TG 2006 Holdings LLC v. Acronis SCS Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: TG--2006 Holdings, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Acronis SCS, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00258, D. Del., 02/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's incorporation in Delaware and its alleged established place of business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services offered by Defendant infringe two patents related to systems for visually tracking the status of tasks in a business environment.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using a hierarchical folder tree view on a computer display, where the visual attributes of folders (e.g., color) automatically change to indicate the status of underlying tasks, particularly in response to time-based triggers.
• Key Procedural History: The two patents-in-suit belong to the same patent family, with the later-issued '323 Patent being a continuation of the application that led to the '741 Patent. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to these patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,454,741 - "System and method for tracking information in a business environment," Issued Sep. 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that tracking business information can be "time consuming and confusing," and if information is not tracked properly or is "confusingly displayed, it accomplishes nothing or defeats it own purpose" ( '741 Patent, col. 1:16-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that provides "visual indications of the progress or status" of business tasks using a hierarchical "folder tree view" on a computer display ('741 Patent, col. 1:28-33). The core concept is that visual attributes of a parent folder are automatically altered in response to the status of items contained within it, such as child folders or documents. These changes are often driven by "time triggers and deadlines" or "event alerts," providing an at-a-glance status update ('741 Patent, col. 1:35-41). For instance, a folder icon can be programmed to change color if an associated task is not completed by a specified time ('741 Patent, col. 4:7-11).
• Technical Importance: The described system aims to simplify the management of complex, time-critical business processes, such as manufacturing production, sales, and inventory, by translating underlying data into an intuitive visual hierarchy ('741 Patent, col. 1:45-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify them, instead referring to an unfiled exhibit (Compl. ¶12). The patent contains a single independent claim, Claim 1.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1, a method claim, include:
  • Establishing a parent folder and an associated child folder.
  • Establishing an "in-house product" and associating it with at least one task, products, and labor codes.
  • Associating a "first alert interval" and a "time trigger" with the task and in-house product.
  • Starting and monitoring a system clock.
  • "changing the color of the child folder" when the system time meets or exceeds the alert interval.
  • "changing the color of the parent folder" when the child folder's color changes.

U.S. Patent No. 9,805,323 - "System and method for tracking information in a business environment," Issued Oct. 31, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '323 Patent addresses the same problem as the '741 Patent: the need for a "visually clear and meaningful way" to track business information to avoid confusion and inefficiency ('323 Patent, col. 1:16-24).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is functionally similar to the '741 Patent, describing a system using a hierarchical folder tree view where folder attributes are altered based on the status of their contents ('323 Patent, col. 1:28-41). The claims of the '323 Patent are more abstract, focusing on the correlation of a folder with a generic "time critical task" and the changing of a folder "attribute" (e.g., color, visual, animation) when a time interval is exceeded ('323 Patent, cl. 1, 4, 8).
• Technical Importance: As with the '741 Patent, this technology provides a method for visually managing time-sensitive operations within a business enterprise ('323 Patent, col. 2:40-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of unspecified claims, referring to an unfiled exhibit (Compl. ¶21). The patent contains two independent claims, Claim 1 and Claim 8.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1, a method claim, include:
  • Establishing parent and child folders.
  • Correlating the child folder with a "time critical task" and an associated "first alert interval."
  • Starting and monitoring a system clock.
  • "changing an attribute of the child folder" when the system time meets or exceeds the alert interval.
  • "changing an attribute of the parent folder" when the child folder's attribute changes.
• Independent Claim 8 is substantially similar to Claim 1 but specifically requires "changing the color" of the folders, rather than a more general "attribute."
• The complaint implicitly reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim chart exhibits not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶12, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that induce infringement but provides no examples or descriptions of the accused features (Compl. ¶15, ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits that were not filed publicly, precluding a detailed, element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). The narrative theory is that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology and satisfy all elements of certain exemplary claims (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'741 Patent Infringement Allegations

'323 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the '741 Patent may turn on the definition of "in-house product" and "labor codes." A central question is whether these terms, described in the patent in a manufacturing context, can be construed to apply to the tasks and operations of a data management or cybersecurity software service.
  • Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute will likely be whether Defendant's products actually implement the specific visual notification system claimed. The court may need to determine if a general status alert (e.g., a dashboard notification, an email, or a change in a status text field) meets the claims' requirements for "changing the color" or "changing an attribute" of a "folder" within a hierarchical tree structure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "in-house product" ('741 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement allegation for the '741 Patent may depend heavily on this term's construction. If limited to tangible goods or manufacturing assemblies, it may not read on Defendant’s alleged software-based services. Practitioners may focus on this term because of the apparent mismatch between the patent's examples and the defendant's business.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary states that parent folders can be used to store "documents, executable code, databases and other folders," which could support an interpretation of "product" that is not limited to physical goods ('741 Patent, col. 1:33-35).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses "in-house product" (or "IHP") in the context of physical "production subassemblies," manufacturing, and inventory ('741 Patent, col. 1:42-44, col. 3:30-34). The figures and examples also relate to manufactured parts like engine blocks (e.g., "KITRAB18S").

• The Term: "changing the color of the ... folder" ('741 Patent, cl. 1; '323 Patent, cl. 8)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the mechanism of infringement. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused products perform this specific function, or a different, non-infringing type of status notification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that, in the context of a graphical user interface, any conspicuous visual status change that serves the same alerting purpose as a color change (e.g., an icon changing from a static image to a blinking one) should be considered equivalent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is specific. The specification reinforces a literal interpretation by describing how a "parent folder changes color from green to red" to indicate a problem ('741 Patent, col. 4:9-11). This suggests the patentee contemplated a literal change of color, not merely any change of visual state.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents, asserting that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the patent claims (Compl. ¶15-16, ¶24-25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge obtained from the filing of the lawsuit itself. It asserts that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" since being served the complaint and that any continued infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶14, ¶23).

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

1. Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "in-house product" and "labor codes", which are described in the '741 Patent with examples from the manufacturing sector, be construed to cover the purely digital operations of a data management and cybersecurity service?
2. Evidentiary Correspondence: A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: does the user interface of any accused Acronis SCS product actually perform the specific visual alerting mechanism recited in the claims—namely, changing the color or attribute of a folder in a hierarchical tree in response to a time trigger—or does it employ a different notification system that falls outside the claims' scope?
3. Pleading Sufficiency: An initial procedural question, given the absence of named accused products and the reliance on unfiled exhibits, will be whether the complaint provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard, or if it will be subject to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.