DCT

5:22-cv-00102

Shamrock Innovations LLC v. Lenovo United States Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:22-cv-00102, E.D.N.C., 06/21/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant resides in the district, maintaining its principal place of business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s computers incorporating a Serial ATA (SATA) interface infringe two patents related to a method and system for high-speed serial data communication between computer modules.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns creating a high-speed serial data link to connect modular computer components, aiming to overcome the distance and overhead limitations of prior parallel (e.g., PCI) and serial bus technologies.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a letter to Lenovo on March 16, 2018, providing copies of the patents-in-suit and illustrative claim charts detailing the alleged infringement by fifteen Lenovo computer models, putting Lenovo on notice more than four years prior to the complaint's filing. An Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2023-00754) resulted in the cancellation of claim 7 of the '675 patent after the filing of this complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-08-06 Earliest Priority Date for '675 and '454 Patents
2011-11-15 '675 Patent Issued
2017-01-03 '454 Patent Issued
2018-03-16 Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter and claim charts to Defendant
2022-06-21 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,060,675 - "Computing Module with Serial Data Connectivity," issued November 15, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, computer systems were limited by their data transfer methods. Parallel buses like PCI were fast for short distances but not easily extendable, while traditional high-speed serial buses were inefficient for the small, common data transfers in PCs due to high protocol overhead (Compl. ¶20; ’675 Patent, col. 1:40-58, col. 2:20-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a "Split-Bridge" technology that creates a new serial protocol designed to mimic a parallel bus protocol like PCI. This allows computer components to be physically separated and connected by a high-speed, low-overhead serial link, making the separation "transparent" to the system's software ('675 Patent, col. 3:36-4:4). This "splits" a traditional bus bridge into two distinct pieces connected serially, combining the speed of serial transmission with the efficiency of parallel bus protocols (Compl. ¶¶21-23).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled the practical development of modular computer systems, where core components like the processor and storage could be physically separated, allowing for more flexible system design and independent upgrades (Compl. ¶24; ’675 Patent, col. 4:50-5:2).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 7.
  • The essential elements of Claim 7 are:
    • asynchronously, serially transferring first serial data, corresponding to first parallel bus data, from a first module to a second module using a serial link;
    • asynchronously, serially receiving second serial data, corresponding to second parallel bus data, from the second module using the serial link; and
    • generating a first clock signal, for use by the first module, using the second serial data.

U.S. Patent No. 9,535,454 - "Computing Module with Serial Data Connectivity," issued January 3, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '675 patent, the '454 patent addresses the same fundamental problem: creating an efficient, high-speed serial link for modular computing that avoids the respective drawbacks of legacy parallel and serial bus technologies (Compl. ¶¶19-20; ’454 Patent, col. 1:34-2:51).
  • The Patented Solution: The '454 patent describes a system, rather than a method, for implementing the "Split-Bridge" concept. It claims a hardware "module" containing the specific components required for the serial communication, including a connector, a receiver, a deserializer, a decoder, transmit and receive buffers, and a transmitter. Critically, it also claims specific logic for flow control to prevent buffer overflow ('454 Patent, Claim 1, col. 9:55-10:21).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a specific hardware architecture for a self-managing serial interface, including flow control, which is essential for reliably connecting modular computer components at high speeds ('454 Patent, col. 4:36-45; Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 15, 16, and 17.
  • The essential elements of Independent Claim 1 are:
    • A connector for a serial link.
    • A module coupled to the connector, which includes a receiver, a deserializer, a decoder, a first (receive) buffer, a second (transmit) buffer, and a transmitter.
    • The module is configured to determine if the amount of data in the first buffer exceeds a "fill amount."
    • The module is operable to generate a flow control signal in response and transmit it over the serial link "without passing the flow control signal through the second buffer."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Accused Lenovo Computers," identified as a broad range of Lenovo laptops, desktops, and workstations that include a Serial ATA (SATA) interface (Compl. ¶¶32-33).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the SATA interface in the accused computers, which connects the main computing module to data storage devices like hard disk drives (HDDs) or solid-state drives (SSDs), embodies the patented technology (Compl. ¶33). The infringement theory relies on mapping the functions of the SATA standard's Physical and Link layers—such as serialization/deserialization, 8b/10b encoding/decoding, and clock recovery—to the elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶44-46, 59-64). A screenshot from the accused product's technical specifications identifies its use of a "SATA 6Gb/s" interface for connecting storage drives (Compl. p.10). The complaint alleges that the patented technology is the "predecessor to the Serial ATA standardized technology" (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’675 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
asynchronously, serially transferring first serial data, corresponding to first parallel bus data, from a first module to a second module using a serial link; Transfer of outgoing "TX" data via the SATA interface from the computing module to the data storage device. The transfer is alleged to be asynchronous because the SATA transport layer maintains no context of prior commands or data content. ¶44 col. 10:40-44
asynchronously, serially receiving second serial data, corresponding to second parallel bus data, from the second module using the serial link; Receipt of incoming "RX" data via the SATA interface at the computing module from the data storage device. The receipt is alleged to be asynchronous for the same reason as the transfer. ¶45 col. 10:1-4
generating a first clock signal, for use by the first module, using the second serial data. The computing module derives a "recovered clock" signal from the incoming high-speed "RX" serial data. This clock is used to determine when parallel data has been properly formed from the incoming serial stream. ¶46 col. 11:4-7

’454 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a connector configured to be connectable to a serial link; The SATA connector on the motherboard or cable used to connect the internal data storage device. ¶57 col. 10:56-61
a module coupled to the connector... [containing various components] The "computing module" (e.g., a chipset on the motherboard) that includes the SATA interface controller. This single module is alleged to contain all the subsequently listed components. ¶58 col. 9:58-65
a receiver operable to receive the first serial data... The receiver within the SATA interface that receives inbound high-speed differential "RX" signals from the storage device. ¶59 col. 10:1-3
a first circuit configured to deserialize the first serial data... The Physical layer of the SATA interface is alleged to be a circuit that deserializes inbound data for use by the module's Link layer. ¶60 col. 10:4-6
a decoder configured to decode the deserialized data; The Link layer of the SATA interface is alleged to contain a decoder that decodes the 8b/10b deserialized character stream from the Physical layer. ¶61 col. 10:7-8
a first buffer operable to store data...; A "receive FIFO" buffer within the computing module that stores data after it has been deserialized and decoded. ¶62 col. 10:9-12
a second buffer operable to receive data... [and communicate with a serializer] A "transmit FIFO" buffer within the computing module that receives parallel data and communicates it to the Physical layer for serialization and transmission. ¶63 col. 10:13-18
wherein the module is configured to determine whether an amount of data stored in the first buffer equals or exceeds a fill amount... The computing module is alleged to be configured to monitor the receive FIFO and determine if it has reached a "high water mark" to prevent overflow. ¶65 col. 10:22-25
wherein the module is operable to generate a flow control signal... and... transmit the flow control signal... without passing the flow control signal through the second buffer. The computing module is alleged to generate a flow control signal (e.g., "HOLDp") and transmit it on a "back channel" to the other device, thereby avoiding the main data path of the second (transmit) buffer. ¶66 col. 10:26-34

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be one of technical scope: does the patented "Split-Bridge" technology, described as a novel protocol for mimicking a PCI bus, read on the standardized and widely adopted SATA interface? The defense may argue that SATA is a distinct, non-infringing technology, while the plaintiff alleges it is the successor technology embodying the same core principles (Compl. ¶14).
  • Technical Questions: For the '675 patent, the meaning of "asynchronously" will be a central technical question. Does the complaint's theory—that a lack of context at the transport layer makes the connection asynchronous—satisfy the claim limitation, especially given the presence of clock recovery from the data stream at the physical layer? For the '454 patent, a key question will be evidentiary: what proof shows that the accused SATA controllers generate and transmit a "flow control signal" on a path that is demonstrably separate from the "second buffer" (the transmit FIFO), as required by the negative limitation in claim 1?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "asynchronously" ('675 Patent, Claim 7)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the data transfer and receipt in the asserted method claim. Its construction is critical because high-speed serial links like SATA use clock-data recovery (CDR) to extract a clock from the data stream, which could be characterized as a form of synchronization at the bit-level. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the '675 patent may depend on whether the alleged "asynchronous" operation at the packet or command level meets this limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s background contrasts the invention with parallel buses where data must be sent "in synchronization" at a low frequency to avoid crosstalk ('675 Patent, col. 1:47-54). This may support an interpretation where "asynchronously" simply means not being governed by a separate, shared system clock, which aligns with the complaint's theory (Compl. ¶44).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself requires "generating a first clock signal... using the second serial data," which inherently links the timing of data processing to the data stream itself. A party could argue this implies a timing relationship inconsistent with a broad definition of "asynchronous."

  • The Term: "module" ('454 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 recites a single "module" that includes a long list of sub-components (receiver, decoder, buffers, etc.). Infringement requires that all these claimed functions are attributable to a single, identifiable "module" in the accused devices. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the distributed functions within a modern chipset can be properly characterized as the single, integrated "module" of the claim.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses separating a computer into a "computer core" and a "universal connectivity station (UCS)," with each being a complex subsystem ('454 Patent, col. 4:50-65). This could support viewing "module" as a functional grouping (e.g., the entire computing-side SATA controller logic) rather than a single physical chip.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed recitation of specific circuits and buffers within the module (Elements C-H of Claim 1) could support an argument that the "module" must be a discrete, self-contained unit. The complaint itself maps the term to the "computing module" (Compl. ¶58), which the defense may seek to narrowly define.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Lenovo provides user guides and technical support materials that "instruct and encourage users to use and/or practice the methods" by storing and reading data on the storage devices (Compl. ¶37). It specifically references a user manual for the ThinkStation P340 that encourages users to back up data (Compl. ¶37).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Lenovo's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents and the alleged infringement. This is supported by the specific allegation of a notice letter, including copies of the patents and claim charts against specific products, sent on March 16, 2018 (Compl. ¶¶26, 160-161).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical mapping: can the specific architecture and protocol of the standardized SATA interface be persuasively mapped onto the claim limitations of the patents-in-suit, which describe a novel "Split-Bridge" technology for mimicking a PCI bus? The case may turn on a detailed, feature-by-feature comparison between the operation of an accused SATA controller and the functions recited in the claims.
  • A second key issue will be one of claim scope: how will the court construe dispositive terms like "asynchronously" ('675 patent) and the structural requirements of the "module" ('454 patent)? The definition of "asynchronously" in the context of a self-clocking serial interface will be particularly important for the method claims.
  • Finally, a central question for damages will be willfulness: did Lenovo act with objective recklessness by continuing to sell the accused products for over four years after allegedly receiving detailed notice of infringement, including claim charts? The factual record surrounding the 2018 notice letter will be critical to this inquiry.