DataCloud Tech LLC v. HP Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DataCloud Technologies, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: HP Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt, LLC; Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00067, D. Del., 01/17/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant HP Inc. is a Delaware corporation that conducts substantial business and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s software platforms, website infrastructure, and hardware products infringe five U.S. patents related to data organization, file synchronization, anonymous network communication, application deployment, and cross-platform program scheduling.
• Technical Context: The asserted patents cover foundational technologies for networked computing systems, addressing challenges in data management, distributed system efficiency, user privacy, and software delivery in diverse hardware and software environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was informed of the asserted patents via emails dated October 3, 2023, and October 24, 2023, which may form the basis for allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 - "Data Organization And Management System And Method," Issued November 18, 2003

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty for consumers and businesses in organizing a proliferation of information, such as product manuals, warranties, and solicitations, which often leads to misplaced or discarded data that is needed later (’063 Patent, col. 1:16-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where information providers send data in pre-categorized "information packs" to a user's central data repository. The system automatically files the information based on a provider-supplied category identifier, relieving the user of the initial organizational burden. The user can then create custom categories and, via a feedback mechanism, instruct the system to automatically place future information from that same provider into the custom category (’063 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-39).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to streamline information management by shifting the initial categorization effort from the recipient to the provider, representing an early approach to automated, centralized data aggregation. (Compl. ¶21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶26).
• Claim 4 includes the following essential steps:
  • Storing information in an "information pack" associated with user, category, and provider identifiers.
  • Communicating the information pack to a user data repository and automatically placing it in a location corresponding to the category identifier.
  • Creating a custom location within the repository and placing the information pack there.
  • Associating a "custom category identifier" with the information pack.
  • Sending a "custom category signal" to a processing station, which uses the signal to direct subsequent information packs from the same provider to the custom location.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 identifies the challenge of maintaining file consistency across multiple local area networks (LANs) in a large enterprise, noting that conventional file synchronization can generate excessive and unnecessary network traffic (’780 Patent, col. 1:12-34, 1:53-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a client-server architecture with a central node and multiple local nodes. Each local node uses a "proxy" that checks with the central node to see if a file is outdated only when that file is requested for access. The system uses two tables—a local one tracking local file information and a central one tracking all update information—to determine if a local copy needs to be synchronized with the latest version from the central server, thereby avoiding constant, network-intensive updates (’780 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-30).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides for on-demand synchronization, a method intended to improve the efficiency of distributed file systems by reducing network load compared to continuous or broadcast-based update models. (Compl. ¶32).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
• Claim 1 recites a multi-step method for synchronizing files, including:
  • (a) Storing a shared file copy on local nodes.
  • (b) Creating a "first table" in local databases to store information on local file copies.
  • (c) Creating a "second table" in the central database to record all update information.
  • (d)-(f) Upon a file update at one local node, adding an entry to the second table and uploading the updated copy to the central file server.
  • (g)-(h) Determining if another local node's file copy needs an update and, if so, downloading the latest version from the central server.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for anonymizing a client's network activity by routing communications through a system of three components: a "deceiver," a "controller," and a "forwarder." This architecture establishes a temporary, ad-hoc virtual domain where neither the client nor the destination server is aware of the other's true IP address, with the forwarder acting as an intermediary whose employment is hidden from both endpoints (’959 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶53).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶58).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses HP's website infrastructure, alleging that its use of front-end server switches, firewalls, and DNS resolvers to handle client requests for domains like hp.com creates a "forwarding session" that maps to the claimed method (Compl. ¶57, 59).

U.S. Patent No. 7,246,351 - "System And Method For Deploying And Implementing Software Applications Over A Distributed Network," Issued July 17, 2007

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the deployment of applications over distributed networks, particularly to devices with limited resources or slow connections. The system uses a client-side "application assembler" that downloads text files containing program logic from a server. The assembler then retrieves the logic from the files and assembles it into a functioning application locally on the client device, which then provides a graphical user interface (’351 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶70).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶69).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses HP Chromebooks that operate with JVM/Kotlin for Android apps. It is alleged that these devices provide a system for deploying applications from servers (e.g., at hp.com) by downloading text files and assembling program logic into a functioning application on the device (Compl. ¶68, 70).

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 technology relates to scheduling the execution of programs on a distributed network of computers that have different, incompatible operating systems. A central scheduling computer receives results from a program executed on a first computer and, based on whether that result meets a predefined criterion, schedules a second program to execute on a second computer with a different operating system (’499 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶90).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶90).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses HP Web Jetadmin, which is alleged to provide a method for scheduling remote firmware updates. The system allegedly schedules a program on a first network-attached device, receives a result, and in response, schedules a second program on a second network-attached device that has a different operating system (Compl. ¶89, 90).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies four categories of accused instrumentalities: the HP Android App, HP Web Jetadmin software, HP's general website infrastructure, and HP Chromebooks (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• HP Android App: Alleged to provide a method for users to store and access data, such as image files, by uploading them to servers where they are organized in repositories (Compl. ¶27).
• HP Web Jetadmin: Described as a software tool used for remote management of network-attached devices, including the transfer and updating of firmware (Compl. ¶36, 90).
• HP Website Infrastructure: Refers to the collective system supporting multiple HP domains (e.g., hp.com, support.hp.com). This infrastructure is alleged to use front-end servers, switches, and DNS to manage and route client traffic to destination web servers (Compl. ¶57, 59).
• HP Chromebooks: Identified as devices that operate with JVM/Kotlin for Android applications and are capable of deploying applications over a distributed network from a server (Compl. ¶68, 70).
• The complaint alleges that the provision and sale of these products are sources of revenue and a business focus for HP (Compl. ¶42, 74).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the alleged "digital signature" of an application can be construed as a "custom category identifier" within the meaning of the patent. The patent describes this identifier as being associated with a user's choice to create a custom category (e.g., "My Medicine"), whereas the complaint's theory suggests a technical attribute of the software itself serves this function (Compl. ¶27; ’063 Patent, col. 9:12-28).
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory depends on the existence of a "custom category signal" sent to a "processing station" to influence future data routing. The complaint does not specify the technical mechanism by which the accused app allegedly performs this function, raising the evidentiary question of whether such a signal and processing station actually exist and operate as claimed.

U.S. Patent No. 7,139,780 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides a high-level, element-by-element mapping of the claim to the accused HP Web Jetadmin system. The central technical question will be evidentiary: does the HP Web Jetadmin architecture actually employ the specific two-table database structure (one local, one central) required by the claim to manage and trigger file synchronization, or does it use an alternative technical method?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’063 Patent:

• The Term: "custom category signal"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it describes the feedback mechanism that enables the system's automated, customized filing of subsequent information. Infringement of claim 4 hinges on whether the accused HP Android App generates and sends a signal that performs this specific function of communicating a user's custom categorization preference to a processing station for future use.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this communication happening via "Feedback means" to the provider or "echo means" to a processing station, suggesting flexibility in implementation (’063 Patent, col. 10:28-31). The patent states the purpose is to relay "specifics as to the reassignment or additional categorization of information performed by the Recipient" (’063 Patent, col. 4:29-32).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments consistently describe this process as being initiated by a user's explicit action of re-assigning an information pack to a new, user-created "custom category" (’063 Patent, col. 9:12-28). This context may support a narrower construction requiring an affirmative user choice, which could be contrasted with the complaint's allegation that an inherent technical feature like a "digital signature" serves this role (Compl. ¶27).

For the ’780 Patent:

• The Term: "a first table in each of the local databases" and "a second table in the central database"
• Context and Importance: This two-table architecture is the structural heart of the claimed invention for managing distributed file updates. Whether HP Web Jetadmin infringes claim 1 will likely depend on whether its system can be shown to create and use these two distinct types of tables for their recited purposes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires the "creating" of tables for "storing" and "recording" specific types of information, without mandating a specific database schema. This may support an interpretation that covers any database structure that logically separates local file metadata from a central repository of update information.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures and description illustrate these as distinct tables with specific fields, such as "Update Time," that are compared to trigger synchronization (’780 Patent, FIG. 3, FIG. 4, col. 5:10-24). This may support a narrower construction requiring physically or logically separate tables with data structures that enable the timestamp-based comparison described, as opposed to other synchronization methods like checksums or event-driven pushes.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’780 and ’351 patents. The allegations are based on claims that HP encourages and instructs customers on how to use HP Web Jetadmin and HP Chromebooks in an infringing manner through its "support and sales activities," "information brochures, promotional material, and contact information" (Compl. ¶40-41, 43, 72-73, 75).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the ’780 and ’351 patents. The basis for this allegation is pre-suit knowledge of the patents, which the complaint claims HP possessed "as early as October 3, 2023" from email correspondence (Compl. ¶18, 42, 74). The prayer for relief explicitly requests a finding of willfulness and an award of treble damages for infringement of the ’780 and ’351 patents (Compl. ¶94.D).

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

• A central issue will be one of technical implementation versus functional analogy: for each asserted patent, the case will likely turn on whether discovery shows that the accused HP products perform their functions using the specific technical architectures and methods recited in the claims, or whether the complaint has merely drawn a high-level functional analogy. For example, does the HP Android App's security-focused digital signature function as the user-driven, data-routing "custom category signal" of the ’063 patent?
• A key question of evidentiary sufficiency will arise from the complaint's parallel allegations against multiple products. The court will need to assess whether Plaintiff can produce concrete evidence that HP's products—such as HP Web Jetadmin—simultaneously implement the distinct technical solutions for both on-demand file synchronization (’780 patent) and cross-platform task scheduling (’499 patent), or if the allegations are based on an overbroad characterization of the products' capabilities.
• The case may also present a core question of definitional scope for the ’959 patent: can a conventional enterprise-grade network architecture, which commonly uses elements like front-end servers and firewalls for load balancing and security, be construed as the claimed system for providing client "anonymity" through a "deceiver," "controller," and "forwarder," or is there a fundamental mismatch in purpose and operation?