DCT

1:26-cv-00027

DataCloud Tech LLC v. Voxx Intl Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00027, D. Del., 01/09/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation, conducts substantial business in the state, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s content delivery network, Klipsch Stream mobile application, and website infrastructure infringe three patents related to low-level data management, information organization, and anonymous network communication.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies for managing how computer systems handle data, organize information for end-users, and maintain user privacy during network communications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patents through a series of letters and emails beginning in January 2021, over five years before the complaint was filed. Separately, U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 survived an Inter Partes Review (IPR2021-00361), in which several claims not asserted in this litigation were cancelled. The claim asserted here, claim 11, was not subject to the IPR 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
2003-05-06 ’613 Patent Issue Date
2003-08-26 ’613 Patent Certificate of Correction Issued
2003-11-18 ’063 Patent Issue Date
2004-02-03 ’063 Patent Certificate of Correction Issued
2007-04-24 ’959 Patent Issue Date
2021-01-22 First Alleged Notice Letter Sent to Defendant
2021-09-14 Alleged Follow-up Email Sent to Defendant
2023-01-04 Alleged Follow-up Email Sent to Defendant
2023-10-18 Alleged Licensing Email Sent to Defendant
2024-02-21 Alleged Follow-up Email Sent to Defendant
2025-06-23 Alleged Follow-up Email Sent to Defendant
2025-07-08 Alleged Follow-up Email Sent to Defendant
2025-09-26 Alleged Notice Letter Sent to Defendant
2026-01-09 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 - *“Disambiguating file descriptors,”* issued May 6, 2003 (’613 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a problem in operating systems like UNIX where the same system calls are used to access both files stored on physical media (like a hard disk) and network communication channels. This ambiguity makes it difficult to selectively intercept operations for one type of resource without also intercepting them for the other (’613 Patent, col. 2:28-34, 53-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to "disambiguate" these resources. It works by intercepting the initial system calls that create a resource "descriptor" (a handle or pointer) and storing an "indicator" in a table that flags whether the descriptor is for a file on media or a communication channel. Subsequent processes can then examine this table to determine the resource type before acting, allowing for selective and targeted system call interception (’613 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-7).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides a mechanism for more granular control over operating system resources, enhancing security and functionality by allowing programs to treat files and network streams differently even when the OS abstracts them similarly (’613 Patent, col. 2:6-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Claim 11 requires a method comprising the steps of:
    • 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 other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 - *“Data Organization And Management System And Method,”* issued November 18, 2003 (’063 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge consumers and businesses face in organizing a large volume of information, such as product manuals, warranties, and service updates, which are often misplaced or discarded (’063 Patent, col. 1:18-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where an information provider sends a pre-categorized "information pack" to a recipient's centralized "User Data Repository." The system automatically files the information in the correct category. The user can then create custom categories and, via a feedback mechanism, instruct the system to automatically place future information from that same provider into the new custom location, streamlining organization (’063 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:6-12).
  • Technical Importance: This system shifts the initial burden of data categorization from the end-user to the information provider, aiming to create a more organized and persistent repository for important product and service information (’063 Patent, col. 2:5-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 4 (Compl. ¶33).
  • Claim 4 requires a method comprising the steps of:
    • storing information in an information pack;
    • associating the pack with a user destination address and a category identifier;
    • associating the pack with a provider identifier;
    • communicating the pack over a network to a user data repository;
    • locating the pack in a repository location corresponding to the category identifier;
    • after communication, creating a custom location in the repository;
    • placing the pack in the custom location and associating a custom category identifier with it;
    • sending a custom category signal to a processing station;
    • storing the custom category identifier and provider identifier together; and
    • analyzing the provider identifier of subsequent packs to place matching ones in the custom location.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other 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 (’959 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses online privacy by describing a system that anonymizes a user's network activity. It uses a "deceiver" to intercept a user's request for a website, a "controller" to resolve the website's true address and select an intermediary "forwarder," and the "forwarder" to relay traffic, such that neither the user's computer nor the destination website are aware of each other's true IP address (’959 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-47).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses VOXX subsidiary Klipsch's website infrastructure (www.klipsch.com) of performing the patented method (Compl. ¶45).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses three distinct instrumentalities:

  1. A "high-performance content delivery network (CDN)" used by VOXX for data delivery (’613 Patent allegations) (Compl. ¶23).
  2. The "Klipsch Stream App," an Android application provided by VOXX subsidiary Klipsch and accessible via the Google Play Store (’063 Patent allegations) (Compl. ¶34).
  3. The "Klipsch's website infrastructure (www.klipsch.com)" (’959 Patent allegations) (Compl. ¶45).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the CDN as enhancing web performance using real-time caching and edge computing (Compl. ¶23).
  • The Klipsch Stream App is described as a mobile application that users download to an Android phone. The complaint focuses on the technical characteristics of its installation package (APK file), its digital certificate, the creation of data directories on the user's device, and the app update process (Compl. ¶34).
  • The Klipsch website infrastructure is described as a system for hosting dynamic websites that responds to user requests, allegedly using a method where neither the client nor the destination server is aware of an intermediary forwarder (Compl. ¶45).
  • The complaint does not provide specific allegations regarding the commercial importance or market positioning of these instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint refers to Exhibits A, B, and C as "Evidences of Use," but these exhibits are not attached to the publicly filed document. The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body.

’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’s CDN performs this step, but provides no specific operational details. ¶22 col. 15:4-7
intercepting system calls that create a copy of at least one file descriptor The complaint alleges Defendant’s CDN performs this step, but provides no specific operational details. ¶22 col. 15:8-11
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 Defendant’s CDN performs this step, but provides no specific operational details. ¶22 col. 15:12-15
storing at least one indicator concerning a created copy of a file descriptor The complaint alleges Defendant’s CDN performs this step, but provides no specific operational details. ¶22 col. 15:16-18
examining at least one stored indicator to determine with what file type a file descriptor is associated The complaint alleges Defendant’s CDN performs this step, but provides no specific operational details. ¶22 col. 15:19-21
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary question is one of technical scope: does the operation of a high-level Content Delivery Network (CDN), which manages HTTP requests and caches web content, involve the specific, low-level "intercepting [of] system calls" related to "file descriptors" as contemplated by the patent?
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations track the claim language without providing factual support for how the accused CDN actually functions. A key question for the court will be what evidence, if any, demonstrates that the CDN performs these specific steps of intercepting, storing indicators for, and examining OS-level file descriptors.

’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 Klipsch Stream App is stored as an Android Application Package (APK) file, which is alleged to be the "information pack." ¶34 col. 23:29-30
associating with said information pack at least a user destination address... and a category identifier The APK file is associated with a user's IP address when downloaded. ¶34 col. 23:30-35
associating with said information pack a provider identifier The APK certificate identifies the organization "Klipsch" as the provider. ¶34 col. 23:36-37
communicating said information pack... to said user data repository The APK file is downloaded over a network to the Android phone's data storage. ¶34 col. 23:38-41
creating a custom location in said user data repository The app installation process creates a specific directory, "com.klipsch.playfi". ¶34 col. 24:1-2
placing said information pack in said custom location Application data and subdirectories are placed in the custom directory. ¶34 col. 24:3-4
associating a custom category identifier with said information pack The digital signature or modulus of the APK file is alleged to be the "custom category identifier." ¶34 col. 24:5-7
sending a custom category signal to a processing station... Updating the application is alleged to constitute sending this signal. ¶34 col. 24:8-14
analyzing the provider identifier of subsequent... information packs... placing said one of the subsequent information packs in said custom location The complaint alleges that valid Android APK files contain a signature that identifies the author, and that this is used for updates. ¶34 col. 24:15-22
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: This dispute may turn on definitional scope. Can the term "information pack," described in the patent as containing product information like manuals and warranties, be construed to cover an executable software application like an APK file? Similarly, does an app "update" perform the function of "sending a custom category signal" to a "processing station" for the purpose of re-categorization as claimed?
    • Technical Questions: A factual question is whether the "digital signature" of an APK, a security feature for verifying authenticity, is "associated" with the application in the manner of a "custom category identifier" for organizational purposes. Another is whether the Android OS's update mechanism functions as the claimed method of analyzing a "provider identifier" to place a subsequent "information pack" in a "custom location."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’613 Patent

  • The Term: "file descriptor"
  • Context and Importance: The invention's core concept is disambiguating types of "file descriptors." The complaint accuses a CDN, which operates at the application layer of the network stack. The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether the claim applies to high-level data management or is limited to the low-level operating system constructs explicitly discussed in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition, referring generally to how operating systems like UNIX and Microsoft WINDOWS NT "treat communication channels as files" and use file descriptors to access them (’613 Patent, col. 2:45-52). This could support an interpretation covering any system-level handle or pointer to a data resource.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's problem statement is narrowly focused on the "inability to disambiguate between a file descriptor that is associated with a file stored on media... and a file descriptor that is associated with a communication channel" at the operating system level (’613 Patent, col. 2:28-34). This context may support a narrower definition limited to these specific OS constructs.

’063 Patent

  • The Term: "information pack"
  • Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that an Android Application Package (APK file) is an "information pack." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if the claim, which describes a system for organizing product documentation, can read on the distribution and management of mobile software applications.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define it simply as "storing information to be provided in an information pack" (col. 23:29-30). This general language could be argued to encompass any container of digital information.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures consistently frame the "Information Pack" as containing "Static Information (MANUAL, MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE, RECEIPT...)" and "Dynamic Information (UPDATES, SERVICE CALLS...)" (’063 Patent, Fig. 5, col. 5:30-40). This may support a construction limited to user-facing documentary or support information, as distinct from an executable program file.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes general allegations of induced and contributory infringement but does not provide specific facts to support the requisite knowledge or intent for either claim (Compl. ¶10).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents and its alleged infringement based on a series of eight communications (letters and emails) sent by or on behalf of Plaintiff, beginning on January 22, 2021 (Compl. ¶14).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in the technological context of the late 1990s—such as the OS-level "file descriptor" (’613 Patent) and the document-centric "information pack" (’063 Patent)—be construed to cover modern, higher-level technologies like content delivery networks and mobile application packages?
  2. A second issue will be one of technical and evidentiary mapping: for the ’613 and ’959 patents, the complaint offers conclusory allegations that Defendant's complex network infrastructure performs the specific, multi-step methods of the claims. A key question for the litigation will be whether discovery uncovers evidence that the accused systems actually operate in the precise manner required by the patent claims, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in their technical function.