the client's identity from the destination and vice versa for a temporary session (’959 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-50).
• Technical Importance: This architecture provided a dynamic, session-specific method for anonymizing network communications that went beyond traditional static proxy servers, introducing the concept of creating temporary "virtual namespaces" to enhance user privacy and group association (’959 Patent, col. 2:51-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
• Independent Claim 1 claims a method comprising:
  • in response to a client request, setting up a forwarding session between the client and a destination server
  • employing a forwarder between the client and destination to forward packets in both directions
  • employing the forwarder to transfer packets such that neither the client nor the destination server is aware of the forwarder's employment
  • employing a controller configured to communicate with the forwarder and a domain name server (DNS), where the controller queries the DNS to resolve the destination website name
  • employing a deceiver configured to communicate with the controller and the client, where the deceiver receives the client's request and initiates the controller to query the DNS
  • initiating the forwarding session in response to the controller receiving the answer from the DNS

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

Issued July 8, 2008

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need for users to remotely access and manage files and their underlying directory structures on a server. The disclosed solution is a server-side computing application that authenticates a participating user and consults a "profile data store" to determine which specific data directory structures the user is permitted to view and modify, enabling granular, permission-based control over remote files ('298 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-36).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 13 is asserted (Compl. ¶54).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Allied Telesis' Vista Manager, alleging it provides a method for remotely controlling data directory structures (like user management modules) based on user permissions and role definitions that are queried from a profile data store (Compl. ¶55).

U.S. Patent No. 8,156,499 - Methods, Systems And Articles Of Manufacture For Scheduling Execution Of Programs On Computers Having Different Operating Systems

Issued April 10, 2012

• Technology Synopsis: The patent seeks to solve the problem of coordinating program execution across a distributed network of computers running different, incompatible operating systems (e.g., Windows and Unix). The invention is a centralized scheduling computer that uses a "master schedule" to define conditional, sequential workflows. It can command a first computer to execute a program, and based on the result of that execution, command a second computer with a different operating system to execute a second, different program ('499 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:22-56).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶65).
• Accused Features: The complaint targets AlliedView Cloud's feature for remote management of radio schedules for access points. This feature is alleged to schedule a program on a first access point, receive a result (e.g., radio status), and in response, schedule a second program on a second access point having a different operating system (Compl. ¶65).

U.S. Patent No. 8,370,457 - Network Communication Through A Virtual Domain

Issued February 5, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’959 patent, also describes a system for anonymous network communication. It focuses on a gateway that establishes a "forwarding internet protocol (IP) address" for a pre-defined combination of a client IP address and a destination IP address. When the gateway identifies a data request matching this pre-defined pair, it forwards the request using the designated forwarding IP, thereby masking the client's identity ('457 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 9 is asserted (Compl. ¶75).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Allied Telesis' AlliedWare firewalls. It is alleged that their advanced firewall settings establish a translated IP address (the forwarding IP) for pre-defined combinations of client and destination IP addresses and forward data requests accordingly (Compl. ¶76).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies several accused instrumentalities: Allied Telesis' Autonomous Management Framework (AMF), specifically its AMF Backups feature; Allied Telesis' website infrastructure; Allied Telesis' Vista Manager; AlliedView Cloud; and Allied Telesis' AlliedWare firewalls (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products provide a range of network management, security, and automation functions. AMF Backups are described as providing centralized, automated backup and file synchronization for network devices (Compl. ¶27). The website infrastructure is described as the system handling and routing incoming user traffic to various Allied Telesis domains (Compl. ¶44). Vista Manager is presented as a network management platform for controlling user access and data directories (Compl. ¶55). AlliedView Cloud is described as a service for remotely managing and scheduling operations on network access points (Compl. ¶65). AlliedWare firewalls are alleged to provide advanced IP address translation and routing capabilities (Compl. ¶76). The complaint alleges that the provision and sale of AMF is a "source of revenue and a business focus for Defendant" (Compl. ¶31).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’780 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether Allied Telesis's architecture of "master/controller nodes" and "member nodes" maps directly onto the patent's more strictly defined "central node" and "local nodes." The defense may argue that its distributed control plane does not constitute a single "central node" as contemplated by the patent.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the creation and use of a "first table" and a "second table" in a conclusory manner. A key factual dispute will be whether the AMF Backups system actually implements the specific two-table database structure required by the claim or achieves a similar result through a different technical mechanism. Proving that the accused system performs every step of the claimed method, including the specific database operations, will be critical.

’959 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement theory relies on mapping the patent's neologisms ("deceiver", "controller", "forwarder") onto general-purpose network hardware ("router", "firewall", "front-end server switch"). A primary point of contention will be whether these standard components perform the specific, coordinated, and purpose-built functions described for the claimed elements in the patent's specification.
• Technical Questions: The claim requires that neither the client nor the server is aware of the forwarder. The complaint's technical explanation for this—that the server has a direct TCP connection to a different IP—will be subject to intense scrutiny. The defense will likely question whether this arrangement truly makes the server "unaware" of the intermediary architecture in the manner required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’780 Patent

• The Term: "central database"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in Claim 1 and is fundamental to the patent's architecture. The claim requires this database to "record all update information on copies of files in all the local file servers." Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue that its AMF system, while centralized, does not use a single, distinct "central database" for this specific purpose, but perhaps uses a distributed ledger or a different information aggregation method.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the component functionally: "The central database 124 stores file update annals. The file update annals record all updating information on all copies of files in all the local file servers 103" (’780 Patent, col. 4:26-30). Plaintiff may argue this supports construing the term to cover any logical component that performs this recording function, regardless of its specific implementation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent depicts the "Central Database 124" as a discrete, singular database cylinder icon within the boundary of the "Central Node 120" (’780 Patent, Fig. 1). Defendant may use this to argue that the term should be limited to the specific, non-distributed architecture shown in the preferred embodiment.

For the ’959 Patent

• The Term: "deceiver"
• Context and Importance: This is a patent-coined term for a key component of the claimed three-part system. The complaint alleges that a standard "router" is the "deceiver". The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether the functions of a standard router meet the patent's definition of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention describes its function broadly: "The deceiver communicates with clients and with the controller. The deceiver provides name resolution for clients" (’959 Patent, col. 2:37-39). Plaintiff may argue that any device, such as a router configured to intercept DNS requests, that performs this function is a "deceiver".
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that "when a query is received from a client, the deceiver allows the controller to supply the information" (’959 Patent, col. 2:40-42). Defendant may argue that this implies a specific hand-off protocol where the "deceiver" actively defers to the "controller", a function not inherent to a standard packet-forwarding router.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces its customers to infringe the ’780 patent. The basis for this allegation is that Defendant allegedly "encouraged, instructed, enabled, and otherwise caused" customers to use the AMF Backups feature in an infringing manner through its user manuals, such as the "amf_feature_overview_guide.pdf", as well as through its general support and sales activities (Compl. ¶¶29-30).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement specifically as to the ’780 patent. The allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from a letter Plaintiff sent to Defendant on December 8, 2022, which purportedly identified the patent portfolio (Compl. ¶¶18, 31). The prayer for relief explicitly seeks a finding of willfulness and treble damages for infringement of the ’780 patent (Compl. ¶80.D).

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

• A primary issue across multiple asserted patents will be one of architectural mapping: can the plaintiff demonstrate that the defendant's general-purpose network components (e.g., firewalls, routers, server switches) perform the specific, coordinated functions of the patents' more specialized, often neologistic elements, such as the "deceiver" and "controller" of the ’959 patent or the distinct "central node" with a "second table" of the ’780 patent?
• The case will likely turn on the construction of key functional language, such as whether AlliedView Cloud's configuration of on/off times for access point radios constitutes "scheduling a...computer to execute a...program" as required by the ’499 patent, or whether the accused firewall's IP translation meets the specific steps of "establishing a forwarding internet protocol (IP) address" claimed in the ’457 patent.
• Regarding damages for the ’780 patent, a key factual question will be the impact of the December 2022 notice letter: did this letter provide knowledge of infringement in a manner that gave rise to a duty of care, and does the defendant's continued conduct after this date meet the standard of objective recklessness required for a finding of willfulness?