DCT
2:17-cv-00076
Global Equity Management Sa Pty Ltd v. Ericsson Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
- Defendant: Ericsson, Inc. (Texas); Amazon Web Services, Inc. (Delaware); VADATA, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey & Schwaller, LLP; Laminack, Pirtle & Martines, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:16-cv-00618, E.D. Tex., 07/25/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants have minimum contacts with the state, conduct substantial business in the district, and because at least a portion of the alleged infringement occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ graphical user interfaces for the administration of cloud computing services, specifically Ericsson's use of Amazon Web Services (AWS), infringe patents related to graphical user interfaces for managing virtualized computer systems and fast-switching between operating systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns system virtualization, which enables multiple, isolated operating system environments to run on a single physical computer, a foundational concept for modern cloud computing and data center infrastructure.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed in 2016. Subsequent to the filing, both patents-in-suit were challenged in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. IPR2016-01828 resulted in the cancellation of claims 1 and 2 of the '400 patent, while IPR2016-01829 resulted in the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 of the '677 patent. These cancellations include all independent claims asserted in the original complaint, which may significantly impact the viability of the case as pleaded.
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 |
| 2016-07-25 | Complaint Filed |
| 2020-05-15 | IPR Certificate Issued for U.S. Patent No. 7,356,677 |
| 2021-02-09 | IPR Certificate Issued for U.S. Patent No. 6,690,400 |
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 February 10, 2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of managing computers that run multiple operating systems. When multiple OSs coexist, they must be restricted from accessing each other's resources to prevent conflicts, and there was no OS-independent way to protect one user's data from another user on the same machine (’400 Patent, col. 2:5-13, col. 2:37-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a graphical user interface (GUI) that enables a user to "virtualize" a computer system. It uses graphical representations called "cabinets" to stand for separate OS environments. A user can graphically assign system resources, such as disk partitions, to these cabinets, thereby managing and isolating the different operating systems. (’400 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:56-65; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a graphical, OS-agnostic method for managing multiple, isolated software environments on a single physical machine, an early step toward the virtualization technologies that underpin today's cloud infrastructure (Compl. ¶7-8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 16, and 28 (Compl. ¶17).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A graphic user interface for displaying means for allocating a computer's resources to multiple operating system environments.
- These environments are partitioned on individual "virtual cabinets."
- The GUI comprises a "main menu bar," a "cabinet selection button bar," a "secondary storage partitions window," and a "cabinet visible partition window."
- Each "virtual cabinet" represents a discrete operating system plus its associated software and memory configuration.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, though claims 1 and 2 were later cancelled in an IPR proceeding.
U.S. Patent No. 7,356,677 - "Computer System Capable of Fast Switching Between Multiple Operating Systems and Applications," issued April 8, 2008
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Switching between different operating systems on a single computer traditionally required a full system shutdown and reboot, a slow and inefficient process (’677 Patent, col. 1:51-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention leverages the power management capabilities of a computer, such as "suspend" and "resume" functions, to enable "fast switching." Instead of a cold boot, the system suspends the currently active OS, saves its state, and then activates a different OS environment, allowing a near-instantaneous transition. (’677 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:20-30).
- Technical Importance: This method aimed to drastically reduce the time required to switch between operating environments, making multi-boot systems significantly more practical and user-friendly (’677 Patent, col. 4:20-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3 and 6 (Compl. ¶24).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A hardware platform for a hibernate-capable computer system.
- Means for selecting a virtual computer system to become operable before suspending the current one.
- Means for suspending the current virtual computer system.
- Means for making the selected system operable.
- The switching uses a "switch flag" and BIOS ACPI solutions without requiring a full Power-On Self-Test (POST).
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, though claims 1 and 6 were later cancelled in an IPR proceeding.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the graphical user interfaces ("GUIs") used for the administration and management of "www.Ericsson.com" and Amazon Web Services ("aws.amazon.com") (Compl. ¶17, ¶24). The allegations focus on Ericsson's use of AWS infrastructure, as detailed in an AWS case study referenced by the complaint (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Ericsson utilizes AWS to host websites and manage data in data centers (Compl. ¶6). The accused functionality is the web-based GUI provided by AWS, which allows customers like Ericsson to create, configure, and manage virtual servers, storage, and other cloud resources. The complaint frames this management of virtual resources in a cloud environment as analogous to the management of multiple operating systems on a single computer as described in the patents-in-suit.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the GUI for managing AWS infringes the patents-in-suit. The complaint provides Figure 1 from the ’400 Patent to illustrate the claimed GUI structure for managing virtualized resources (Compl. 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 to multiple operating system environments | Ericsson and Amazon use a GUI for the administration and management of websites and cloud services through "aws.amazon.com" (Compl. ¶17). | ¶17 | col. 9:1-4 |
| partitioned on individual virtual cabinets | The complaint’s predecessor, FVOS, developed a "Virtual System OS" allowing multiple operating environments to co-exist (Compl. ¶7), which is alleged to be analogous to AWS virtual instances. | ¶7 | col. 2:45-49 |
| a cabinet selection button bar; said cabinet selection button bar graphically representing at least one virtual cabinet | The AWS GUI allegedly provides means to select from various virtual machines or services, which the complaint posits corresponds to the claimed "cabinet selection button bar." | ¶17 | col. 9:5-7 |
| a secondary storage partitions window; said secondary storage partitions window graphically illustrating at least one partition... | The complaint alleges infringement by providing GUIs (Compl. ¶18), implicitly suggesting the AWS console for managing storage volumes (e.g., EBS) functions as this window. | ¶18 | col. 9:9-12 |
| a cabinet visible partition window for graphically illustrating a cabinet record corresponding to a selected virtual cabinet | The complaint alleges the accused GUIs infringe (Compl. ¶17), suggesting that the AWS interface for viewing a selected virtual machine's configuration is the claimed "cabinet visible partition." | ¶17 | col. 9:13-16 |
’677 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides Figure 8 from the ’677 Patent, a confirmation screen to verify a switch request, as an example of an infringing feature (Compl. p. 8).
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A hardware platform for a hibernate capable computer system comprising a system manager | The complaint alleges Ericsson and Amazon use a GUI for administration and management of "aws.amazon.com" on what is implicitly a hibernate-capable system (Compl. ¶24). | ¶24 | col. 16:5-10 |
| means for selecting one of said virtual computer systems to become next operable before suspending... | The accused GUI allegedly allows users to select a different virtual environment to activate, akin to the fast-switching described in the patent (Compl. ¶24, ¶25). | ¶24 | col. 16:21-24 |
| means for suspending the currently operational virtual computer system in an active state | The ability to stop or pause a virtual machine instance in AWS is alleged to correspond to the claimed "suspending" feature (Compl. ¶25). | ¶25 | col. 16:25-27 |
| means for switching... using a switch flag and BIOS ACPI solutions, and without initialization of...POST | The complaint alleges infringement literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶25), implying the accused system performs fast switching without a full reboot. | ¶25 | col. 16:28-36 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue is whether the term "computer system" as used in the patents, which describes a single physical machine with multiple operating systems, can be read to cover a distributed cloud computing environment like AWS, where resources are managed across a vast network of servers. Similarly, does the claimed "virtual cabinet" read on a modern "virtual machine" instance in the cloud?
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific evidence, such as annotated screenshots of the accused AWS interface, to show a one-to-one mapping between its functionality and the specific structural elements of the claims (e.g., the "secondary storage partitions window"). The infringement theory appears to rely on a high-level analogy rather than a detailed technical comparison.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "virtual cabinet" (’400 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the foundational metaphor of the ’400 patent. The infringement case hinges on whether a modern cloud-based virtual machine or container can be considered a "virtual cabinet."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition: "a virtual storage device, capable of containing... operating systems, application software... databases and memory" (’400 Patent, col. 2:47-53). A plaintiff may argue this abstract definition is broad enough to encompass modern virtual instances.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and detailed descriptions consistently depict "cabinets" as graphical icons within a single GUI managing different OS environments (e.g., Windows, DOS) on a single physical computer (’400 Patent, Fig. 1). A defendant may argue the term is limited to this specific local, multi-boot context.
The Term: "fast switching... without initialization of power-on self test (POST) in the BIOS" (’677 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core technical mechanism of the ’677 patent’s invention. Proving infringement requires showing that the accused AWS system performs a state transition that avoids the specific BIOS POST process, using a "switch flag" and ACPI solutions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s objective is to "quickly switch between multiple active operating systems" without a full shutdown and reboot (’677 Patent, col. 3:27-30). A plaintiff could argue that any process that achieves this outcome (e.g., pausing one VM and starting another) is equivalent.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites a specific mechanism tied to BIOS-level functions (ACPI, POST). A defendant may argue that cloud hypervisors manage VM states through entirely different software-defined mechanisms that do not involve interacting with a guest VM's "BIOS" in the manner described, thus falling outside the literal scope of the claim.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement in a conclusory manner, stating Defendants encourage use of and provide the infringing GUIs to consumers and advertisers (Compl. ¶18, ¶25).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement "on information and belief," asserting that Defendants' actions were "intentional and in reckless disregard of GEMSA's rights," without pleading specific facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patents or infringement (Compl. ¶21, ¶27).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Impact of IPR: The primary question is how, or if, the case can proceed given that inter partes review proceedings subsequent to the filing of the complaint resulted in the cancellation of all asserted independent claims ('400 patent claim 1; '677 patent claim 1) and most asserted dependent claims. The case as pleaded rests on theories tied to claims that are no longer valid.
- Definitional Scope: For any surviving claims, the case will turn on a question of technological translation: can claim terms like "virtual cabinet" and "super operating system", which were conceived in the 1990s to describe managing multiple operating systems on a single PC, be permissibly construed to cover the fundamentally different architecture of a modern, distributed cloud computing platform like AWS?
- Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key trial question would be one of functional correspondence: assuming a favorable claim construction, does the accused AWS management console actually contain the specific structural elements and perform the specific functions (such as using a BIOS-level "switch flag" for state transitions) as required by the patent claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?