DCT
2:19-cv-00040
Implicit LLC v. Imperva Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Implicit, LLC (Washington)
- Defendant: Imperva, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Davis Firm, PC
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00040, E.D. Tex., 03/19/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Imperva maintains a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Imperva Incapsula product suite infringes nine U.S. patents related to server-based management of application code and network data demultiplexing.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to methods for managing and processing data in distributed computer networks, a technological area central to the operation of modern content delivery networks (CDNs) and web application firewalls (WAFs).
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit written notice of infringement for several of the asserted patents on October 10, 2018. This First Amended Complaint adds U.S. Patent No. 10,225,378 to an original complaint filed earlier.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-03-18 | Priority Date for '075, '779, '740 Patents |
| 1999-12-29 | Priority Date for '683, '790, '104, '780, '839, '378 Patents |
| 2011-11-08 | U.S. Patent No. 8,056,075 Issues |
| 2014-04-08 | U.S. Patent No. 8,694,683 Issues |
| 2014-10-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,856,779 Issues |
| 2016-02-23 | U.S. Patent No. 9,270,790 Issues |
| 2016-04-26 | U.S. Patent No. 9,325,740 Issues |
| 2017-03-07 | U.S. Patent No. 9,591,104 Issues |
| 2018-07-17 | U.S. Patent No. 10,027,780 Issues |
| 2018-07-24 | U.S. Patent No. 10,033,839 Issues |
| 2018-10-10 | Plaintiff provides pre-suit notice for '075, '683, '790, '104 Patents |
| 2019-03-05 | U.S. Patent No. 10,225,378 Issues |
| 2019-03-19 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,056,075 - “Server Request Management”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,056,075, titled “Server Request Management,” issued on November 8, 2011 (Compl. ¶¶9-10).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the security and performance problems inherent in client-side verification of downloaded programs, such as Java applets. It notes that requiring each client computer to verify code is resource-intensive and creates inconsistencies in security policy enforcement across an enterprise ('075 Patent, col. 1:15-2:14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a server-based architecture where an "applet server" centrally manages requests for application code ("applets"). This server can receive requests, retrieve or build the requested code, perform security verification and optimization, and deliver the processed code to the client. This centralization is intended to provide more efficient use of resources and a flexible mechanism for instituting enterprise-wide security policies ('075 Patent, col. 2:18-47; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This server-side approach aimed to improve security and performance in distributed networks by centralizing computationally expensive tasks like code verification and compilation, which were becoming critical with the rise of executable web content ('075 Patent, Abstract).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
- The essential elements of claim 1 include:
- Configuring an applet server manager at a server computer to manage requests from client computers for one or more applets.
- Receiving a request at the applet server manager.
- Passing the request from the applet server manager to at least one network.
- Receiving one or more applets at the applet server manager from the network.
- Processing the one or more applets at the applet server manager, where processing includes compressing, optimizing, or verifying the applets.
- Sending the processed applets from the applet server manager to the client computers.
U.S. Patent No. 8,856,779 - “Application Server for Delivering Applets to Client Computing Devices in a Distributed Environment”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,856,779, titled “Application Server for Delivering Applets to Client Computing Devices in a Distributed Environment,” issued on October 7, 2014 (Compl. ¶¶12-13).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same technical challenges as the '075 Patent: the inefficiencies and security risks associated with client-side management of executable code in a networked environment ('779 Patent, col. 1:17-2:16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a computer system acts as an application server. This server receives a request specifying a particular applet and parameters (e.g., target platform, desired form). It then processes the request to generate the applet in the specified form, which may involve compiling source code modules and applying transformations like verification or optimization, before sending it to the client ('779 Patent, col. 3:8-4:50; Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This technology provided a framework for on-demand generation and delivery of application code tailored to specific client requirements, while maintaining centralized control over security and performance transformations ('779 Patent, Abstract).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
- The essential elements of claim 1 include:
- Receiving an applet request from a first client computer for a particular applet, specifying one or more client parameters.
- Processing the applet request to cause the particular applet to be generated, with the generated applet including source code in a form based on the specified parameters.
- Sending the particular applet from the computer system to the first client computer.
Multi-Patent Capsule Summaries
- U.S. Patent No. 9,325,740: “Application Server for Delivering Applets to Client Computing Devices in a Distributed Environment,” issued April 26, 2016. This patent is in the same family as the '779 Patent and addresses a similar server-based architecture for generating and delivering applets based on client requests. The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and alleges that the Accused Products' general operation infringes (Compl. ¶¶15-16, 55).
- U.S. Patent No. 8,694,683: “Method and System for Data Demultiplexing,” issued April 8, 2014. This patent describes a system for dynamically identifying a sequence of conversion routines to process data packets by comparing input and output formats, effectively demultiplexing messages. The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses components that implement "flow-based processing and the ability to inspect application data on TCP traffic" (Compl. ¶¶18-19, 61, 64).
- U.S. Patent No. 9,270,790: “Method and System for Data Demultiplexing,” issued February 23, 2016. As a member of the same family as the '683 Patent, this patent relates to dynamically routing data packets through a series of processing modules. The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses components that implement "flow-based processing" (Compl. ¶¶21-22, 67, 70).
- U.S. Patent No. 9,591,104: “Method and System for Data Demultiplexing,” issued March 7, 2017. This patent is also in the '683 Patent family, concerning data demultiplexing in networks. The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses components that implement "flow-based processing" (Compl. ¶¶24-25, 73, 76).
- U.S. Patent No. 10,027,780: “Method and System for Data Demultiplexing,” issued July 17, 2018. This patent is also in the '683 Patent family, concerning data demultiplexing. The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses "Demux Accused Components" within the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶27-28, 79, 82).
- U.S. Patent No. 10,033,839: “Method and System for Data Demultiplexing,” issued July 24, 2018. This patent is also in the '683 Patent family, concerning data demultiplexing. The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses "Demux Accused Components" within the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶30-31, 85, 88).
- U.S. Patent No. 10,225,378: “Method and System for Data Demultiplexing,” issued March 5, 2019. This patent is also in the '683 Patent family, concerning data demultiplexing. The complaint asserts at least claim 1 and accuses "Demux Accused Components" within the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶33-34, 91, 94).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies "Imperva Incapsula" as an accused product (Compl. ¶36).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint offers limited technical detail on the accused product's functionality. It alleges that Imperva Incapsula contains "Server Accused Components" that "implement traffic steering or diversion" in relation to the '075 family of patents (Compl. ¶46). For the '683 family of patents, it alleges the product contains "Demux Accused Components" that "implement flow-based processing and the ability to inspect application data on TCP traffic" (Compl. ¶¶64, 70, 76, 82, 88, 94). The complaint does not provide allegations regarding the product's commercial importance or market positioning. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain claim charts or provide a detailed, element-by-element mapping of the accused product to the asserted claims. The infringement allegations are pleaded generally. The following summary is based on the limited narrative theory provided.
'075 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| processing the one or more applets at the applet server manager, wherein processing the one or more applets includes at least one of the following steps: compressing the one or more applets...optimizing the one or more applets...and verifying the one or more applets... | The complaint alleges the Accused Products contain "Server Accused Components" that "implement traffic steering or diversion," which may be Plaintiff's basis for this element. | ¶46 | col. 4:10-18 |
| sending the one or more applets from the applet server manager to the one or more client computers. | The complaint makes a general allegation that Imperva makes, uses, sells, or offers to sell the Accused Products, which perform the claimed method. | ¶44 | col. 4:19-21 |
'779 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement on an element-by-element basis. It alleges generally that the "Accused Products are covered by at least claim 1 of the '779 Patent" (Compl. ¶49).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the term "applet," as described in the patents' 1990s context of downloadable client-side code (e.g., Java applets), can be construed to read on the types of web content, scripts, and data packets managed by a modern CDN and WAF product like Imperva Incapsula.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that Incapsula's alleged "traffic steering" or "flow-based processing" performs the specific functions recited in the claims, such as "verifying," "optimizing," or "compiling" an "applet" or "generating" it from "source code" for delivery to a client.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "applet" (from '075 Patent, claim 1; '779 Patent, claim 1)
Context and Importance: The applicability of the asserted patents from the '075 and '779 families to the accused technology may depend on the construction of "applet." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether the web content, scripts, or data packets managed by Imperva Incapsula fall within the scope of the claims.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '075 Patent specification states an applet "is any form of program instructions, whether in binary, source or intermediate format" ('075 Patent, col. 3:18-21). This language could support a broad definition not limited to a specific technology like Java.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background sections of both patents heavily frame the invention in the context of solving problems associated with "architecture neutral programming languages" like Java, which are "downloaded from a server computer to a client computer to be interpreted and executed locally" ('075 Patent, col. 1:29-37; '779 Patent, col. 1:31-40). This context might support a narrower construction limited to downloadable, executable code modules.
The Term: "demultiplexing" (from title of '683 Patent family)
Context and Importance: This term is central to the '683 patent family. Its construction will be critical for determining whether the accused "flow-based processing" and "inspection of application data" infringes. The dispute may turn on whether demultiplexing requires dynamically selecting a sequence of format-conversion routines, as described in the specification, or if it can be read more broadly to cover other forms of data inspection and routing.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is broad in the field of networking. Plaintiff may argue for its plain and ordinary meaning, which could encompass various forms of separating data streams for processing.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract of the '780 Patent (a family member) describes the "demultiplexing system" as one that "identifies a sequence of message handlers for processing the message" based on "the initial data type of the message and a target data type" to effect "conversion of the data." This suggests a specific process of dynamic, format-based selection of conversion modules, which could support a narrower construction.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides "instructional manuals or videos" that instruct consumers on how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶45, ¶51). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming that "Server Accused Components" and "Demux Accused Components" are material parts of the invention, are especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶46, ¶64).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patents. This knowledge is asserted to have begun with a written notice on October 10, 2018 for the '075, '683, '790, and '104 Patents; upon the filing of an original complaint for the '779, '740, '780, and '839 Patents; and upon the filing of the First Amended Complaint for the '378 Patent (Compl. ¶¶39-41, 47, 53, 59, 65, 71, 77, 83, 89, 95).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "applet," rooted in the context of downloadable, client-side executable code from the late 1990s, be construed to cover the diverse web content, scripts, and data packets managed by a modern content delivery network and web application firewall?
- A second central question will be one of functional correspondence: what evidence will show that the accused product's functions—described as "traffic steering" and "flow-based processing"—perform the specific, multi-step methods of the asserted claims, which detail server-side generation, processing (verification, optimization), and demultiplexing of application code?