DCT

2:16-cv-00622

Global Equity Management Sa Pty Ltd v. Siemens Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:16-cv-00622, E.D. Tex., 06/14/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant’s alleged business contacts and activities within the State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s corporate website and its use of Amazon Web Services infringe patents related to a graphical user interface for managing multiple operating systems and a method for fast-switching between them.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns system virtualization, enabling multiple, isolated operating system environments to be managed and run on a single physical computer, a concept foundational to modern cloud computing and virtual machine management.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts patents originally assigned to Flash Vos, Inc., which it describes as a pioneer in systems virtualization. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, both patents-in-suit underwent Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The IPR proceedings resulted in the cancellation of all independent claims asserted in this lawsuit ('400 patent, claim 1; '677 patent, claims 1 and 6).

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. 6,690,400 Issued
2008-04-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,356,677 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: The patent describes the difficulty of running multiple operating systems on a single computer, as they are typically designed to monopolize all system resources. This creates a need for a tool to manage and isolate different user environments (e.g., a parent's business data and a child's games) on the same machine (’400 Patent, col. 1:40-2:13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that allows a user to virtualize a computer system by creating and managing "Virtual Cabinets." Each "cabinet" is a self-contained virtual environment with its own operating system, applications, and data partitions. The GUI enables graphical management of these cabinets, allowing a user to select, configure, and boot into different isolated environments from a single interface, using a "Virtual Table of Contents" (VTOC) to manage the underlying storage configurations (’400 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-52).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provided a user-friendly graphical method for managing complex multi-boot environments, abstracting away the low-level configuration of disk partitions for the end-user (’400 Patent, col. 2:62-col. 3:1).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
  • Claim 1 requires a graphic user interface for allocating a computer's resources to multiple operating system environments, comprising:
    • a cabinet selection button bar
    • the button bar graphically representing at least one virtual cabinet
    • each virtual cabinet representing a discrete operating system
    • a secondary storage partitions window
    • a cabinet visible partition window
    • the secondary storage window illustrating at least one partition of a secondary storage device
    • the cabinet visible partition window illustrating a cabinet record corresponding to a selected virtual cabinet
    • the cabinet visible partition window representing an operating system plus application software, databases and memory configured with the selected virtual cabinet

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: Traditional methods of switching between different operating systems on a single computer require a full shutdown and reboot, which is time-consuming and inefficient (’677 Patent, col. 1:51-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system that uses the computer's existing power management capabilities (e.g., ACPI-based suspend and resume functions) to "fast switch" between operating systems. A "Super Operating System" intercepts these functions to suspend one active OS environment, save its state, and then activate or resume a different OS environment without requiring a full system reboot, or Power-On Self-Test (POST) (’677 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:20-29). This process is managed in part by a "switch flag" set in storage to signal the desired action to the BIOS upon restart (’677 Patent, col. 15:23-29).
  • Technical Importance: This approach repurposed widely available BIOS power-saving features to significantly improve the user experience in multi-boot environments by making the process of switching between them nearly instantaneous (’677 Patent, col. 3:17-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 6, and dependent claim 3 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Claim 1 requires a hardware platform with a system manager comprising:
    • means for selecting a virtual computer system to become next operable before suspending a current one
    • means for suspending the currently operational virtual computer system
    • means for making the selected virtual computer system operable
    • means for switching between systems using a "switch flag" and "BIOS ACPI solutions" without a POST
  • Claim 6 requires a method for managing and fast switching between operating systems, comprising:
    • a fast suspending step for one virtual computer system
    • an activating step for another virtual computer system without a reboot or POST
    • using a "switch flag" and a "virtual table of contents (VTOC)" to perform the suspending and activating steps

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the Siemens corporate website ("www.SIEMEN.com") and its use of Amazon Web Services ("AWS") (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Siemens uses a "website with a graphical user interface ('GUI') for the administration and management" of its online presence (Compl. ¶17, 23). The complaint further alleges that Siemens "accesses Amazon Web Services" and points to an AWS case study about Siemens as an illustration of this use (Compl. ¶6). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on how the website or its AWS backend infrastructure operate, nor does it describe their market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement in a conclusory manner, without providing a detailed mapping of accused functionalities to the specific limitations of the asserted claims. Therefore, a claim chart cannot be constructed from the complaint's text. The complaint includes an image of Figure 1 from the '400 Patent, which depicts a graphical user interface with selectable "Cabinet" icons for managing different operating system environments on a computer (Compl. p. 6). However, it does not explain how this figure relates to the functionality of the accused Siemens website.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement allegations raise significant questions of claim scope. The patents describe technologies for managing and switching between operating systems on a single, local computer. A central question for the court would be whether the claims can be construed to cover the accused instrumentality: a distributed, client-server system involving a public-facing website and a third-party cloud computing platform (AWS). It is unclear how navigating a website could be interpreted as allocating resources or fast-switching between "discrete operating systems" on a single "computer device" as described in the patents.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide factual support to show how the accused instrumentalities perform the specific technical functions required by the claims. For the ’400 Patent, it is unclear what functions of the Siemens website correspond to a "cabinet selection button bar" or a "cabinet visible partition window." For the ’677 Patent, the complaint offers no evidence that the accused system uses a "switch flag" or leverages "BIOS ACPI solutions" to suspend and resume operating systems as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "virtual cabinet" (’400 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the '400 Patent's invention. The viability of the infringement claim hinges on whether this term, disclosed in the context of managing local disk partitions in a multi-boot environment, can be interpreted broadly enough to read on modern cloud-based resources, such as virtual machine instances on AWS.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines a cabinet as a "virtual storage device" (’400 Patent, col. 2:47-48), language that is not inherently limited to a local machine.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures consistently depict "cabinets" as representations of different OS configurations and partitions on a local computer's secondary storage, managed by a GUI on that same computer (’400 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 5:11-21; col. 6:12-21).

  • The Term: "fast suspending" (’677 Patent, Claim 6)

    • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement theory depends on finding an equivalent action in the accused website/AWS architecture. Its definition is critical to determining if there is a technical match.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined with a rigid boundary in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the "fast suspend" concept to the use of a computer's inherent power management functions (ACPI/APM) to save the state of a running OS to a local disk or memory, explicitly for the purpose of avoiding a full reboot (’677 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:45-55; col. 5:4-10). Claim 1 explicitly requires the use of "BIOS ACPI solutions."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Siemens induces infringement by "encouraging" consumers and advertisers to use the accused GUI and contributorily infringes by "providing" the GUI to them (Compl. ¶18, 24). The complaint does not plead specific facts showing an intent to encourage infringement of the patents.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of willful infringement "on information and belief," asserting that the infringement is "intentional and in reckless disregard of GEMSA's rights" (Compl. ¶21, 27). No specific facts are alleged to support Defendant's pre-suit knowledge of the patents or its alleged infringement.

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

  1. Threshold Viability: A primary issue for the court will be the legal status of the complaint following the cancellation of all asserted independent claims in post-filing IPR proceedings. This raises the fundamental question of whether any viable basis for an infringement action remains.
  2. Definitional Scope: Assuming the claims were viable, a core issue would be one of technological translation: can terms like "virtual cabinet" and "fast suspending", rooted in the technical context of managing operating systems on a single PC in the late 1990s and early 2000s, be construed to cover the structure and operation of a modern, distributed cloud computing architecture like a corporate website running on AWS?
  3. Evidentiary Mismatch: A key evidentiary question would be one of functional proof: what evidence could Plaintiff offer to demonstrate that the accused Siemens website and AWS backend actually perform the specific, granular technical steps recited in the claims, such as using a "switch flag" or manipulating "partition windows" in the manner the patents describe? The complaint provides no such factual allegations.