DataCloud Tech LLC v. Commvault Systems Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DataCloud Technologies, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Commvault Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: DataCloud Technologies, LLC v. Commvault Systems, Inc., 1:24-cv-01265, D. Del., 11/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation with significant business ties to the state, and because acts of infringement are alleged to have occurred in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s enterprise virtualization, website infrastructure, user configuration tools, and data backup/restore products infringe four patents related to operating system-level process management, network traffic anonymization, remote directory control, and cross-platform job scheduling.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern foundational aspects of enterprise computing, including virtualization, network security, and distributed data management, which are critical for modern cloud and on-premises IT infrastructure.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 was the subject of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2021-00361), which concluded with the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 14, and 17. The complaint asserts claim 12 of the ’613 patent, which was not cancelled in the IPR. U.S. Patent Nos. 6,560,613 and 8,156,499 were also subject to Certificates of Correction.

Case Timeline

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 identifies a "serious shortcoming" in contemporary operating systems (like UNIX) where both files stored on media and network communication channels are treated as generic "files" accessed via a file descriptor. This makes it difficult to implement security policies that distinguish between the two, such as blocking a program from writing to the local disk while still allowing it to communicate over the network (’613 Patent, col. 2:28-34, col. 3:12-35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to "disambiguate" these file descriptors. The system intercepts operating system calls that create a resource (e.g., opening a file or a network socket) and stores an "indicator" in a dedicated table to tag the descriptor with its specific type. Subsequently, when a process attempts to use that descriptor, a "system call wrapper" can check the indicator table to determine the resource type and selectively permit or deny the operation based on predefined rules, thus enabling more granular control (’613 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1; col. 4:1-6).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a mechanism for enhanced, fine-grained security and resource management at the operating system level, a crucial capability for safely executing untrusted code or managing complex server environments (’613 Patent, col. 2:8-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "at least Claim 12" (Compl. ¶24). However, Claim 12 is a dependent claim, and its assertion without the independent claim from which it depends (Claim 11, which depends on Claim 8) raises a potential issue of improper pleading. The infringement theory described in the complaint more closely tracks the elements of independent Claim 8.
• The essential elements of independent Claim 8 are:
  • intercepting system calls that establish a file stored on media;
  • storing at least one indicator that a file descriptor established by an intercepted system call is associated with a file stored on media, wherein storing an indicator...further comprises storing the indicator in a table; and
  • examining at least one stored indicator to determine with what file type a file descriptor is associated.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶23).

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 describes privacy risks on the internet, where a client's IP address and browsing activity can be tracked by servers. It notes that conventional proxy servers simply substitute one trackable identity for another, and do not enable flexible, anonymous group browsing (’959 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system architecture comprising three main components: a "deceiver", a "controller", and a "forwarder". When a client requests a domain name, the "deceiver" intercepts it and queries the "controller". The "controller" finds the true destination IP address but provides the IP address of a "forwarder" back to the client. The client then unknowingly communicates with the "forwarder", which relays traffic to and from the true destination, effectively masking both the client's and the destination server's true identities from each other for the duration of the session (’959 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1; col. 4:13-49).
• Technical Importance: This method creates a temporary, ad hoc virtual domain that isolates and anonymizes client activity, and enables the creation of "virtual namespaces" (e.g., company.bank) to facilitate secure, community-specific communications (’959 Patent, col. 2:48-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "at least Claim 1" (Compl. ¶34). Claim 1 is an independent method claim.
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • setting up a forwarding session between a client and a destination server in response to a client request;
  • employing a "forwarder" disposed between the client and server to transfer packets, such that neither party is aware of the "forwarder"'s employment;
  • employing a "controller" to communicate with the "forwarder" and a domain name server to resolve the destination website name; and
  • employing a "deceiver" to receive the client's request and initiate the "controller"'s query.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶33).

U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298 - "Remote Access And Retrieval Of Electronic Files," issued July 8, 2008

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses a need for users to remotely access data and simultaneously manage the underlying directory structures (e.g., create folders, move files), particularly from mobile devices where such control is often limited (’298 Patent, col. 2:15-38). The invention is a system with a server-side application that processes user requests to manage data and directories, authenticates the user, and coordinates data delivery across a communications network, providing confirmation to the user (’298 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: "at least Claim 13" (Compl. ¶44).
• Accused Features: "Commvault configuration tools," which are alleged to provide web-based creation and configuration of user accounts, roles, and authentication methods that control access to data directory structures (Compl. ¶¶16, 43-44).

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 describes a system for coordinating the execution of software processes across multiple, distinct computers that run different and incompatible operating systems (e.g., Windows and Unix) (’499 Patent, col. 1:12-21). A centralized "scheduling computer" uses a "master schedule" to direct the execution of processes on the various client computers. The master schedule can define conditional logic, such that the execution of a subsequent process depends on the success or failure of a prior one (’499 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: "at least Claim 1" (Compl. ¶54).
• Accused Features: "Commvault restore scheduler," which is alleged to provide web-based scheduling of backup and restore jobs across different computer systems, including servers and clients with different operating systems (Compl. ¶¶16, 53-54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies four categories of accused products or functionalities: "Commvault hypervisors," "Commvault website infrastructure," "Commvault configuration tools," and "Commvault restore scheduler" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The "Commvault hypervisors" are described as Linux-based KVM hypervisors for virtualization. They are accused of infringing the ’613 patent by intercepting I/O system calls for files, sockets, and pipes, and using indicators to determine the associated file type (Compl. ¶24).
• The "Commvault website infrastructure" is accused of infringing the ’959 patent. It allegedly uses a "front-end server switch" as a forwarder and a "firewall" as a controller to establish an anonymized communication session between a client and a web server (Compl. ¶34). A list of subdomains for commvault.com, including api.commvault.com and campaignhub.commvault.com, is presented as evidence of the accused website infrastructure (Compl. ¶34, FN5).
• The "Commvault configuration tools" are accused of infringing the ’298 patent. They are described as web-based Identity and Access Management tools that allow users to remotely control data directory structures by defining user roles and permissions stored in a database (Compl. ¶44). A documentation page for "Appranix roles" is cited to show the web-based configuration of user roles (Compl. ¶43, FN6).
• The "Commvault restore scheduler" is accused of infringing the ’499 patent by scheduling tasks across computers with different operating systems (e.g., a UNIX-based server and a Windows-based client) based on specified criteria (Compl. ¶54). A documentation page titled "Scheduling a Restore" is referenced to support allegations against this functionality (Compl. ¶53, FN7).
• The complaint alleges these products are part of Commvault's broader offerings in "website hosting platforms and networking solutions" but provides no specific details on their market position (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Legal Question: The complaint explicitly asserts dependent Claim 12, but the infringement narrative (Compl. ¶24) aligns with the elements of independent Claim 8. This pleading discrepancy may require clarification, particularly as several other claims in the patent were invalidated by IPR. The defense may question whether a valid claim has been properly asserted.
• Technical Question: A core factual question will be whether the I/O handling mechanisms within KVM virtualization, as used by Commvault, function as the claimed "system call wrapper" that maintains a specific "indicator table" for the purpose of disambiguating file types. The complaint's allegation that this is accomplished by storing a "reference to images" (Compl. ¶24) may be tested against the patent's description of storing a more direct type indicator.

U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Question: The patent defines a specialized system using the terms "deceiver", "controller", and "forwarder". The complaint maps these terms to standard network hardware: "router", "firewall", and "front-end server switch", respectively (Compl. ¶34). A central dispute will be whether these conventional components, in their ordinary configuration, meet the specific functional requirements of the claimed elements.
• Technical Question: The claim requires that neither the client nor the server is "aware" of the forwarder. The complaint's evidence for this is that the server sees a "direct TCP connection" with a different IP address (Compl. ¶34). The factual and technical sufficiency of this allegation to prove the claimed "unawareness" will likely be a key point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 (based on Claim 8)

• The Term: "indicator"
• Context and Importance: The invention's ability to "disambiguate" file types rests entirely on the creation and examination of this "indicator". Its definition will determine what type of information must be stored and checked. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegation of a "reference to images" (Compl. ¶24) may not align with a narrower construction of the term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification frequently refers to the term generically as "an indicator" or "indicators concerning file descriptors," suggesting it could be any data that allows a process to determine the file type (’613 Patent, col. 4:2-3, col. 5:1-3).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment describes a specific indicator table 127 maintained by a system call wrapper 111 in the operating system kernel, which stores an "indicator 129 of the association" (’613 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 7:35-49). This may support a narrower construction requiring a specific flag or entry in a dedicated table, rather than an indirect reference.

For U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 (Claim 1)

• The Term: "deceiver"
• Context and Importance: This is a term coined in the patent, not a standard industry term. Its construction is critical because the complaint equates it to a standard "router" (Compl. ¶34). If "deceiver" is construed to require functions beyond those of a standard router, the infringement case may be weakened.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary describes its function broadly: it "communicates with clients and with the controller" and "provides name resolution for clients" (’959 Patent, col. 2:36-39). This high-level functional description could arguably encompass the actions of a specially configured router.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently presents the "deceiver", "controller", and "forwarder" as three distinct but cooperative algorithms that collectively form a "DNS Misdirection" system (’959 Patent, col. 2:33-36). This could support a construction requiring a component specifically designed or configured to perform the misdirection role, rather than a general-purpose router performing conventional routing tasks.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes general allegations that Defendant contributes to and induces infringement, but it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements of these claims, such as referencing user manuals or specific instructions provided to customers (Compl. ¶10).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement or allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents. It does, however, request that the court declare the case "exceptional" and award attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶58.D).

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

1. A threshold procedural and legal question will be one of claim viability: For the ’613 patent, can the suit proceed on the asserted dependent Claim 12, which is nonsensical on its own, or will Plaintiff be required to amend its pleading to properly assert the independent claim (Claim 8) that survived IPR?
2. A central evidentiary question across all asserted patents will be one of functional mapping: Do Commvault’s conventional enterprise products (a KVM hypervisor, a router/firewall combination, a configuration tool, a scheduler) actually perform the specific, and often uniquely-named, functions required by the patent claims ("indicator table", "deceiver", "master schedule"), or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation that the notice-style complaint elides?
3. For the networking patents (’613 and ’959), a key issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms rooted in the patents’ specific solutions to niche problems—such as an "indicator" for OS-level file type differentiation or a "deceiver" for creating anonymous virtual domains—be construed broadly enough to read on the general-purpose functions of standard enterprise IT components?