DCT

1:25-cv-14512

CAO Group Inc v. Individuals Corps Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: CAO Group, Inc. (Utah)
    • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associates Identified on Schedule "A" (Jurisdictions not specified; alleged to be foreign)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nicholas S. Le
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14512, N.D. Ill., 11/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants’ commercial activity directed at Illinois, including sales to residents through interactive e-commerce storefronts, and on the basis that Defendants are foreign entities.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of "Unauthorized Products" via online marketplaces infringes a patent related to automated validation of network interface configurations.
  • Technical Context: The patent-in-suit operates in the field of software-defined networking (SDN) and network assurance, a technology domain crucial for managing the complexity and ensuring the reliability of modern data centers and large-scale enterprise networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-06-19 U.S. Patent No. 10,623,259 Priority Date
2020-04-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,623,259 Issues
2025-11-26 Complaint Filed

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,623,259 (“the ’259 Patent”), titled “VALIDATION OF LAYER 1 INTERFACE IN A NETWORK,” issued on April 14, 2020.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the growing complexity of modern computer networks, where numerous configuration policies (e.g., access, forwarding, security) make the setup process "highly complex" and "increasingly error prone." Identifying the root cause of network errors in such environments is described as a "daunting task" (’259 Patent, col. 1:22-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides an automated system for network assurance. The system receives a high-level "global logical model," which represents the intended network configuration from a central controller, and a device-specific "software model" from the network hardware itself (’259 Patent, Abstract). It then validates that the physical network's Layer 1 (the physical interface layer) configuration is correct by identifying the "reported state" of physical and software links from the software model, obtaining the "actual state" of those links, and comparing the two to generate error notifications if a mismatch is found (’259 Patent, col. 5:6-25).
  • Technical Importance: This automated validation approach is significant for maintaining the uptime and security of large, software-defined data center fabrics by programmatically detecting physical and logical misconfigurations that might otherwise require complex manual troubleshooting.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
  • Claim 1 (System Claim) requires:
    • At least one memory and at least one processor.
    • The processor is caused to receive a "global logical model" from a controller, which contains instructions and "access policies" for network devices.
    • The processor is caused to receive a "software model" from the network devices, which is a subset of the global model specific to device operability.
    • The processor is caused to "validate" that Layer 1 of the access policies is properly configured. This validation step comprises:
      • "identifying" within the software model a "reported state" of a physical link and a software link.
      • "obtaining" an "actual state" of the physical link and software link.
      • "comparing" the reported state with the actual state.
      • "generating an error notification" if specific mismatch conditions exist (e.g., reported state is active but actual state is down).
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims as the case proceeds (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Unauthorized Products" offered for sale and sold by Defendants through various "fully interactive e-commerce storefronts" on platforms such as Walmart (Compl. ¶3, 34, 36).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide any technical description of the accused "Unauthorized Products." Multiple paragraphs that would typically describe the accused products and their function are fully redacted (Compl. ¶¶49-53). The allegations focus on the Defendants' commercial activities, such as operating under fictitious aliases, using common marketing strategies, and concealing their identities to sell these products to U.S. consumers (Compl. ¶33, 37, 40).
  • The complaint alleges that these e-commerce stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" and that the products are manufactured by a common source (Compl. ¶37, 40).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an attached Exhibit 3, which was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶47). The complaint’s narrative allegations of infringement are general, stating that "the products being sold by Defendants infringe at least Claim 1 of Plaintiff’s Patent" and that Defendants "have infringed and continue to infringe each and every claim... by making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering to sell their infringing products" (Compl. ¶47-48). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how any specific feature of the "Unauthorized Products" allegedly meets the limitations of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The primary technical question is how the "Unauthorized Products," which are sold on general e-commerce platforms, could constitute the claimed system. What evidence does the complaint provide that these products contain a processor and memory configured to receive "global logical" and "software models" and perform a multi-step validation of Layer 1 network interface states as required by Claim 1?
    • Scope Questions: A fundamental question of scope is whether the accused "products" themselves embody the infringing system, as alleged by the complaint's "making, using, selling" language (Compl. ¶48), or if the allegation is that Defendants are using an infringing back-end system to operate their e-commerce businesses. The complaint's language suggests the former, which raises questions about the technical nature of the products being sold.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "global logical model"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines one of the two core data inputs to the claimed system. Its construction is critical because it establishes the nature of the high-level "intent" that the system validates. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine whether it is limited to specific, complex data structures used in enterprise-grade SDN controllers or could be read more broadly to cover simpler forms of configuration data.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, describing the model as "containing instructions on how endpoints connected to a network fabric communicate" (’259 Patent, Claim 1). This could support an interpretation covering any file or data set that dictates network behavior.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the logical model to specific, structured representations within an SDN framework, such as the "L_Model 270A", which is derived from the "end-state" expression desired by a network operator and is based on a hierarchical object model (’259 Patent, col. 23:30-44).

  • The Term: "software model"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the second core data input, representing the device-level configuration to be compared against the logical model. Its interpretation will be central to establishing what kind of device-specific data the claimed system must be capable of receiving and processing.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 defines it as "at least a subset of instructions from the global logical model... specific to operability of the one or more network devices." This could be argued to encompass any device-specific configuration file derived from a master plan.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification analogizes the concrete model ("Ci_Model 274"), from which the software model appears to be derived, to "compiled software," describing it as a format that the device's operating system can execute (’259 Patent, col. 25:15-20). This suggests a specific, machine-executable format rather than a simple status report or text-based configuration file.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to indirect infringement and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. ¶47; p. 18). However, the complaint pleads no specific facts to support the knowledge or intent elements required for induced infringement, nor does it allege the sale of a component for a patented invention that has no substantial non-infringing use, as required for contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶56). This allegation may be based on Plaintiff's practice of listing the patent on product packaging and a corresponding URL, which could establish pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶32). The complaint further alleges that Defendants are part of a network of infringers who actively conceal their identities and use counter-enforcement websites, suggesting a pattern of intentional misconduct (Compl. ¶33, 41).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical plausibility: How can the "Unauthorized Products," described as being sold through consumer-facing e-commerce platforms, embody the complex, data-center-level network validation system claimed by the ’259 patent? The complaint provides no facts to connect the accused products to the claimed technology.
  • A key threshold question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint, with its generic allegations, extensive redactions of key technical facts, and lack of a provided claim chart, set forth sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for patent infringement under federal pleading standards?