DCT
2:16-cv-00621
Global Equity Management Sa Pty Ltd v. SAP America Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Global Equity Management (SA) PTY. LTD. (Australia)
- Defendant: SAP America, Inc. (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey & Schwaller, LLP; Laminack, Pirtle & Martines, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:16-cv-00621, E.D. Tex., 06/14/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant conducts substantial business, derives revenue, and has minimum contacts within the state and judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s website and its use of Amazon Web Services infringe patents related to a graphical user interface for managing multiple, virtualized computer operating systems.
- Technical Context: The patents address technologies for managing and switching between multiple operating systems on a single computer, a foundational concept for modern virtualization and cloud computing environments.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patented technology was recognized as a key invention and has been cited as prior art by the patent office in later applications.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-09-29 | U.S. Patent No. 6,690,400 Priority Date |
| 2001-10-19 | U.S. Patent No. 7,356,677 Priority Date |
| 2004-02-10 | U.S. Patent No. 6690400 Issued |
| 2008-04-08 | U.S. Patent No. 7356677 Issued |
| 2016-06-14 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,690,400, "Graphic User Interface for Resources Management of Super Operating System Based Computers" (Issued Feb. 10, 2004)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In computer systems designed to run multiple operating systems (OS), each OS tends to monopolize the computer's resources. The patent describes a need for a tool to manage system resources and restrict access between these different OS environments to prevent conflicts. (’400 Patent, col. 2:1-13).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that allows a user to virtualize a computer system. It uses graphical representations called "Cabinets" to define and manage separate operating environments. Through the GUI, a user can allocate storage partitions and other resources to each "Cabinet," effectively isolating different operating systems and applications from one another while running on the same physical hardware. (’400 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-52).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a user-friendly, graphical method for managing complex multi-boot and virtualized environments before such technologies were widespread. (’400 Patent, col. 2:36-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶17).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A graphic user interface for displaying means for allocating a computer device's resources to multiple operating system environments.
- A main menu bar.
- A cabinet selection button bar graphically representing at least one virtual cabinet.
- A secondary storage partitions window.
- A cabinet visible partition window graphically illustrating a cabinet record corresponding to a selected virtual cabinet.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,356,677, "Computer System Capable of Fast Switching Between Multiple Operating Systems and Applications" (Issued Apr. 8, 2008)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Switching between different operating systems on a single computer typically requires a full system shutdown and reboot, which is a slow and inefficient process. (’677 Patent, col. 1:50-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method using a "Super Operating System" that sits between the computer's firmware and the standard operating systems. This system leverages the existing power management functions (e.g., suspend and resume) to quickly "hybernate" one active OS environment and activate an alternate one without a cold reboot, enabling "fast switching." (’677 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-34).
- Technical Importance: The invention describes a method to make switching between distinct, fully-featured operating environments nearly instantaneous, improving user efficiency and the utility of multi-OS computers. (’677 Patent, col. 4:17-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least claims 1, 3, and 6. (Compl. ¶23). Claims 1 and 6 are independent.
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A hardware platform for a hibernate-capable computer system.
- A system manager with an OS-independent storage manager operating at a firmware level.
- A virtual table of contents (VTOC) for organizing partitions into virtual computer systems.
- Means for selecting a virtual computer system to become next operable before suspending the current one.
- Means for suspending the currently operational virtual computer system.
- Means for switching using a "switch flag" and BIOS ACPI solutions without a power-on self-test (POST).
- Essential elements of independent claim 6 include:
- A method of managing a computer system for fast switching between operating systems.
- A "fast suspending step" for suspending one virtual computer system.
- An "activating step" for activating another virtual computer system to a running state without rebooting or POST.
- The steps use a switch flag, a VTOC, and BIOS ACPI enhancements.
- The complaint asserts dependent claim 3.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is SAP's use of its website, www.usa.SAP.com, and its access to Amazon Web Services ("AWS"). (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that SAP uses a "website with a graphical user interface ('GUI') for the administration and management of www.SAP.com." (Compl. ¶17, ¶23). This GUI is accused of infringing the patents-in-suit. The complaint alleges that SAP's use of its website and AWS allows it to access information from multiple data sources. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the accused GUI or its interaction with AWS.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a high-level infringement theory without detailed, element-by-element mappings. The visual evidence cited in the complaint consists of figures from the patents and one screenshot from a "copyrighted SOS User's Guide" (Compl. ¶14), which appears to be the plaintiff's own product. A figure from the '400 patent shows a GUI with graphical "Cabinet" icons and "Link" buttons on the right side. (Compl. ¶12, p. 6). Another figure from the '677 patent shows a confirmation screen to verify a request to switch between operating environments. (Compl. ¶13, p. 7).
’400 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A graphic user interface for displaying means for allocating a computer device's resources... | SAP uses a website with a GUI for the administration and management of www.SAP.com. | ¶17 | col. 8:61-64 |
| a cabinet selection button bar graphically representing at least one virtual cabinet | The GUI allegedly allows for management of different resources or environments. | ¶17-18 | col. 9:1-4 |
| a secondary storage partitions window | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | N/A | col. 9:8-11 |
| a cabinet visible partition window graphically illustrating a cabinet record corresponding to a selected virtual cabinet | The complaint alleges the GUI manages different environments, which it maps to the claimed "cabinets." | ¶17-18 | col. 9:12-16 |
’677 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to construct a meaningful claim chart for the '677 patent. The allegations for the '677 patent are largely identical to those for the '400 patent, stating that SAP's website GUI infringes claims 1, 3, and 6. (Compl. ¶23-24). The complaint does not explain how a GUI for website administration performs the claimed method of "fast suspending" and "activating" different operating systems on a computer using BIOS-level power management functions.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Validity: A threshold issue for the court may be the validity and status of the asserted claims. The provided patent documents include Inter Partes Review (IPR) Certificates, issued after the complaint was filed, indicating that all asserted independent claims (Claim 1 of the '400 patent and Claims 1 and 6 of the '677 patent) have been cancelled. (U.S. Patent No. 6,690,400 K1, p. 2; U.S. Patent No. 7,356,677 K1, p. 2).
- Technical Mismatch: A central dispute will likely concern whether the accused "GUI for the administration and management of www.SAP.com" is technically analogous to the inventions. The patents describe low-level systems for managing and switching between multiple operating systems on a single physical machine. The complaint does not explain how managing a website via a GUI, even one hosted on a cloud platform like AWS, practices the specific "virtual cabinet" architecture of the '400 patent or the OS suspend/resume method of the '677 patent.
- Evidentiary Gaps: The complaint's allegations are conclusory and lack specific facts linking the functionality of the SAP/AWS system to the claim elements. A key question will be what evidence, if any, Plaintiff can produce to show that the accused system performs the claimed functions, such as creating "virtual cabinets" or "fast suspending" an operating system.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "virtual cabinet" (’400 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the central concept of the '400 patent. The entire infringement theory depends on whether the resources managed by the accused SAP GUI can be considered "virtual cabinets."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states a cabinet is "synonymous" with a "Virtual Cabinet" or "Cabinet Record," suggesting it is a logical, not necessarily physical, construct. (’400 Patent, col. 5:22-25).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification defines a cabinet as "a virtual storage device, capable of containing... operating systems, application software... databases and memory," and links it to managing distinct OS environments on a single computer. (’400 Patent, col. 2:47-52). This could be used to argue the term is limited to managing entire, bootable OS instances, not merely administrative functions within a web application.
The Term: "fast suspending said first selected operating system" (’677 Patent, Claim 6)
- Context and Importance: This action is the core of the '677 patent's claimed method. Plaintiff's infringement case hinges on showing the accused SAP system performs this step.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide a basis for a broad interpretation that would cover website administration.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the "suspend" function to the BIOS power management standard, which is used to "hybernate" an OS and save its state (e.g., memory and register contents) to disk before activating another. (’677 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:26-34). This suggests the term requires a specific, low-level system action, which may be difficult to map onto the accused website management GUI.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement in a conclusory manner. It states SAP encourages consumers and advertisers to use the GUI and provides the GUI to them, without offering specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent. (Compl. ¶18, ¶24).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that SAP's infringement is "intentional and in reckless disregard of GEMSA's rights." (Compl. ¶21, ¶27). The complaint does not allege any facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patents, such as a notice letter or prior litigation.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Claim Viability: A dispositive threshold question will be the legal status of the asserted claims. Given that the key independent claims asserted in the complaint were cancelled in post-filing IPR proceedings, the viability of the entire case as pleaded is in question.
- Definitional Scope: Should the case proceed, a core issue will be one of technical analogy: can the claim terms "virtual cabinet" and "fast suspending... an operating system", which are rooted in the context of managing and switching between full operating systems on a single physical computer, be construed to read on the high-level administrative functions of a web-based GUI for managing a commercial website?
- Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key challenge for the plaintiff will be one of proof: what evidence can be introduced to demonstrate that the accused SAP/AWS system—described in only the most general terms in the complaint—actually performs the specific, low-level partitioning, resource allocation, and OS-suspension functions required by the asserted claims?