DataCloud Tech LLC v. Volkswagen Group Of America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DataCloud Technologies, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC; Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01138, D.N.J., 09/11/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant has established places of business in the district and has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website infrastructure and the myAudi mobile application infringe four patents related to computer file system management, categorized data distribution, anonymous network communication, and remote file access.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to foundational technologies for managing operating system processes, organizing and delivering digital information, ensuring user privacy online, and controlling remote data—all of which are integral to modern web services and mobile application ecosystems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a multi-year history of pre-suit communications, beginning with a licensing letter to Volkswagen in July 2020, followed by numerous emails and at least two responsive communications from Volkswagen. Public records indicate that claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 14, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 were cancelled in an inter partes review (IPR2021-00361); the complaint asserts the surviving independent claim 11 of that patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-01-28	U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 Priority Date (Filing Date)
2000-02-08	U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 Priority Date (Filing Date)
2000-04-04	U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 Priority Date (Filing Date)
2002-03-29	U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298 Priority Date (Filing Date)
2003-05-06	U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 Issued
2003-11-18	U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 Issued
2007-04-24	U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 Issued
2008-07-08	U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298 Issued
2020-07-07	Plaintiff sends licensing letter to Defendant
2025-04-11	Defendant sends response email/letter to Plaintiff
2025-06-05	Defendant sends second response email/letter to Plaintiff
2025-09-11	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 describes how certain operating systems (e.g., UNIX) use the same type of identifier, a "file descriptor," to refer to both files stored on physical media (like a hard disk) and communication channels (like a network socket), making it difficult to distinguish between the two at the system-call level (’613) Patent, col. 2:26-53). This ambiguity limits the ability to create security policies that, for example, block a program from accessing the hard drive but still allow it to use the network (’613 Patent, col. 3:11-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to resolve this ambiguity by intercepting the system calls that first create a file or channel and storing an "indicator" that tags the resulting file descriptor with its specific type (e.g., "file stored on media") (’613 Patent, Abstract). This stored indicator can then be examined by other processes or system call "wrappers" to enable selective actions based on the file descriptor's type, thereby providing more granular control over system resources (’613 Patent, col. 3:56-4:6).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a mechanism for enhanced security and functionality within an operating system by allowing processes to differentiate between resource types that were previously indistinguishable at a low level.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶23).
• The essential elements of claim 11 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;
  • intercepting system calls that create a copy of at least one file descriptor;
  • 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. (’613 Patent, col. 16:49-61).
• 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’s background explains that consumers and businesses are inundated with information from various sources (e.g., product manuals, warranties, service updates), and existing methods for organizing this information are often cumbersome, decentralized, and inefficient (’063) Patent, col. 1:15-39).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where "providers" (e.g., manufacturers, retailers) send pre-categorized "information packs" to a recipient's centralized "User Data Repository" (’063 Patent, Abstract). The system allows a user to create "custom locations" for these packs. Crucially, when a user moves a pack to a custom location, a "custom category signal" is sent to a processing station, which then learns to automatically route subsequent information packs from the same provider to that user's designated custom location (’063 Patent, col. 4:45-64).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to automate and personalize information management by shifting the initial burden of categorization from the end-user to the information provider and creating a learning system based on user preferences.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶34).
• The essential elements of claim 4 include storing information in an "information pack," associating it with a user destination address, a category identifier, and a provider identifier, and communicating it to a user data repository. The claim further requires steps performed after communication, including: creating a custom location, placing the pack there, associating a "custom category identifier," and sending a "custom category signal" to a processing station that uses the stored custom identifier and provider identifier to route subsequent information packs from that provider to the same custom location (’063 Patent, col. 22:26-24:11).
• 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 addresses online privacy concerns by describing a method to anonymize a user's network activity (’959) Patent, col. 2:57-61). The system uses a "deceiver" to intercept a user's request, a "controller" to resolve the true destination and select an intermediary "forwarder," and the "forwarder" to communicate with the destination website, thereby masking the user's actual IP address from the destination server (’959 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶45).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Volkswagen's website infrastructure (www.vw.com), alleging it performs the claimed method by using an intermediary system where neither the client nor the destination server is aware of the forwarder, such as when subdomains share a public IP address but require querying a domain name server to find a corresponding private IP address (Compl. ¶46).

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 their data and directory structures, which existing systems did not adequately support (’298) Patent, col. 2:26-35). The invention provides a server-based computing application that processes requests from users for remote management of data directories, uses a "profile store" to determine if the user has access rights, delivers the data to specified targets, and generates notifications confirming delivery (’298 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 13 is asserted (Compl. ¶56).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Volkswagen's "computer application infrastructure," alleging it uses identity and access management tools to enforce security policies through identity-based policies and roles, which allegedly functions as the claimed "profile store" to control access to resources (Compl. ¶57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s website infrastructure, including at least www.audi.com and www.vw.com, and the myAudi mobile application (Compl. ¶24, ¶35, ¶46).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The complaint alleges that Defendant's website infrastructure utilizes Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM) virtualization, which it claims creates ambiguity between host and guest file descriptors (Compl. ¶24). It further alleges the infrastructure uses a system of intermediaries to handle web requests in a manner where subdomains sharing a public IP address are resolved to private IP addresses, and data is returned to the user in a way that makes the intermediary appear to be the source (Compl. ¶46).
  • The myAudi mobile app is described as being distributed as an Android Application Package (APK) file via the Google Play Store. The complaint alleges that during download, this APK file is associated with a user’s IP address (a "user destination address") and a provider identifier ("AUDI AG" from the APK’s digital certificate). It is further alleged that the app creates custom directories on the user's device and that the APK’s public key signature is used as an identifier to manage app updates (Compl. ¶35).
  • These products are presented as core components of "Volkswagen's digital ecosystem," suggesting they are central to its customer-facing operations (Compl. ¶57). 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	The complaint alleges Defendant performed this method through its website infrastructure, which uses KVM virtualization. It does not identify specific system calls that are intercepted.	¶23, ¶24	col. 16:50-51
storing at least one indicator that a file descriptor established by an intercepted system call is associated with a file stored on media	The complaint alleges that in a virtualized system using QEMU and KVM, "there's ambiguity in file descriptors." It does not specify what constitutes the "indicator" or how it is stored.	¶24	col. 16:52-55
intercepting system calls that create a copy of at least one file descriptor	The complaint recites this element from the claim but does not provide specific facts alleging how Defendant’s infrastructure performs this step.	¶23	col. 16:56-57
storing at least one indicator concerning a created copy of a file descriptor	The complaint recites this element from the claim but does not provide specific facts alleging how Defendant’s infrastructure performs this step.	¶23	col. 16:58-59
examining at least one stored indicator to determine with what file type a file descriptor is associated	The complaint recites this element from the claim but does not provide specific facts alleging how Defendant’s infrastructure performs this step.	¶23	col. 16:60-61

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations against the ’613 patent are conclusory. A central question will be what evidence, if any, Plaintiff can produce to show that Volkswagen's use of KVM virtualization involves the specific claimed steps of intercepting system calls and actively storing and examining "indicators" in a table or similar structure, as opposed to merely being a system where file descriptor ambiguity may generally exist.

’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 myAudi mobile app is an APK file, which is alleged to be the "information pack."	¶35	col. 22:28-29
associating with said information pack at least a user destination address ... and a category identifier	The APK file download is associated with a user's IP address ("user destination address"). The complaint does not allege a pre-associated generic "category identifier" as required by the claim.	¶35	col. 22:30-35
associating with said information pack a provider identifier	The APK's digital certificate contains the organization name "AUDI AG," which is alleged to be the "provider identifier."	¶35	col. 22:36-37
creating a custom location in said user data repository	The myAudi app creates a custom directory (e.g., "de.myaudi.mobile.assistant") on the user's device.	¶35	col. 23:2-3
associating a custom category identifier with said information pack	The public key or modulus from the APK's signature is alleged to be the "custom category identifier."	¶35	col. 23:6-7
sending a custom category signal to a processing station ... storing together said custom category identifier and said provider identifier	"Updating the app is an example of sending a custom category signal." The complaint does not specify the "processing station" or how it stores the identifiers together.	¶35	col. 23:8-14
said data processing means analyzing the provider identifier of subsequent...information packs ... and ... placing said one of the subsequent...packs in said custom location	The system uses the APK's signature (which contains the provider identifier) to identify the author and validate updates, which are then placed in the custom location.	¶35	col. 23:14-24:11

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary dispute will likely be whether an executable Android Application Package (APK) file qualifies as an "information pack" within the meaning of the patent. Further, it raises the question of whether a software update process, authenticated via a digital signature, performs the specific claim steps of sending a "custom category signal" to a "processing station" that then uses stored identifiers to route future "packs."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’613 Patent (Claim 11):

• The Term: "indicator"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's mechanism for resolving file descriptor ambiguity. Plaintiff's infringement theory rests on demonstrating that Volkswagen's system stores and examines a data structure that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a generic flag in a virtualized environment is sufficient, or if a more specific, purpose-built data element is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the indicator's form is flexible, stating it is "preferably" stored in a table, implying other data structures like a linked list could suffice (’613 Patent, col. 4:18-24).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and detailed descriptions consistently depict the indicator (129, 205, 305) as an entry within a dedicated "Indicator Table" (127) that is actively maintained by a "System Call Wrapper" (111), suggesting a specific architectural component rather than a passive attribute of a system (’613 Patent, Fig. 1-3).

For the ’063 Patent (Claim 4):

• The Term: "information pack"
• Context and Importance: Plaintiff's entire infringement theory for this patent maps the "myAudi" APK file to this term. The viability of the claim depends on whether an executable software application can be construed as an "information pack."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the term by its associations (user address, provider identifier, etc.) rather than its content, potentially allowing any digital data bundle with these attributes to qualify (’063 Patent, col. 22:28-37).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's examples consistently describe "information packs" as containing human-readable documents for user organization, such as prescription drug information, trade show brochures, car manuals, and warranty information (’063 Patent, Figs. 2-6). This context suggests the term is directed at user-managed content, not executable code.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to inducement and contributory infringement but alleges no specific facts to support these theories, such as instructions in user manuals or other documentation encouraging infringing acts (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents and its infringement based on a detailed timeline of communications beginning with a "licensing letter" on July 7, 2020, and including multiple follow-up emails and at least two responses from Volkswagen before the suit was filed (Compl. ¶15). This alleged history of notice may be used to support a claim for willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "information pack," rooted in the patent’s context of organizing user-facing documents like manuals and warranties, be construed to cover an executable software file like an Android Application Package (APK) and its automated update mechanism?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical substantiation: can Plaintiff support its conclusory allegations for the '613, '959, and '298 patents with specific technical evidence demonstrating that Volkswagen’s general-purpose web infrastructure performs the discrete, multi-step methods required by the claims, or does the complaint merely map claim language onto high-level descriptions of common technologies like virtualization and access control?
• A significant background issue will be patent validity: considering that multiple independent claims of the ’613 patent were previously cancelled in an inter partes review, the case may raise questions about the strength of the asserted surviving claim 11 against the same or similar prior art.