DCT
1:16-cv-11613
Egenera Inc v. Cisco Systems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Egenera, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Cisco Systems, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McKool Smith, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-11613, D. Mass., 03/02/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts because it has been located there since its formation in 2000, and its employees, business records, and the inventors of the asserted patents are primarily found within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Unified Computing System (UCS) product line infringes patents related to reconfigurable virtual processing systems and disaster recovery for such systems.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of converged infrastructure for data centers, a market focused on integrating compute, storage, and networking resources that can be managed and provisioned through software.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a pre-litigation business relationship wherein Defendant expressed interest in Plaintiff’s technology in 2004, entered into a non-disclosure agreement, received detailed technical information, and purchased Plaintiff’s products before developing the accused competing product line. These allegations form the basis for claims of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-04-20 | U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430 Priority Date |
| 2003-05-07 | U.S. Patent No. 7,178,059 Priority Date |
| Early 2004 | Cisco allegedly expresses interest in Egenera's technology |
| 2007-02-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,178,059 Issue Date |
| 2007-06-12 | U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430 Issue Date |
| 2009 | Cisco launches its Unified Computing System (UCS) product line |
| 2018-03-02 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430 - Reconfigurable, Virtual Processing System, Cluster, Network and Method
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problems associated with traditional enterprise data centers, where deploying, configuring, and maintaining servers was a tedious, manual, and static process requiring significant physical re-wiring for any changes in capacity or network topology (Compl. ¶10; ’430 Patent, col. 1:20-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a processing platform that allows pools of resources (processors, memory, storage) to be configured into virtual networks, or "Processing Area Networks" (PANs), through software commands rather than physical cabling (Compl. ¶11). The platform uses "configuration logic" to define and establish these virtual networks, comprising a set of processors, a virtual local area network for communication, and a virtual storage space, all managed by at least one control node (’430 Patent, Abstract; ’430 Patent, col. 2:8-16).
- Technical Importance: This "wire-once" architecture, a foundational concept for modern converged infrastructure, is designed to enable rapid deployment and reconfiguration of computing resources, increasing data center agility and efficiency (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26, ¶44).
- Claim 1 requires, in summary:
- A platform for automatically deploying a virtual processing area network in response to software commands.
- A plurality of computer processors connected to an internal communication network.
- At least one control node connected to the internal network and to external communication and storage networks, with logic to receive and modify messages between the internal processors and external networks.
- Configuration logic that receives software commands specifying the number of processors, network topology, and virtual storage space for the virtual network.
- The configuration logic includes further logic to programmatically select and program the processors and internal network to establish the specified virtual topology and storage space.
- The processors and control node include network emulation logic to emulate Ethernet functionality over the internal communication network.
U.S. Patent No. 7,178,059 - Disaster Recovery for Processing Resources Using Configurable Deployment Platform
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the high cost and complexity of conventional disaster recovery systems, which typically required a secondary "fail-over" site with processing resources identical to the primary site, kept in a costly standby mode (Compl. ¶23; ’059 Patent, col. 1:59-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system and method where the configuration of a primary site's processing resources is captured in a computer-readable "specification." This specification is provided to a fail-over site that contains a configurable processing platform. In the event of a failure, logic uses the specification to generate software commands that automatically deploy a corresponding processing area network on the configurable platform, recreating the primary site's environment without requiring dedicated, identical standby hardware (’059 Patent, Abstract; ’059 Patent, Fig. 5).
- Technical Importance: The technology enables more flexible and cost-effective disaster recovery by allowing a generic pool of computing resources at a fail-over site to instantiate various primary site configurations on demand (Compl. ¶35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶34, ¶57).
- Claim 10 requires, in summary:
- A system for providing processing resources to respond to a fail-over condition.
- A computer-readable specification describing the configuration of processing resources at the primary site.
- A configurable processing platform at a fail-over site capable of deploying processing area networks in response to software commands.
- Logic to generate software commands to the platform to deploy resources corresponding to the specification.
- A limitation that the primary site's resources include a plurality of independent processing area networks and that the specification describes all of them.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses Cisco’s Unified Computing System (“Cisco UCS”) product line, including related hardware (e.g., blade servers, chassis, Fabric Interconnects) and software (e.g., UCS Manager) (Compl. ¶1, ¶31).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges Cisco UCS is a unified platform for deploying and configuring server environments (Compl. ¶22). Its UCS Manager software is alleged to "deploy[] a virtualized environment for data centers" and treat "infrastructure as code to improve agility" (Compl. ¶31).
- The accused system allegedly comprises computer processors (UCS B-Series Blade Servers) connected to an internal communication network (formed by Fabric Extenders and a Fabric Interconnect) (Compl. ¶28). The Fabric Interconnect is alleged to function as a control node, connecting to external communication and storage networks (Compl. ¶29). A graphic in the complaint depicts the alleged connectivity between the Fabric Interconnect, a LAN, and two SANs (Compl. ¶29, p. 10).
- The system is alleged to enable a "wire once" deployment model where configuration changes are made via the management system rather than physical re-cabling (Compl. ¶31).
- For disaster recovery, the complaint alleges Cisco UCS uses "service profiles" as the "specification" to automate recovery by deploying these profiles to a secondary Cisco UCS network, which acts as the configurable fail-over platform (Compl. ¶36, ¶39).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’430 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a platform for automatically deploying at least one virtual processing area network, in response to software commands | Cisco UCS, using its UCS Manager software, allegedly deploys a "virtualized environment for data centers" and manages virtual network settings. | ¶27 | col. 2:8-16 |
| a plurality of computer processors connected to an internal communication network | Cisco UCS Blade Servers are housed in an enclosure and connected via Fabric Extenders to a Fabric Interconnect, which allegedly forms an internal communication network. | ¶28 | col. 2:65-68 |
| at least one control node... in communication with an external communication network and... external storage network... [with] logic to receive messages... and modify said received messages | The Cisco UCS Fabric Interconnect allegedly functions as the control node, connecting the internal network to external LAN and SANs, and includes logic to receive and modify messages for external transmission. | ¶29, ¶30 | col. 3:1-8 |
| configuration logic for receiving and responding to said software commands, said software commands specifying (i) a number of processors... (ii) a virtual local area network topology... and (iii) a virtual storage space | UCS Manager allegedly provides the configuration logic for responding to commands that specify processors, network topology, and virtual storage for each virtual network. | ¶31 | col. 29:39-49 |
| network emulation logic to emulate Ethernet functionality over the internal communication network | The Fabric Interconnect and virtual adapters allegedly operate in customized modes that emulate Ethernet switching over the internal Fabric Interconnect. | ¶30 | col. 4:9-12 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint relies heavily on marketing materials. A potential issue is whether the functionality described in Cisco's marketing (e.g., "deploys a virtualized environment") meets the specific technical requirements of the claim limitations as defined in the patent's specification.
- Technical Questions: What is the specific mechanism by which the accused system's "virtual adapters running on the computer processors" perform the function of "network emulation logic to emulate Ethernet functionality"? The complaint's allegations may raise the question of whether this functionality is technically equivalent to the architecture disclosed in the ’430 patent.
’059 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system of providing processing resources to respond to a fail-over condition... | Cisco UCS is allegedly marketed and used as a disaster recovery system for virtualized enterprise applications, operating between a primary "Site A" and a failover "Site B." | ¶35 | col. 2:20-24 |
| a computer-readable specification that describes a configuration of processing resources of the primary site | UCS Manager allegedly creates "service profiles" and XML files that describe configurations of processing resources. A screenshot from a Cisco design guide describes using "Service Profile Templates" for disaster recovery (Compl. ¶37, p. 13). | ¶36 | col. 3:24-28 |
| a configurable processing platform capable of deploying processing area networks in response to software commands | A secondary Cisco UCS system at a failover site allegedly acts as the configurable processing platform, capable of deploying a network based on a service profile. | ¶37 | col. 2:29-33 |
| logic to generate software commands to the configurable platform to deploy processing resources corresponding to the specification | The UCS system allegedly uses the service profiles to generate software commands that deploy the corresponding processing resources on the failover platform when a service profile is deployed. | ¶38, ¶39 | col. 2:33-37 |
| wherein the processing resources at the primary site include a plurality of independent processing area networks and wherein the specification describes all of the independent processing area networks | The complaint alleges the specification (e.g., service profile) "can describe all of the independent processing networks of the primary site or a subset thereof." | ¶40 | col. 14:24-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 10 requires the specification to describe "all" of the primary site's independent processing networks. The complaint alleges the accused "service profile" can describe "all... or a subset thereof" (Compl. ¶40). This apparent contradiction raises a central question of claim scope: does an accused system that can describe a subset, but not necessarily all, networks meet this limitation?
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the act of "deploying" a service profile constitutes the "logic to generate software commands" as required by the claim? A court may need to analyze the specific software operations involved.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "network emulation logic" (’430 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The infringement reading of this functional limitation is critical, as it bridges the gap between the patent's disclosed architecture and the accused product's proprietary internal fabric. The definition will determine whether Cisco's method of handling internal network traffic meets the claim requirements.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the goal as emulating "switched Ethernet semantics" generally, suggesting a functional definition rather than one tied to a specific implementation (’430 Patent, col. 4:8-9).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description shows a specific architecture for achieving this emulation, including a "virtual network driver," "ARP logic," and a "virtual LAN server" (’430 Patent, Figs. 3A-B). A party could argue the term is implicitly limited to this disclosed structure.
The Term: "describes all of the independent processing area networks" (’059 Patent, Claim 10)
Context and Importance: The scope of the word "all" is a likely point of dispute. If construed literally to mean every single network at a primary site, it could present a high bar for infringement, particularly if the accused system is designed to provide granular, partial failover.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that in the context of the patent, "all" should be read as "all networks relevant to the disaster recovery plan being specified," as this aligns with the invention's purpose.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim uses the unqualified term "all." The patent does not appear to explicitly define or limit the term, which may support a straightforward, literal interpretation covering every network at the primary site.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Cisco induces and contributes to infringement by providing customers and partners with technical documentation, implementation guides, consulting services, and software (like UCS Manager) that allegedly instructs and enables them to configure and use the Cisco UCS products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶47-48, ¶60-61).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint contends that in 2004, Cisco engaged in detailed business and technical discussions with Egenera, received a "full briefing on both the then-patent-pending technology," purchased Egenera's products under an NDA, and subsequently hired Egenera employees to develop the accused UCS system (Compl. ¶15-16, ¶50, ¶63).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "all" in Claim 10 of the ’059 Patent be construed to mean "all networks designated for failover," as may be pragmatically implemented in a disaster recovery product, or does its plain meaning require the accused specification to describe every independent network at a primary site without exception? The complaint’s own language suggests this is a point of contention.
- A second key issue will be one of technical and functional equivalence: does the accused Cisco UCS system, with its proprietary Fabric Interconnect and virtual adapters, perform the function of the "network emulation logic" from Claim 1 of the ’430 Patent in a manner consistent with the patent's teachings, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
- A third central question will be evidentiary: what specific evidence can be produced regarding the 2004 interactions between the parties to substantiate the allegation that Cisco had knowledge of the specific patented inventions and deliberately incorporated them into its UCS products, which is the foundation of the willfulness claim?