DCT

1:24-cv-00584

DataCloud Tech LLC v. Namecheap Inc

Key Events

Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: DataCloud Technologies, LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Namecheap, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00584, D. Del., 05/15/2024
Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's incorporation in the state of Delaware.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s web hosting platforms, virtualization technologies, and related customer-facing tools infringe six patents related to data organization, network communication, user interface generation, and remote file access.
Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to fundamental aspects of internet infrastructure, including operating system-level process management, data routing, user data organization, and remote content management, which are critical for commercial web hosting services.
Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 was subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR2021-00361), which resulted in the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 14, and 17 as of October 5, 2022. The complaint asserts claim 12, which was not cancelled in the proceeding.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-01-28	’063 Patent Priority Date
2000-02-08	’613 Patent Priority Date
2000-04-04	’959 Patent Priority Date
2002-03-29	’298 and ’555 Patents Priority Date
2003-05-06	’613 Patent Issued
2003-08-26	’613 Patent Certificate of Correction Issued
2003-11-18	’063 Patent Issued
2004-02-03	’063 Patent Certificate of Correction Issued
2004-04-29	’139 Patent Priority Date
2005-12-14	Defendant Namecheap, Inc. Incorporated
2007-04-24	’959 Patent Issued
2008-07-08	’298 Patent Issued
2013-12-10	’139 Patent Issued
2013-12-24	’555 Patent Issued
2014-06-24	’139 Patent Certificate of Correction Issued
2022-10-05	’613 Patent IPR Certificate Issued (Claims Cancelled)
2024-05-15	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 - “Disambiguating File Descriptors,” issued May 6, 2003.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inability of certain operating systems to distinguish between a "file descriptor" associated with a file stored on physical media (e.g., a hard disk) and one associated with a communication channel (e.g., a network socket), as the same system calls are often used to access both (’613 Patent, col. 2:26-61). This shortcoming complicates efforts to selectively intercept system calls for enhanced security or custom functionality, such as blocking write-access to local files while permitting network communications (’613 Patent, col. 3:9-34).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to intercept system calls that create or establish file descriptors and then store an “indicator” in a dedicated table specifying the descriptor’s type (’613 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-7). When a subsequent system call attempts to use a file descriptor, a "system call wrapper" first examines this indicator table. Based on the file's type, the wrapper can decide whether to execute alternative code or allow the default system call to proceed, enabling selective, type-based interception of file access operations (’613 Patent, col. 5:35-51; Fig. 4).
Technical Importance: This technique offered a method for enhancing operating system security at a low level without modifying the core OS kernel, a significant capability for managing multi-tenant environments like web servers where process isolation and granular permission control are critical (’613 Patent, col. 2:6-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least Claim 12, which depends on independent Claim 11 (Compl. ¶23).
The essential elements of independent Claim 11 are:
- intercepting system calls that establish a file stored on media;
- intercepting system calls that create a copy of at least one file descriptor;
- storing at least one indicator that a file descriptor established by an intercepted system call is associated with a file stored on media;
- storing at least one indicator concerning a created copy of a file descriptor; and
- examining at least one stored indicator to determine with what file type a file descriptor is associated.
The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims of the ’613 patent (Compl. ¶22).

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 addresses the difficulty for consumers and businesses in organizing a large volume of information from various sources, such as product manuals, warranties, and solicitations, noting that conventional methods like filing cabinets or basic software require significant manual categorization effort (’063 Patent, col. 1:16-65).
The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system where information "providers" send pre-categorized "information packs" to a user's central "data repository" via a unique "user destination address" (’063 Patent, Abstract). Each pack contains a "category identifier" that allows the system to automatically file the information in the correct location (’063 Patent, col. 2:38-44). The system also allows users to create "custom" categories and provides a feedback mechanism, for example to a central "processing station," that learns these user preferences to automatically route subsequent information from the same provider to the user's custom location (’063 Patent, col. 4:7-12; Fig. 1).
Technical Importance: The system aimed to automate digital information management for end-users by shifting the initial burden of categorization from the recipient to the information provider, representing a move toward more intelligent, user-centric data organization platforms (’063 Patent, col. 2:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 4 (Compl. ¶33).
The essential elements of independent Claim 4 include steps for: storing information in an information pack; associating the pack with a user destination address, a category identifier, and a provider identifier; communicating the pack over a network to a user's data repository and placing it in a location corresponding to the category identifier; and, subsequently, creating a custom location, associating a custom category identifier, and sending a signal to a processing station that analyzes provider identifiers in future packs to automatically place them in the custom location upon a match.
The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims of the ’063 patent (Compl. ¶32).

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 addresses privacy risks on the internet, where a client's identifying information can be recorded by servers (’959 Patent, col. 2:1-7). The invention describes a system using a "deceiver," a "controller," and a "forwarder" to establish a virtual communication session that masks the client's true IP address from the destination server, thereby providing anonymity (’959 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-48).
Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶43).
Accused Features: Namecheap's Web Hosting infrastructure is accused of infringement. The complaint alleges that this infrastructure uses front-end server switches as "forwarders" and firewalls as "controllers" to create a forwarding session between the end-user and the destination web server in a way that anonymizes the parties from each other (Compl. ¶43).

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 directory structures over a communications network (’298 Patent, col. 1:10-14). The described solution is a system comprising a server, a remote management application, and a "profile data store" containing user-specific permissions, which allows authenticated users to control data and directories according to their assigned roles (’298 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least Claim 13 is asserted (Compl. ¶53).
Accused Features: Namecheap’s tools for web-based user and administrator roles are accused of infringement. These tools allegedly provide a method for remotely controlling website directory structures (e.g., pages and user permissions) via a server application that queries a profile database to determine a user's access rights based on defined roles such as "Administrator" or "Editor" (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 8,607,139 - “System and process for managing content organized in a tag-delimited template using metadata,” issued December 10, 2013.

Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses challenges in web content management, particularly the tight coupling of content and presentation structure in traditional web pages (’139 Patent, col. 1:10-18). The invention uses a metadata template to define the structure of a web page as an "object" based on a "class," which allows for the automatic generation of a graphical interface with input fields corresponding to the object's properties. This decouples content creation from final page rendering (’139 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least Claim 8 is asserted (Compl. ¶63).
Accused Features: Namecheap's website builder is accused of infringement. The complaint alleges this tool provides a graphical interface based on a "metadata template" where an "object" (the web page) is based on a "class" (a user-selectable template). The user inputs content into fields, and a "web page generator" creates the final page (Compl. ¶63).

U.S. Patent No. 8,615,555 - “Remote Access And Retrieval Of Electronic Files,” issued December 24, 2013.

Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for providing remote management of data directory structures. The system allows a requestor to query a profile data store, receive information about available directory structures, and then issue subsequent requests to modify a structure or send a data file to a specified electronic address, which may not be associated with the original requestor (’555 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶73).
Accused Features: Namecheap’s process for certificate activation using email for domain control validation is accused of infringement. This process is alleged to be a method of remote data management where a request is received, a profile store is queried, a data file (e.g., a validation link) is sent to a specified electronic address (email), and the directory structure (e.g., permissions) is modified upon a subsequent request (Compl. ¶73).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as a collection of services and technologies offered by Namecheap, including its use of KVM virtualization technology, the Namecheap Android app, its Web Hosting infrastructure, web-based user and admin roles, website builder tools, and certificate activation using email for domain control validation (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Namecheap's virtual private server (VPS) hosting services utilize KVM (Kernel-based Virtual Machine) virtualization technology (Compl. ¶¶22-23). This technology allows a single physical server to run multiple isolated virtual machines, each with its own operating system, requiring sophisticated management of system-level resources like file system access and network I/O for each virtual instance.
The Namecheap Android app is alleged to be a mobile application through which Namecheap provides information and account management services to its users over a network (Compl. ¶¶32-33).
The complaint alleges that these products and services are central to Namecheap's business of providing web hosting and domain registration services to customers in the United States (Compl. ¶¶10-11, 14).

Visual Evidence

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’613 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
intercepting system calls that establish a file stored on media	Namecheap's KVM virtualization technology allegedly intercepts system calls that store files on media.	¶23	col. 5:16-21
intercepting system calls that create a copy of at least one file descriptor	The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.		col. 4:26-30
storing at least one indicator that a file descriptor established by an intercepted system call is associated with a file stored on media	The accused technology allegedly stores one or more file type indicators for each file descriptor in a table.	¶23	col. 5:16-26
storing at least one indicator concerning a created copy of a file descriptor	The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.		col. 4:31-39
examining at least one stored indicator to determine with what file type a file descriptor is associated	The accused technology allegedly determines the file type associated with a file descriptor based on a review of the stored file type indicators.	¶23	col. 5:40-45

Identified Points of Contention

Technical Questions: A central question will be evidentiary: what specific evidence demonstrates that KVM virtualization technology, a standard open-source platform, implements the claimed method by maintaining a distinct "table" of "file type indicators" for the specific purpose of disambiguation? The complaint makes a technical assertion that KVM "employs disambiguation of file descriptors" but does not provide supporting facts beyond a general link to a Namecheap support article (Compl. ¶¶22-23).
Scope Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the general I/O handling and resource management performed by a hypervisor like KVM for virtual machines constitutes "intercepting system calls" and "storing...indicators" in the specific manner contemplated by the patent, which describes a "system call wrapper" architecture (’613 Patent, Fig. 1).

’063 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
storing information to be provided in an information pack	The Namecheap Android app allegedly performs a method that involves storing information to be provided in an information pack.	¶33	col. 23:28-29
associating with said information pack at least a user destination address associated with one of a multiplicity of user data repositories...and a category identifier	The app associates the information pack with a user destination address and a category identifier.	¶33	col. 23:30-34
associating with said information pack a provider identifier	The app associates the information pack with a provider identifier.	¶33	col. 23:35-36
communicating said information pack by means of a network to said user data repository...	The app communicates the information pack over a network to the user data repository.	¶33	col. 23:37-40
locating said information pack in a location of said user data repository...reserved for information corresponding to a category...	The app locates the pack in a repository location corresponding to the category identifier.	¶33	col. 23:41-45
...after communicating... creating a custom location in said user data repository; placing said information pack in said custom location; associating a custom category identifier with said information pack...	The app allegedly creates a custom location, places the pack there, and associates it with a custom category identifier.	¶33	col. 23:46-52
sending a custom category signal to a processing station...said data processing means analyzing the provider identifier of subsequent...information packs...and in the event of a match...placing said one of the subsequent information packs in said custom location.	The app allegedly sends a signal to a processing station which then analyzes subsequent packs from the same provider and automatically places them in the custom location.	¶33	col. 23:53-col. 24:10

Identified Points of Contention

Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations track the claim language closely but lack specific facts about how the Namecheap Android app actually operates. A key question will be what technical evidence supports the existence and function of the claimed "processing station" with its specific logic for receiving a "custom category signal," storing provider-category pairings, and using that stored data to automatically sort subsequent information packs.
Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the general functions of a mobile account-management app can be mapped onto the highly structured, multi-step process recited in Claim 4. For instance, what constitutes an "information pack," a "user data repository," and a "custom category signal" within the actual architecture of the accused app and its backend systems?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’613 Patent

The Term: "intercepting system calls"
Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental action of the claimed method. The core of the infringement dispute will likely be whether the memory and process management techniques used by KVM virtualization qualify as "intercepting" in the manner disclosed by the patent, which is central to determining if the accused technology practices the invention.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes interception generally as a technique where "a pointer in the system call vector table to the system call is replaced with a pointer to alternative object code" (’613 Patent, col. 2:1-4). This language could support an argument that any mechanism that redirects a standard system call to an alternative code path for analysis meets the definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and detailed description consistently depict a specific architecture involving a "system call wrapper" (111) that is inserted into the operating system kernel to consult a separate "indicator table" (127) (’613 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 8:35-49). This may support a narrower construction limited to this explicit pointer-swapping and table-lookup mechanism.

For the ’063 Patent

The Term: "processing station"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because Claim 4 requires a specific architectural component with advanced logic: it must receive a "custom category signal," store the association between that category and a provider, and then use that stored association to automatically route future information. The existence and functionality of such a "station" within the accused Namecheap system is a key factual predicate for infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification illustrates the "Processing Station" (30) as a functional block that analyzes identifiers and can store information, such as a user's refusal to receive data from a provider (’063 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 8:27-34). This might support a construction where any backend server or process that handles user preferences and data routing qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 4 recites a specific, sequential learning function for the processing station: it acts after a user creates a custom category to store that preference and then applies it to subsequent information packs upon a "match" of the provider identifier. This language may support a narrower definition requiring a system component with this precise, automated "learn-and-apply" functionality.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of fact sufficient to support a claim for indirect infringement, such as knowledge of the patents and intent to encourage infringement by others.
Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege facts to support a claim for willful infringement, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. The prayer for relief requests a finding of an "exceptional case" and attorneys' fees, but the body of the complaint does not plead the factual basis for such a finding (Compl. ¶77.D).

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

Evidentiary Sufficiency vs. Conclusory Pleading: A primary issue will be whether the complaint's allegations, which frequently recite claim language before mapping it wholesale onto broad product categories, can be substantiated with concrete technical evidence. For example, what proof will be offered that Namecheap’s use of standard KVM virtualization involves the specific "indicator table" required by the ’613 patent, or that its Android app implements the detailed "processing station" with its automated sorting logic as claimed in the ’063 patent?
Claim Scope and Standard Technologies: The infringement theory against KVM virtualization (’613 patent) raises a key question of technical overlap: does the asserted claim, as construed, read on a widely adopted, open-source technology? The answer will heavily influence both the infringement analysis and potential validity challenges based on the public operation of that technology.
Architectural Mapping: A central dispute across multiple asserted patents will be one of functional equivalence: do the general-purpose components of Namecheap’s modern web services architecture perform the specific, often multi-step, functions required by the claims? For instance, can a backend server that processes user settings be equated to the "processing station" of the ’063 patent, or can a template-based web editor be mapped to the specific "metadata template" and "object" structure of the ’139 patent?