DCT
6:10-cv-06712
Gradient Enterprises Inc v. Skype Tech SA
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Gradient Enterprises, Inc. (New York)
- Defendant: Skype Technologies S.A. (Luxembourg) and Skype, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP
- Case Identification: 6:10-cv-06712, W.D.N.Y., 12/21/2010
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conduct business within the Western District of New York, and that each has sufficient contacts with the district to support personal jurisdiction and venue.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ peer-to-peer Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) systems infringe a patent related to a decentralized, fault-tolerant method for managing network events using mobile agents.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the architectural challenge of creating resilient, distributed network management systems that can operate without a central controller, which represents a single point of failure.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-07-17 | U.S. Patent No. 7,669,207 Priority Date |
| 2010-02-23 | U.S. Patent No. 7,669,207 Issue Date |
| 2010-12-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,669,207 - "Method for Detecting, Reporting and Responding to Network Node-Level Events and a System Thereof"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,669,207, "Method for Detecting, Reporting and Responding to Network Node-Level Events and a System Thereof," issued February 23, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a key vulnerability in conventional network security architectures: their reliance on "static, centralized sources of control" (’207 Patent, col. 1:35-37). If such a central controller or server fails or is compromised, the security of the entire network is jeopardized, creating a single point of failure (’207 Patent, col. 1:37-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a decentralized and fault-tolerant system that distributes control among the network's individual nodes (’207 Patent, col. 2:2-5). This is achieved using "mobile agents"—software modules hosted on each node. One agent is designated the "controlling mobile agent." The system's resilience stems from its ability to designate a new controlling agent from another node if the original host node becomes unavailable, thereby ensuring the network management system remains online (’207 Patent, col. 2:8-16, 18-24).
- Technical Importance: This architecture provides a method for creating robust, self-healing control systems for distributed networks, such as peer-to-peer systems, that can adapt to changing network topology and node availability without relying on a vulnerable central server (’207 Patent, col. 2:8-16, 52-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, alleging infringement of "one or more of the claims of the '207 patent" (Compl. ¶18). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
- Independent Claim 1:
- Providing a plurality of mobile agents, each hosted by one of a plurality of nodes in a network, which each detect for one or more events;
- Designating one of the mobile agents hosted at one of the nodes as a controlling mobile agent;
- Designating another one of the mobile agents hosted at another one of the nodes as the controlling mobile agent when the one of the mobile agents previously designated as the controlling mobile agent is unavailable;
- Communicating network event information associated with an event detected at one or more of the nodes to the controlling mobile agent; and
- Disseminating from the controlling mobile agent information describing the detected event to one or more other nodes.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "peer-to-peer methods and systems for Voice over Internet Protocol ('VoIP') communications" made, used, and sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement occurs through their peer-to-peer (P2P) VoIP systems (Compl. ¶14). The core of the infringement theory appears to rest on the decentralized nature of P2P networks, where individual user computers (nodes) communicate directly or through other peers rather than a central server.
- The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused Skype systems or any allegations regarding their commercial importance or market position.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’207 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The following table summarizes a potential infringement theory for claim 1 based on the general allegations against a P2P VoIP system.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a plurality of mobile agents, each of the mobile agents is hosted by one of a plurality of nodes in a network which each detect for one or more events; | Defendants' P2P VoIP system allegedly consists of software clients ("mobile agents") installed on a plurality of user computers ("nodes") that detect network events such as connection requests or user status changes (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 4:3-14 |
| designating one of the mobile agents hosted at one of the nodes as a controlling mobile agent; | The P2P architecture allegedly designates certain nodes (e.g., "supernodes") with special administrative or routing responsibilities, thereby functioning as the "controlling mobile agent" (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 4:43-48 |
| designating another one of the mobile agents hosted at another one of the nodes as the controlling mobile agent when the one of the mobile agents previously designated as the controlling mobile agent is unavailable; | The P2P network allegedly includes a failover mechanism where, if a node acting as the controller becomes unavailable (e.g., goes offline), another node is promoted to assume the controller role (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 4:56-62 |
| communicating network event information associated with an event detected at one or more of the nodes in the network to the controlling mobile agent; and | Nodes in the P2P network allegedly communicate event information (e.g., log-in/log-out, call initiation) to the designated controlling node (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 5:49-56 |
| disseminating from the controlling mobile agent information describing the detected event to one or more other nodes. | The designated controlling node allegedly disseminates information, such as routing or presence data, to other nodes within the P2P network (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 6:44-50 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the general-purpose client software of a P2P communication system can be properly construed as a "mobile agent" as defined in the ’207 Patent, which describes the agent in the context of network security and event management. The interpretation of whether a "supernode" or similar privileged peer in a P2P architecture meets the specific limitations of a "controlling mobile agent" will be critical.
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides no specific evidence that the accused Skype systems perform the claimed failover process. A key factual question will be whether the accused systems actually implement the logic for "designating another" controlling agent specifically "when the one... previously designated... is unavailable," as required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the technology and the claims, certain terms are likely to be central.
The Term: "mobile agent"
Context and Importance: This term is the foundational element of the claims. The infringement case rests on whether the Defendants' P2P client software meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the patent applies broadly to any distributed software on network nodes or is limited to the specific type of dispatchable, security-oriented agent described in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the mobile agents comprise "programmed instructions" stored in memory for execution by a processor to provide "real-time, active protection of a computer system or network" (’207 Patent, col. 4:10-14), which could be argued to cover a wide range of software.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests a more specific meaning, stating the mobile agent "can be dispatched from node to node and is not restricted to any particular node" (’207 Patent, col. 2:6-8). This could be argued to require a capability beyond that of a standard, installed software client.
The Term: "controlling mobile agent"
Context and Importance: This term defines the claimed architecture's non-centralized control point. The dispute will likely concern what level of functionality is required to be "controlling."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a system where one or more nodes "may be hosting a controlling one or more of the mobile agents," while other nodes have "non-controlling mobile agents" (’207 Patent, col. 4:43-48). This could support an interpretation that any node with elevated privileges qualifies.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a more formal system where the controlling agent is "elect[ed]" via a "weighted voting protocol" (’207 Patent, col. 6:8-12), and other nodes are explicitly "client modules" that interact with the controller. This suggests a more structured and deliberate designation than might exist in a fluid P2P network.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendants "induce or contribute to the infringement of at least one or more of the claims of the '207 patent by others" (Compl. ¶13). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent for either theory, such as by referencing user manuals or other instructions provided to end-users.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that the "acts of infringement are willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶16) and seeks treble damages (Compl. WHEREFORE C). No factual basis for pre-suit knowledge of the ’207 Patent is alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent's term "mobile agent", described in the context of a fault-tolerant security framework, be construed to read on the client software of a commercial P2P communication system? Similarly, does a privileged peer or "supernode" in such a system meet the specific claim requirements of a formally "designated" "controlling mobile agent"?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: The case will likely depend on what discovery reveals about the actual architecture of the accused Skype systems. Plaintiff will need to produce evidence that the systems perform the specific failover function recited in the claims—namely, detecting when a designated controlling node is "unavailable" and explicitly "designating another" node to take its place.