Actifio Inc v. Delphix Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Actifio, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Delphix Corp. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Latham & Watkins LLP
• Case Identification: 1:15-cv-11429, D. Mass., 03/27/2015
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts because Defendant maintains an office, solicits customers, and sells the accused products within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Agile Data Platform products and services infringe a patent related to systems that perform multiple data management functions efficiently by reducing redundant access to primary data storage.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the enterprise data management market, where unifying functions like backup, replication, and disaster recovery can significantly reduce storage infrastructure complexity and cost.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes this action is related to a prior case, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-13247, suggesting previous litigation between the parties.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-11-16	'126 Patent Priority Date
2014-12-02	'126 Patent Issue Date
2015-03-27	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,904,126 - "System and method for performing a plurality of prescribed data management functions in a manner that reduces redundant access operations to primary storage," Issued December 2, 2014 (’126 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of traditional enterprise data management, which relies on multiple, separate "point applications" for functions like backup, disaster recovery, compliance archiving, and development/test environments. This approach results in a "complex and expensive infrastructure where multiple copies of data are created and moved multiple times," leading to redundant operations and high costs ('126 Patent, col. 1:53-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a unified "Data Management Virtualization Engine" that centralizes control over these disparate functions ('126 Patent, col. 6:58-61). The system uses a Service Level Agreement (SLA) to schedule various data management tasks. When multiple tasks are required concurrently, the system accesses primary storage only once to create a single point-in-time image (e.g., a snapshot). This single image then serves as the source for multiple functions. To update secondary copies (like a backup), the system calculates and communicates only the "difference data" from the point-in-time image, avoiding repeated, full-data reads from the primary storage ('126 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:46-54).
• Technical Importance: This unified, virtualized approach to data lifecycle management was designed to simplify IT operations and reduce storage costs, analogous to how server virtualization transformed compute infrastructure (Compl. ¶4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" but does not identify any specific claims (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A data management engine for performing data management functions.
  • The engine includes a first data management function to create and store a "point-in-time image" of primary data in secondary storage.
  • The engine also includes a second, different data management function to create and store a "back-up copy" of the created point-in-time images.
  • The engine operates in response to an electronic "service level agreement (SLA)" that schedules these functions.
  • In response to a schedule requiring the first and second functions to be performed sequentially at a given time, the engine:
    1. Creates the "point-in-time image" of the primary storage data.
    2. "Calculates difference data" between that image and a previously stored backup copy.
    3. "Communicates the difference data" to the backup storage to update the backup copy.
    4. This entire process is performed such that the "primary storage is accessed only once" to satisfy both the creation of the point-in-time image and the update of the backup copy.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies "Delphix's 'Agile Data Platform' products and services" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide specific technical details about how the Agile Data Platform operates. It generally alleges that the products are offered for sale, advertised, and supported through the delphix.com website and that their "manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation" infringes the ’126 Patent (Compl. ¶¶17-19). The complaint frames the accused products as direct competitors in the data management and storage industry (Compl. ¶4, ¶8). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused "Agile Data Platform" products directly infringe one or more claims of the ’126 Patent (Compl. ¶¶21-22). However, it does not assert any specific claims or provide an element-by-element mapping of accused functionality to claim limitations. The core infringement theory appears to be that the accused platform performs data management functions in a manner that meets the patented method of using a single primary storage access to service multiple scheduled tasks, such as creating a point-in-time image and updating a separate backup copy.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: The central issue will be evidentiary. What proof will be offered to show that the Agile Data Platform performs the specific sequence of operations recited in the claims? For instance, does the platform's architecture ensure that for concurrently scheduled tasks, primary storage is accessed "only once" to generate a point-in-time image that is then used to update a backup copy via the communication of "difference data"?
  • Scope Question: A dispute may arise over the meaning of "data management engine." The court may need to determine if the Agile Data Platform functions as a single, integrated engine as described in the patent, or if it is a collection of distinct services whose operation does not meet the claim requirements for coordinated, scheduled actions based on a single SLA.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "primary storage is accessed only once"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase appears to be the central efficiency-gaining limitation of the invention. Whether the accused product infringes will likely depend heavily on how strictly "only once" is interpreted. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a potential bright-line test for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "accessed" refers only to the primary, bulk data-copying operation and does not preclude separate, minor accesses for metadata, configuration, or preparatory functions. The specification's description of "preparatory operations" that "need only be performed once" could be used to argue these are part of a single logical "access" ('126 Patent, col. 6:49-55).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim is highly restrictive. A party could argue it means literally one and only one access of any kind to the primary storage device to satisfy the two sequentially scheduled functions. The patent emphasizes this feature as key to reducing redundant operations ('126 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:50-54).

• The Term: "point-in-time image"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the master copy that the patented system creates from primary storage. Its construction is critical because if the accused product's "image" or "snapshot" does not meet the construed definition, there can be no infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue for the plain and ordinary meaning of the term as understood in the data storage field at the time, covering any technology that captures the state of a storage volume at a specific moment.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue the term is implicitly limited to the specific technologies described in the specification, such as a "virtual copy mechanism" that uses "copy-on-write volume bitmaps or extents" ('126 Patent, col. 5:20-29). If the accused product uses a different snapshotting method, this could support a non-infringement argument.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
  • For inducement, it alleges Delphix encourages and instructs customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner via "instructions and/or support documentation" (Compl. ¶23).
  • For contributory infringement, it alleges the products are "especially made and/or adapted" for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of "willful" infringement. However, it alleges knowledge of the ’126 patent "since at least the filing of this Complaint," which may provide a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement (Compl. ¶23). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

This case appears to be a dispute between direct competitors over foundational technology in the data virtualization market. Based on the initial complaint, the litigation will likely focus on the following central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of operational scope: Does the Delphix Agile Data Platform’s architecture satisfy the patent's specific, restrictive requirement that "primary storage is accessed only once" to perform multiple, distinct data management functions (e.g., snapshot creation and backup update) that are scheduled by a governing SLA?

2. A key challenge will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations, can Actifio, through discovery, produce technical evidence demonstrating that the accused platform actually implements the integrated, multi-step process recited in the asserted claims, or will Delphix be able to show a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?