DataCloud Tech LLC v. 1 800 Flowers Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DataCloud Technologies, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC; Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00558, D. Del., 05/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation that conducts substantial business, commits the alleged acts of infringement, and sells its products and services within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website infrastructure, mobile application, and distributed firewall services infringe four patents related to disambiguating file types in virtualized environments, organizing and delivering digital information, providing anonymous network access, and remotely managing data directory structures.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address foundational methods for managing data, security, and identity in complex computer networks, technologies that are integral to modern cloud computing, e-commerce platforms, and application delivery.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided notice of the asserted patents to Defendant’s General Counsel via a series of letters and emails beginning on December 14, 2020. Public records indicate that U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR2021-00361), which resulted in the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 14, and 17. The present complaint asserts claim 11 of that patent, which was not cancelled in the IPR proceeding.

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 describes a shortcoming in operating systems like UNIX, where system calls treat different types of resources—such as a file stored on a hard disk and a network communication channel—identically, using a generic "file descriptor." This ambiguity makes it difficult for security programs to selectively intercept and manage operations based on the resource type (e.g., to block access to local files while permitting network communication) (’613 Patent, col. 2:5-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method to distinguish between these file descriptors. It intercepts system calls that initially create a resource (e.g., a file or network socket) and stores an "indicator" in a dedicated "indicator table." This indicator links the newly created file descriptor to its specific type. Subsequently, when any program attempts to use that file descriptor, a "system call wrapper" can first check the indicator table to determine the true nature of the resource and apply a specific, context-aware rule. (’613 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1; col. 3:55-63).
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a mechanism for more granular control and security within an operating system, enabling the sandboxing of untrusted programs or the fine-grained management of resources in a virtualized server environment. (’613 Patent, col. 2:10-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (’613 Patent, col. 16:57-68; Compl. ¶22).
• Essential elements of claim 11 include:
  • 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 problem of information overload, where consumers and businesses are inundated with documents (e.g., warranties, manuals, updates) and lack a simple, centralized system to organize them effectively. (’063 Patent, col. 1:21-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where "Providers" (e.g., manufacturers, retailers) electronically send "information packs" to a recipient's "User Data Repository." These packs are pre-categorized by the provider. The system allows the user to create custom categories and move information packs into them. Crucially, the system can then use a "feedback" or "custom category signal" to inform a central processing station or the original provider of this custom categorization, so that subsequent information packs from that same provider are automatically routed to the user's preferred custom location. (’063 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1; col. 4:1-51).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to automate the lifecycle management of product and service information by shifting the initial burden of categorization from the end-user to the information provider and creating a persistent, intelligent organizational link. (’063 Patent, col. 2:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 4 (’063 Patent, col. 23:26 - col. 24:11; Compl. ¶33).
• Essential elements of claim 4 include:
  • storing information in an "information pack" associated with a user destination address, a category identifier, and a provider identifier;
  • communicating the pack over a network to a user data repository and placing it in a location corresponding to the category identifier;
  • creating a "custom location" in the repository and placing the pack there;
  • associating a "custom category identifier" with the pack; and
  • sending a "custom category signal" to a processing station, which then uses the stored custom category and provider identifiers to automatically place subsequent information packs from that provider in the same custom location.
• 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 system for providing anonymous network communication by creating a temporary "virtual domain." The architecture uses a "deceiver" to receive the initial request from a client, a "controller" to resolve the true destination and select a "forwarder," and the "forwarder" to manage the communication, masking the client's IP address from the destination server. (’959 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-51).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the 1-800-Flowers.com website infrastructure, which it claims uses a forwarder for hosting dynamic websites, performs the claimed method (Compl. ¶45).

U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298: Remote Access And Retrieval Of Electronic Files (Issued July 8, 2008)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for remotely managing data directory structures. A computing application on a server receives requests from users on various devices. The system consults a "profile data store" to determine if the user has permission to access and modify the requested data or directory structures, then executes the request and provides notification of delivery. (’298 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:39-56).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶55).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "distributed firewall service" used by 1-800-Flowers.com, which allows users with specific Identity and Access Management (IAM) roles to configure network traffic rules, infringes the patent (Compl. ¶56).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint accuses three distinct functionalities: (1) the "1-800-Flowers.com website infrastructure" (Compl. ¶23, ¶45); (2) the "1-800-flowers.com mobile app" for Android (Compl. ¶34); and (3) a "distributed firewall service" used by Defendant (Compl. ¶56).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The website infrastructure is alleged to use KVM (Kernel-based Virtual Machine) virtualization to deliver personalized content, which Plaintiff claims creates ambiguity in file descriptors relevant to the ’613 Patent (Compl. ¶23). It is also alleged to use a forwarder-based architecture to host dynamic websites, which is accused of infringing the ’959 Patent (Compl. ¶45).
  • The mobile app is an Android application (APK file) available from the Google Play Store. The complaint alleges that the entire lifecycle of the app—from download (associating an IP address with the APK) to installation (creating directories) and updating (the "custom category signal")—maps to the claimed method of the ’063 Patent (Compl. ¶34).
  • The distributed firewall service is described as a system allowing users with assigned roles (e.g., "Organization Administrator") to configure network policies for ingress and egress traffic, allegedly via command-line interface (CLI) commands. This functionality is accused of infringing the ’298 Patent's method for remote directory management (Compl. ¶56).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint references Exhibits A, B, C, and D as "Evidences of Use," but these exhibits were not included in the filed complaint document (Compl. p. 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'613 Patent Infringement Allegations

'063 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention:

• For the '613 Patent: A central issue will be evidentiary. The complaint makes conclusory allegations that the accused infrastructure performs the specific steps of the claim but provides no facts detailing how it intercepts system calls or uses an "indicator table." The defense may argue that the "ambiguity" in a virtualized system is a general condition, not an implementation of the patent's specific claimed solution.
• For the '063 Patent: The dispute will likely focus on claim construction. The case raises the question of whether the term "information pack," described in the patent as a collection of documents like manuals and warranties, can be construed to read on a monolithic, executable APK file. Further, it raises the technical question of whether an app's digital signature and update process function as a "custom category identifier" and "signal" for the purpose of routing subsequent, separate information, as required by the claim's logic.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Patent: U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613

  • The Term: "indicator" (from claim 11)
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's mechanism. The infringement analysis depends entirely on whether Defendant’s system can be shown to "store" and "examine" such an "indicator." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether any piece of metadata in a virtual environment suffices, or if a specific structure created for the purpose of disambiguation is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself uses the general term "indicator" without further structural limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification, including the abstract and detailed description, consistently describes the invention's implementation using an "indicator table" (e.g., element 127 in Fig. 1) that is explicitly created and maintained to store these indicators, suggesting a specific, purpose-built data structure. (’613 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:7-14).

• Patent: U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063

  • The Term: "information pack" (from claim 4)
  • Context and Importance: Plaintiff's infringement theory hinges on equating an Android "APK file" with an "information pack." The viability of the infringement claim for the mobile app will turn on this construction.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not explicitly restrict the contents of the "information pack."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's examples and figures consistently describe an "information pack" as a collection of informational items for the user, such as "static information (manual, maintenance schedule, receipt...)" and "dynamic information (updates, service calls, etc.)" (’063 Patent, Fig. 5, element 418). This may support an argument that the term implies a collection of user-facing documents, not a single, compiled software application.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes general allegations of inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶10). These could be argued more specifically with respect to the mobile app, where Defendant provides the app on the Google Play Store, allegedly inducing users to perform the claimed method on their devices, and with the firewall service, where Defendant allegedly provides instructions and tools for administrators to perform the claimed method.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and its alleged infringement based on a series of eight communications (a letter and seven follow-up emails) sent to its General Counsel between December 14, 2020, and July 9, 2024 (Compl. ¶14). This extensive alleged notice period may form a strong basis for a willfulness claim if infringement is found.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "information pack," described in the context of organizing user documents like warranties and manuals, be construed to cover a self-contained, executable mobile application (an APK file)? Similarly, can a standard "app update" function as the "custom category signal" that the patent describes for intelligently routing future, separate communications?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical specificity: Does the complaint, and by extension the forthcoming evidence, provide sufficient factual detail to demonstrate that Defendant's use of common technologies like KVM virtualization and proxy servers constitutes infringement of the highly specific methods claimed in the '613 and '959 patents (e.g., maintaining a purpose-built "indicator table" or a "deceiver-controller" architecture), or is there a fundamental mismatch between the general accused technology and the specific patented implementation?
• A central question will concern functionality versus infringement: Does Defendant's firewall management system, which uses IAM roles to control network traffic, actually perform the '298 patent's claimed method of remotely managing "data directory structures" via a "profile store," or has the Plaintiff merely applied the patent's labels to a commercially standard network security tool that achieves a different purpose through different technical means?