DCT
2:25-cv-15516
DataCloud Tech LLC v. Volkswagen Group Of America Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: DataCloud Technologies, LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (New Jersey)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-15516, D.N.J., 09/12/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant maintains established places of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website infrastructure and mobile applications infringe four patents related to operating system-level file management, networked data organization, anonymous communication, and remote data access.
- Technical Context: The patents-in-suit relate to foundational technologies for managing data, security, and communications in networked computer systems, which are critical elements of modern cloud-based services and mobile applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of pre-suit communications with Defendant regarding the asserted patents, beginning with a licensing letter dated July 7, 2020. U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR2021-00361), which resulted in the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 14, and 17. The asserted claim in this litigation, claim 11, is an independent claim that was not cancelled in the proceeding.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-01-28 | U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 Priority Date |
| 2000-02-08 | U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 Priority Date |
| 2000-04-04 | U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 Priority Date |
| 2003-05-06 | U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 Issued |
| 2003-11-18 | U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063 Issued |
| 2007-03-23 | U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298 Priority Date |
| 2007-04-24 | U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959 Issued |
| 2008-07-08 | U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298 Issued |
| 2020-07-07 | Plaintiff allegedly sent first licensing letter to Defendant |
| 2022-10-05 | Inter Partes Review Certificate issued for U.S. Patent No. 6,560,613 |
| 2025-09-12 | Complaint Filed |
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’s background describes a problem in operating systems like UNIX that treat different types of resources, such as files stored on a disk and network communication channels, identically as "files" accessed through a generic "file descriptor." This makes it difficult for a program or system utility to distinguish between them, limiting the ability to selectively apply security policies (e.g., blocking access to the local file system while still allowing network communication) (’613 Patent, col. 2:26-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to "disambiguate" these file descriptors by intercepting the underlying operating system "system calls" that create them. When a file descriptor is created, a system call "wrapper" stores an "indicator" in a special table, specifying the true type of the associated resource (e.g., "file on media"). Subsequently, when an attempt is made to access a resource, the system can first check this indicator table to determine its type and apply specific rules, thereby enabling more granular control over system resources (’613 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:6-25).
- Technical Importance: This technology provided a method for enhancing operating system security and resource management from within the kernel, a key consideration for servers hosting remotely executed code or managing multi-user environments (’613 Patent, col. 2:11-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶23).
- Claim 11 requires a method for disambiguating file descriptors comprising the steps of:
- 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 established by an intercepted system call 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 a file descriptor is associated.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
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 problem of information overload, where businesses and consumers are inundated with product-related information (e.g., manuals, warranties, service updates) in various formats. Conventional storage methods, like filing cabinets or basic computer folders, are described as decentralized, inefficient, and reliant on manual user categorization (’063 Patent, col. 1:17-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a networked system where "providers" (e.g., manufacturers, retailers) send pre-categorized "information packs" to a recipient's "User Data Repository." These packs are tagged with a "category identifier" and a "provider identifier," allowing them to be automatically filed. The system also allows users to create "custom locations" and can communicate this custom categorization back to a central processing station or the provider, so that subsequent information from that same provider is automatically routed to the user-defined custom location (’063 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:45-58).
- Technical Importance: The invention aimed to shift the burden of initial data organization from the end-user to the information provider, creating an automated system for managing the lifecycle documentation of products and services (’063 Patent, col. 2:38-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶34).
- Claim 4 requires a method for providing information to users, comprising steps including:
- storing information in an "information pack";
- associating the pack with a user destination address and a category identifier;
- communicating the pack to a user data repository;
- locating the pack in a reserved category location;
- creating a "custom location" in the repository and placing the pack there;
- associating a "custom category identifier" with the pack; and
- sending a "custom category signal" to a processing station, which stores the custom category and provider identifier together to analyze and route subsequent packs from that provider to the same custom location.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
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 privacy and tracking issues on the internet (’959 Patent, col. 1:56-2:4). The patented solution is a system architecture comprising three main components—a "deceiver," a "controller," and a "forwarder"—that work together to route a user's network traffic. This architecture is designed to hide the client's true IP address from the destination server, creating an anonymous and session-specific communication channel (’959 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Defendant's website infrastructure (www.vw.com/en.html)" of infringement. It alleges that the infrastructure performs the claimed method by managing network connections in a way that makes an intermediary component appear to be the source of data, thereby obscuring the direct connection between the end-user's client and the ultimate destination server (Compl. ¶46).
U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298 - "Remote Access And Retrieval Of Electronic Files," issued July 8, 2008
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses limitations in existing remote access systems that often prevent users from managing the underlying directory structure of the remote file system (’298 Patent, col. 1:15-37). The invention describes a server-based computing application that manages remote user requests to not only access data but also to control and modify data directory structures. The system uses a "profile store" to manage user permissions and provides notifications to confirm data delivery (’298 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶56).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Volkswagen's computer application infrastructure" of infringement. The alleged infringement is based on the platform's use of "identity and access management tools to enforce security policies through identity-based policies and roles," which allegedly controls access and allows authorized users to perform actions within the infrastructure (Compl. ¶57).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies several accused instrumentalities: Defendant's website infrastructure for Audi (www.audi.com) and Volkswagen (www.vw.com), the "myAudi mobile app," and Volkswagen's broader "computer application infrastructure" or "digital ecosystem" (Compl. ¶¶24, 35, 46, 57).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused website infrastructure for Audi utilizes KVM (Kernel-based Virtual Machine) virtualization technology for its cloud platform to deliver personalized content (Compl. ¶24).
- The "myAudi mobile app" is described as an Android application (APK file) available for download from the Google Play Store, which allows users to administer files via tools like FX File Explorer (Compl. ¶35).
- The accused Volkswagen website infrastructure is alleged to manage direct TCP connections and utilize a large number of subdomains that may share a common public IP address (Compl. ¶¶46, 12).
- Volkswagen's "digital ecosystem" is described as a computer infrastructure that uses identity and access management tools to enforce security policies and control access to resources based on user roles and permissions (Compl. ¶57).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’613 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method in a computer system for disambiguating file descriptors, the method comprising: intercepting system calls that establish a file stored on media; | Defendant's website infrastructure allegedly performed the recited method. The complaint alleges that in a virtualized system using QEMU and KVM, ambiguity in file descriptors arises. | ¶¶23-24 | col. 5:16-24 |
| intercepting system calls that create a copy of at least one file descriptor; | As above, the complaint alleges the overall method is performed due to the use of KVM virtualization. | ¶¶23-24 | col. 4:26-30 |
| storing at least one indicator that a file descriptor established by an intercepted system call is associated with a file stored on media; | The complaint does not specify how or where an indicator is stored, but alleges the overall recited method is performed. | ¶¶23-24 | col. 5:16-24 |
| storing at least one indicator concerning a created copy of a file descriptor; | The complaint does not specify how or where an indicator for a copied descriptor is stored, but alleges the overall recited method is performed. | ¶¶23-24 | col. 4:32-44 |
| and examining at least one stored indicator to determine with what file type a file descriptor is associated. | The complaint does not specify what functionality examines a stored indicator, but alleges the overall recited method is performed. | ¶¶23-24 | col. 5:44-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations against the ’613 Patent are highly conclusory. A central question will be what evidence exists that the accused infrastructure performs the specific, active steps of "intercepting system calls," "storing" indicators in a table-like structure, and "examining" those indicators as required by the claim. The complaint attributes infringement to a general state of "ambiguity" in a virtualized environment rather than to the performance of the claimed steps (Compl. ¶24).
’651,063 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| storing information to be provided in an information pack; | The myAudi mobile app (APK file) is alleged to be the "information pack." | ¶35 | col. 8:51-54 |
| associating with said information pack at least a user destination address... and a category identifier; | The APK file is associated with a user's IP address (destination address) upon download. | ¶35 | col. 3:11-17 |
| associating with said information pack a provider identifier; | The provider identifier is alleged to be the "AUDI AG" organization name found in the APK's certificate. | ¶35 | col. 3:30-41 |
| creating a custom location in said user data repository; | The app allegedly creates a custom directory (e.g., de.myaudi.mobile.assistant) in the user device's data storage. | ¶35 | col. 4:45-51 |
| associating a custom category identifier with said information pack; | The public key (modulus) of the APK file is alleged to be the "custom category identifier." | ¶35 | col. 4:45-51 |
| sending a custom category signal to a processing station uniquely associated with said user data repository... said data processing means analyzing the provider identifier of subsequent... information packs... placing said one of the subsequent information packs in said custom location. | Updating the app is alleged to be the "custom category signal." The complaint alleges the user device contains the recited data storage and processing means. | ¶35 | col. 4:51-58 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory raises significant claim scope questions. Does the term "information pack," described in the patent in the context of warranty and product manuals, read on an entire software application (an APK file)? Can a user's mobile device be considered the claimed "user data repository" and "processing station"? Is an application's cryptographic public key a "custom category identifier" as contemplated by the patent?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’613 Patent
- The Term: "indicator"
- Context and Importance: The invention's core functionality relies on "storing at least one indicator" to track the type of a file descriptor. The definition of "indicator" is critical to determining whether the alleged "ambiguity" in a virtualized system meets this limitation, or if a specific, intentionally stored data element is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a narrow definition, referring generally to storing "an indicator that the file descriptor... is associated with" a file type, which could suggest any data flag or attribute would suffice (’613 Patent, col. 4:18-22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the indicators as being stored and maintained in an "indicator table" by a "system call wrapper," which is a distinct software component added to the operating system (’613 Patent, col. 4:10-18; Fig. 3). This context suggests the "indicator" is a specific data structure created and managed for the express purpose of disambiguation, not an incidental property of a virtualized environment.
For the ’063 Patent
- The Term: "information pack"
- Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on construing the myAudi mobile application (APK file) as an "information pack." The viability of the infringement case for this patent depends heavily on whether this interpretation is supported by the patent's claims and specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined with structural limitations. The patent states that an object of the invention is to organize information such as "product and service guides and updates, solicitations, mail," which could be argued to encompass a software application that provides such services (’063 Patent, col. 1:24-27).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's background and examples consistently frame the "information" being managed as ancillary documentation related to a transaction, such as "warranty information or product manuals" (’063 Patent, col. 1:30-40). This context suggests an "information pack" is a collection of documents about a product or service, rather than the functional product (the software application) itself.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶11). However, it does not plead specific facts to support these claims, such as identifying instructions or user manuals that direct others to perform the infringing acts.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents and its alleged infringement dating back to at least a "licensing letter to Volkswagen" on July 7, 2020, followed by numerous other communications (Compl. ¶15). These allegations of pre-suit notice may be used to support a claim for willful infringement and potential enhancement of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms from the ’063 patent, such as "information pack" and "custom category identifier," which are rooted in the context of organizing post-purchase documents, be construed to cover a complete software application (APK file) and its cryptographic key, respectively?
- A second key issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: For the ’613 patent, what factual evidence will support the allegation that Volkswagen's use of KVM virtualization constitutes the specific method steps of "intercepting" system calls, "storing" indicators in a dedicated table, and "examining" those indicators, as claimed?
- A third question will be one of technical correspondence: Do the high-level descriptions of Volkswagen’s general website and security infrastructure map to the specific, multi-component architectures required by the ’959 patent’s "deceiver, controller, and forwarder" system and the ’298 patent’s system for managing a "profile store" to control remote directory structures?