DataCloud Tech LLC v. Euromarket Designs

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DataCloud Technologies, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Euromarket Designs, Inc. d/b/a Crate & Barrel (Illinois)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00847, N.D. Ill., 01/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant's principal place of business is in the district and it conducts substantial business, including the alleged acts of infringement, within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website infrastructure, mobile application, and virtualized firewall systems infringe three patents related to network data organization, management, and anonymization.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to foundational internet and operating system technologies for managing data, network traffic, and user interactions in a networked computing environment.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was notified of the Asserted Patents via letters dated February 2 and February 9, 2021, which may form the basis for allegations of post-notice willful infringement.

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 problem in computer operating systems where it is difficult to distinguish between different types of "file descriptors"—for example, one pointing to a file stored on a hard disk versus one representing a network communication channel. This is because the same system calls (e.g., a "read" command) are often used to interact with both, making it difficult to selectively apply security policies. (’613 Patent, col. 2:25-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to "disambiguate" these file descriptors by intercepting the system calls that first create them. When a descriptor is created, an indicator is stored in a table that marks its type (e.g., "stored file" or "communication channel"). Subsequent processes or security wrappers can then consult this table to determine the descriptor's type and decide whether to allow or block an operation, enabling more granular control. (’613 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-7).
• Technical Importance: This technology provided a mechanism to enhance operating system security by allowing finer-grained control over process permissions, a key consideration for safely executing potentially untrusted remote code. (’613 Patent, col. 2:5-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least Claim 12, which depends from independent claim 11. (’613 Patent, col. 17:1-14; Compl. ¶25).
• 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 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 the file descriptor is associated.

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 individuals and businesses face in organizing the large volume of information they receive, such as product manuals, warranties, and service updates, which are often cumbersome to categorize and retrieve when needed. (’063 Patent, col. 1:15-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where an information "provider" (e.g., a retailer) sends a digital "information pack" to a recipient's "user data repository." The pack is pre-tagged with identifiers, including a "category identifier" that allows the system to automatically file it in the correct location within the user's repository. The user can also create custom categories and provide feedback to the system to automate the filing of subsequent, similar information packs. (’063 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This system aimed to shift the burden of information organization from the end-user to the information provider and an automated system, streamlining the management of digital documents. (’063 Patent, col. 2:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 4. (Compl. ¶36).
• The essential elements of independent claim 4 are:
  • storing information to be provided in an information pack;
  • associating the information pack with a user destination address, a category identifier, and a provider identifier;
  • communicating the information pack over a network to the user data repository;
  • locating the information pack in a reserved location corresponding to the category identifier;
  • after communication, creating a custom location and placing the information pack there; and
  • sending a signal to a processing station so that subsequent information packs from the same provider are placed in the new custom location.

Multi-Patent Capsule

• Patent Identification: 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 the problem of user privacy on the internet, where a client's IP address and other data can be traced by web servers. (’959 Patent, col. 1:56-65). The invention proposes a system using a "deceiver," "controller," and "forwarder" to create a temporary, virtual domain that anonymizes network communications by masking both the client's and the destination server's true IP addresses from each other. (’959 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶46).
• Accused Features: The "Crate & Barrel systems for supporting multiple domain names on the same website infrastructure" are accused of infringement. The complaint alleges these systems use a "front-end server switch" (as a forwarder) and a "firewall" (as a controller) to manage network traffic in a way that infringes the patent. (Compl. ¶16, ¶45-46).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies three accused instrumentalities: (1) "VM-Series Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls that use KVM virtualization technology," (2) the "Crate & Barrel iPhone app," and (3) "Crate & Barrel systems for supporting multiple domain names on the same website infrastructure." (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused firewalls employ KVM virtualization to implement "shadowed I/O system call routines" which allegedly perform the claimed disambiguation of file descriptors. (Compl. ¶26).
• The "Crate & Barrel iPhone app" is accused of infringing the ’063 Patent through its gift registry functionality. (Compl. ¶35). Figure 1 in the complaint provides a screenshot of the accused app's webpage, showing features for user login and registry management. (Compl. Fig. 1 at p.8).
• The website infrastructure is accused of using a combination of servers, switches, and firewalls to manage client connections to various Crate & Barrel subdomains, which allegedly creates an anonymizing forwarding session as claimed in the ’959 Patent. (Compl. ¶46).
• These instrumentalities are presented as integral components of Defendant's e-commerce presence and operations. (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

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

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary: what proof demonstrates that the accused "VM-Series gateways" and "KVM virtualization technology" perform the specific steps of maintaining and consulting an "indicator table" as claimed? The complaint's allegations are conclusory and lack specific technical detail on the inner workings of the accused firewalls. (Compl. ¶26).
  • Scope Questions: Claim 12, asserted in the complaint, depends on claim 11 (which relates to files "stored on media") but introduces a limitation concerning a "communication channel." This raises a significant claim construction and infringement question regarding whether a single method can meet the limitations of both, and how the accused technology could simultaneously infringe these potentially distinct concepts. (’613 Patent, col. 17:9-14).

U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the data structures and functions within the "Crate & Barrel iPhone app" (e.g., gift registry data) correspond to the specific definitions of "information pack," "user data repository," and "provider identifier" as used in the patent. The analysis will question whether a modern mobile app's architecture maps onto the specific client-server and data-tagging structure claimed in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’613 Patent:

• The Term: "file descriptor"
• Context and Importance: The patent's purpose is to "disambiguate" different types of "file descriptors". Whether the accused system's "files/sockets/pipes" are considered "file descriptors" under the patent will be critical to the infringement analysis. (Compl. ¶26). Practitioners may focus on this term because its meaning determines whether the patent's core concept applies to the accused virtualization technology.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is broad, stating that many operating systems "treat communication channels as files," which are accessed via a "file descriptor". (’613 Patent, col. 2:45-53).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly draws a distinction between a descriptor for a "file stored on media" and one for a "communication channel," which could support an argument that these are mutually exclusive categories and that the term should be narrowly construed based on the specific context of the claim in which it appears. (’613 Patent, col. 2:31-36).

For the ’063 Patent:

• The Term: "information pack"
• Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on whether the data transmitted by the accused iPhone app, such as gift registry information, constitutes an "information pack". (Compl. ¶36). The construction of this term will determine if the fundamental unit of data in the accused system falls within the scope of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides varied examples of what an "information pack" can contain, including information for automobiles, prescription drugs, and consumer electronics, suggesting the term covers a wide range of digital data bundles. (’063 Patent, Figs. 2, 4, 5).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and figures specify that an "information pack" is associated with specific identifiers (category, provider) and contains "Static Information" and/or "Dynamic Information." A defendant may argue that accused data transmissions lacking this specific structure do not qualify. (’063 Patent, col. 23:28-29; Fig. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, for example by providing the "Crate & Barrel iPhone app" to end-users with instructions that cause them to perform the claimed method. (Compl. ¶10, ¶36).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents as of February 2021 via notice letters. (Compl. ¶17). This allegation forms the basis for a claim of willful infringement and a request for enhanced damages and attorneys' fees. (Compl. ¶50.D).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms conceived in the context of 2000-era operating systems and internet architecture (e.g., "file descriptor", "information pack") be construed to read on the functionality of modern, virtualized network systems and mobile e-commerce applications?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical specificity: do the accused systems actually operate in the precise manner required by the claims? The complaint's allegations are high-level, and the case will likely depend on whether discovery uncovers specific evidence of the claimed methods (e.g., the use of an "indicator table" or the specific signaling to a "processing station") or reveals a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.