DCT

1:18-cv-02324

DIFF Scale Operation Research LLC v. Extreme Networks Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-02324, S.D.N.Y., 05/02/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant Extreme Networks conducts business operations, maintains offices, and has entered into contracts within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' networking switches, routers, and management software infringe a portfolio of seven patents related to network traffic shaping, shared network management, protection switching, and automatic connection provisioning.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern methods for managing data flow, ensuring network reliability, and simplifying device configuration in high-performance telecommunications networks used by enterprises and service providers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a complex chain of ownership for the patents-in-suit, originating with ADC Telecommunications, Inc., assigned to CommScope, Inc., and subsequently assigned to Plaintiff. The complaint also outlines a series of corporate transactions central to its liability theory, including Broadcom's acquisition of Brocade Communications, Inc. and Extreme Networks' subsequent purchase of certain data center product lines from Brocade.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-02-20 Earliest Priority Date for ’983, ’810, ’166, ’221, and ’430 Patents
1999-06-29 Earliest Priority Date for ’609 Patent
2001-04-10 ’166 Patent Issued
2001-04-12 Filing Date for ’110 Patent
2001-05-15 ’221 Patent Issued
2002-06-18 ’983 Patent Issued
2005-01-25 ’609 Patent Issued
2005-02-22 ’430 Patent Issued
2005-09-06 ’810 Patent Issued
2006-01-24 ’110 Patent Issued
2016-11-02 Agreement and Plan of Merger executed between Brocade and Broadcom
2017-10-03 Asset Purchase Agreement between Brocade and Extreme Networks
2017-11-01 Broadcom Corporation acquires Brocade Communications, Inc. (approximate date)
2018-05-02 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,407,983 - "Circuit and Method for Shaping Traffic in a Virtual Connection Network," issued June 18, 2002

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes that in virtual connection networks, data traffic is often "bursty," meaning the rate of data transmission fluctuates significantly, which can cause network problems. Conventional methods to "smooth" this traffic often relied on inefficient floating-point calculations. (’983 Patent, col. 1:24-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "traffic shaper" that delivers data packets at a substantially uniform rate. It uses a buffer to hold incoming packets, a counter to track discrete "timeslots" within a measurement window, and a request generator. The request generator consults at least one stored table to determine a pattern for requesting transmission slots, thereby evenly distributing the data packets over time to achieve a desired, stable data rate. (Compl. ¶51, ¶55; ’983 Patent, col. 2:1-10, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for managing network bandwidth and ensuring quality of service that was more efficient and readily implementable in hardware compared to prior computational techniques. (Compl. ¶54, ¶57).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 8. (Compl. ¶134).
  • The essential elements of claim 8 include:
    • A buffer that receives packets from at least one traffic source.
    • A counter that indicates the beginning of each of a number of timeslots over a selectable time period.
    • A request generator that creates request signals that request timeslots for transmitting data out of the buffer.
    • Wherein the requests are distributed over the time period based on at least one table so as to establish a desired data rate for the traffic source.

U.S. Patent No. 6,847,609 - "Shared Management of a Network Entity," issued January 25, 2005

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a control and security dilemma at the demarcation point between an enterprise's private network and a public service provider network. If the enterprise controls the demarcation device, the provider cannot offer advanced, managed services (e.g., application-level SLAs). If the provider controls it, the enterprise's confidential information transmitted over the network could be exposed to the provider. (’609 Patent, col. 2:7-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a network entity, such as a service delivery unit, that is configurable for "shared management." The device stores management data (e.g., configuration, billing, diagnostics) and allows a first network management station (e.g., the enterprise's) to view a first configurable portion of the data, while allowing a second network management station (e.g., the service provider's) to view a second, potentially different, configurable portion of the data. (Compl. ¶61; ’609 Patent, Abstract). The complaint provides an annotated graphic of several historical ADC Telecommunications products, including a transmitter and multiplexer, to illustrate the plaintiff's technological lineage (Compl. p. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This solution enabled a flexible management model, allowing service providers to offer more sophisticated, higher-value services while providing enterprises with control over the visibility of their sensitive network data. (Compl. ¶61, ¶68).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 26. (Compl. ¶151).
  • The essential elements of claim 26 include:
    • A network interface port coupleable to a switch fabric.
    • A data port coupleable to at least one local area network.
    • A memory configured to store data including configuration, control, billing, diagnostic, and management data.
    • A central processing unit executing instructions to allow a first network management terminal to view a first configurable portion of the data and a second network management terminal to view a second configurable portion of the data, thereby allowing shared management.

U.S. Patent No. 6,940,810 - "Protection Switching of Virtual Connections at the Data Link Layer," issued September 6, 2005

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for improving reliability in ring networks that use virtual connections. The invention includes first and second switch fabrics connected by unidirectional busses. When an error is detected on a primary "working" route, the system communicates the error to the other switch fabric, enabling a rapid switch to a "protection" route to maintain the connection. (Compl. ¶72, ¶77).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 13. (Compl. ¶171).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses various ExtremeSwitching and Summit series switches of infringing by providing technology for protection switching of virtual connections at the data link layer. (Compl. ¶160, ¶162).

U.S. Patent No. 6,990,110 - "Automatic Permanent Virtual Circuit Connection Activation for Connection Oriented Networks," issued January 24, 2006

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to simplifying the end-to-end provisioning of communication systems. It describes a system where a central unit can automatically create a permanent virtual circuit (PVC) connection when customer premises equipment is initialized, establishing a translation connection between the two without manual configuration. (Compl. ¶82, ¶87).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1. (Compl. ¶191).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses numerous ExtremeSwitching and Summit series switches of infringing by including technology for automatic permanent virtual circuit connection activation. (Compl. ¶180, ¶182).

U.S. Patent No. 6,216,166 - "Shared Media Communications in a Virtual Connection Network," issued April 10, 2001

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for efficient communications in a virtual connection network using media access control (MAC) addresses assigned to network elements. The invention includes a "policing network element" designed to identify and terminate data that has corrupted source or destination MAC addresses, thereby preventing such data from compromising network resources. (Compl. ¶92, ¶96).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1. (Compl. ¶217-218).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses former Brocade products, now sold by Extreme Networks, of infringing by including technology for policing network elements using MAC addresses. (Compl. ¶199, ¶203, ¶206).

U.S. Patent No. 6,233,221 - "System and Method for a Ring Network with Virtual Path Connections," issued May 15, 2001

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a system for a virtual path ring network that can survive a single point of failure. The system comprises interconnected sub-networks, each containing add/drop multiplexers. A ring interconnection module connects the sub-networks, allowing traffic to be re-routed and preventing a failure in one sub-network from disrupting the other. (Compl. ¶102, ¶105, ¶108). A graphic on page 19 displays several ADC Sonoplex products, such as processor and HDSL modules, to contextualize the development of the asserted technologies (Compl. p. 19).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 18. (Compl. ¶232).
  • Accused Features: Various ExtremeSwitching and Summit products are accused of infringing by providing infringing technology for a ring network with virtual path connections. (Compl. ¶223, ¶228).

U.S. Patent No. 6,859,430 - "Protection Switching of Virtual Connections," issued February 22, 2005

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent details a method for protection switching in a ring network. Each network element separately tracks the status of virtual connections on both a working route and a protection route. When an error is detected on the working route for a specific virtual connection, the network element switches traffic for that connection to the protection route. (Compl. ¶244-245).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 10. (Compl. ¶247).
  • Accused Features: Various ExtremeSwitching and Summit products are accused of infringing by including technology for protection switching in a ring network. (Compl. ¶237, ¶242).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies two primary groups of accused products:
    1. "Extreme-Broadcom Products": This category includes former Brocade Communications, Inc. products for which Broadcom allegedly assumed liability and which were later acquired in part by Extreme Networks. Products named include the Brocade SLX 9850 router, Brocade NetIron XMR and MLX Series, and the 6910 Ethernet Access Switch. These products are accused of infringing the ’983 and ’166 patents. (Compl. ¶117, ¶199).
    2. "Extreme Networks Products": This category includes products originally designed and sold by Extreme Networks. Accused products include the Extreme Management Center software (versions 8.1, 8.0, 7.1.3, and 7.0.9) and numerous network switches, such as the ExtremeSwitching X440-G2, Summit X450-G2, Summit X460-G2, and others. These products are accused of infringing the ’609, ’810, ’110, ’221, and ’430 patents. (Compl. ¶139, ¶160).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are high-performance networking hardware and software used in data centers, enterprise networks, and service provider infrastructure. (Compl. ¶117, ¶138, ¶159). The complaint alleges that these products incorporate specific functionalities corresponding to each asserted patent, including traffic shaping, network element policing, shared network management, ring network protection switching, and automatic connection activation. (Compl. ¶122, ¶141, ¶162, ¶182, ¶206, ¶225).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’983 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A traffic shaper that delivers data packets... comprising: a buffer that receives packets from at least one traffic source; The Extreme-Broadcom ’983 Products comprise a buffer that receives packets from at least one traffic source. ¶131 col. 2:1-3
a counter that indicates the beginning of each of a number of timeslots over a selectable time period; The products include a counter that indicates the beginning of each of a number of timeslots over a selectable time period. ¶132 col. 2:3-5
a request generator that creates request signals that request timeslots for transmitting data out of the buffer, The products comprise a request generator that creates request signals that request timeslots for transmitting data out of the buffer. ¶133 col. 2:5-7
wherein the requests are distributed over the time period based on at least one table so as to establish a desired data rate for the traffic source. The requests are distributed over the time period based on at least one table so as to establish a desired data rate for the traffic source. ¶133 col. 2:7-10
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central dispute may concern the interpretation of "based on at least one table." The analysis may question whether the accused products' Quality of Service (QoS) or traffic shaping mechanisms rely on a stored table of request patterns as described in the patent, or if they use dynamic, purely algorithmic methods that do not read on the claim.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations about the presence of a "buffer," "counter," and "request generator." A technical question is what evidence exists that the accused products contain these specific, discrete components performing the claimed functions, as opposed to having a more integrated architecture that achieves a similar result through different means.

’609 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 26) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A service delivery unit, comprising: a network interface port coupleable to a switch fabric; The Extreme Networks ’609 Products include functionality for connecting to a switch fabric. ¶150 col. 14:55-56
a data port coupleable to at least one local area network; The products include a service delivery unit that contains a data port coupleable to at least one local area network (“LAN”). ¶148 col. 14:57-58
a memory configured to store at least one of configuration data, control data, billing data, diagnostic data, and management data; The products include functionality for a service delivery unit that is configured to store configuration data, control data, billing data, diagnostic data, and/or management data. ¶147 col. 14:59-62
and a central processing unit... executing instructions to allow a first network management terminal to view a first, configurable portion of the data... and to allow a second network management terminal to view a second, configurable portion of the data... to allow shared management of the service delivery unit. The products comprise a system with a central processing unit that enables one network management terminal to view a configurable portion of data and a second network management terminal to view a second, configurable portion of data to allow shared management. ¶149 col. 14:63-67
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A key question will be whether the accused system, which includes the "Extreme Management Center" software, meets the limitation of allowing a "first network management terminal" and a "second network management terminal" to view different portions of data on a single "service delivery unit." The analysis may explore whether this describes standard role-based access control (RBAC) in a management platform, or if the patent requires a more specific device-level data partitioning architecture tied to an enterprise/service-provider dichotomy.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the system allows viewing of "configurable" portions of data. The technical question is how this configuration occurs in the accused product and whether that mechanism aligns with the methods described in the patent's specification for dividing management functions between two distinct entities.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’983 Patent

  • The Term: "based on at least one table"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to how the patented traffic shaper functions. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused products' method for distributing transmission requests relies on a pre-determined or stored pattern in a "table," or on dynamic, real-time algorithms.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that requests for timeslots are generated "according to a stored pattern." (’983 Patent, col. 2:16-18). This could be argued to cover any system that uses stored parameters or rules, not just a literal lookup table.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures depict the "table" as a memory (e.g., a ROM) that stores explicit sequences of high and low logic levels corresponding to a request pattern for a given number of timeslots. (’983 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 5:26-44). This suggests a more rigid, hardware-based lookup structure.

For the ’609 Patent

  • The Term: "shared management"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core inventive concept. The dispute will likely focus on whether the functionality of the accused Extreme Management Center constitutes "shared management" as taught by the patent, or if it is a conventional network management system with standard multi-user access controls.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary states the invention allows "management functions to be divided or shared by the service provider and the enterprise." (’609 Patent, col. 2:65-67). This could support a broad definition covering any system that partitions management duties.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and detailed description frame the invention specifically in the context of a service provider and an enterprise having distinct, configurable "views" of data on a single demarcation device. (’609 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-51). This may support a narrower construction requiring this specific two-party, partitioned-view architecture.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against Extreme Networks for the ’609, ’810, and ’110 patents. The allegations are based on Extreme Networks providing products with the capability to infringe along with "documentation and training materials that cause customers and end users" to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶154, ¶174, ¶194). The complaint cites, for example, the "EXTREME MANAGEMENT CENTER, CONSOLE USER GUIDE (2017)" as an instrument of inducement for the ’609 patent. (Compl. ¶154 n.30).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement against Extreme Networks for the ’609 and ’810 patents. The basis for willfulness is alleged post-suit knowledge ("since at least service of this Complaint or shortly thereafter") and the assertion that the patents are "well-known within the industry." (Compl. ¶153, ¶155, ¶173, ¶175).

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

  • A central issue will be one of architectural mapping: Do the accused systems, which consist of separate hardware (switches) and software (Extreme Management Center), embody the integrated, device-level functionalities of a "traffic shaper" with a table-based request generator (’983 Patent) and a single "service delivery unit" with partitioned data views for "shared management" (’609 Patent), or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed architecture and the distributed nature of the accused products?
  • A key evidentiary question will concern functional specificity: Does the general-purpose Quality of Service (QoS) and role-based access control (RBAC) functionality common in modern networking equipment perform the specific technical operations required by the claims—such as distributing requests according to a stored table pattern or partitioning data views between distinct enterprise and service provider terminals—or do these features operate in a technically distinct manner from what the patents disclose and claim?
  • A threshold legal question will be one of successor liability: What is the precise scope of liability for patent infringement that was assumed by Broadcom through its acquisition of Brocade, and what portion of that liability was subsequently transferred to Extreme Networks via the 2017 asset purchase agreement, particularly concerning acts of infringement that occurred prior to the transaction dates?