DCT

2:19-cv-00212

Longhorn HD LLC v. Huawei Device Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00212, E.D. Tex., 09/18/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue for the non-U.S. Huawei entities is alleged to be proper in any judicial district as they are not U.S. residents. Venue for the U.S. Huawei entities is based on their alleged regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s servers, laptops, and other computer products infringe seven patents related to computer storage and hardware technologies, including drive monitoring, microactuators, server connectors, hot-swappable drives, and data protection via fall sensors.
  • Technical Context: The asserted patents cover technologies directed at improving the reliability, serviceability, and data integrity of computer systems, which are critical features in both consumer devices and enterprise-level data centers.
  • Key Procedural History: The filing is a Second Amended Complaint. For several of the asserted patents, the complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge stemming from the date of the original complaint (Dkt. 1), indicating the potential for enhanced damages for post-filing conduct.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1997-07-10 ’112 Patent Priority Date
2000-06-19 ’597 Patent Priority Date
2001-01-12 ’400 and ’012 Patents Priority Date
2001-05-22 ’112 Patent Issue Date
2003-04-15 ’400 Patent Issue Date
2003-08-12 ’104 Patent Priority Date
2004-03-23 ’012 Patent Issue Date
2004-05-11 ’597 Patent Issue Date
2004-07-09 ’170 and ’444 Patents Priority Date
2005-08-30 ’104 Patent Issue Date
2008-01-08 ’170 Patent Issue Date
2011-09-06 ’444 Patent Issue Date
2019-09-18 Second Amended Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,237,112 - "SCSI Device Available for Breakdown Prediction and Self-Examination and a Method Thereof"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of monitoring the health of Small Computer System Interface (SCSI) devices. Prior methods involved the main system processor constantly polling devices for their status, which consumed system resources, or relied on monitoring external to the device, which could be inaccurate (’112 Patent, col. 1:28-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes embedding the monitoring intelligence directly within the SCSI device itself. An on-board I2C processor autonomously gathers data from internal sensors (e.g., temperature, power, SMART status) and only reports a fault to the host system when it determines the fault is one it cannot correct internally. This reduces the processing load on the host system and the traffic on the SCSI bus (’112 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:29-47; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This self-monitoring architecture aimed to enhance overall system performance and reliability by decentralizing routine diagnostic tasks to the peripheral devices themselves (Compl. ¶21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A small computer system interface (SCSI) device comprising several integrated sensors.
    • A "temperature and motor driving sensor" to monitor internal temperature and motor status.
    • A "power sensor" to monitor the device's power.
    • A "self-monitoring analysis and report technology (SMART) sensor" to monitor device status.
    • A "device control logic" to report status and error information to a master processor via a SCSI controller.
    • An "I2C processor" that analyzes all sensor information and reports a fault to the master processor only when it determines that the "I2C processor cannot correct said fault".
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 6,734,597 - "Thermomechanical In-Plane Microactuator"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies deficiencies in prior art microactuators, such as "U" shaped thermal actuators, which are described as inefficient, bulky, and converting motion in a non-linear arc, making them ill-suited for precise micro-scale applications (’597 Patent, col. 1:11-21, col. 2:1-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) actuator design that uses a "substantially straight" expansion member connected between a fixed base and a movable shuttle. When thermally expanded, the small elongation of the member is translated into a large, precise, in-plane displacement of the shuttle because the member is positioned at an angle nearly perpendicular to the shuttle's direction of travel. This geometry provides significant mechanical amplification (’597 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This design enables the creation of small, low-voltage actuators capable of high force and displacement, which is critical for technologies like dual-stage actuators in hard disk drives that perform fine positional adjustments of the read/write head (Compl. ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least Claim 10, which depends on independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶40).
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • A microelectromechanical mechanism comprising a base member and a shuttle.
    • A "substantially straight expansion member" attached to both the base and the shuttle.
    • The components substantially form an ""I" shape".
    • The expansion member is configured to "elongate in an elongation direction" to drive the shuttle in a "direction substantially different from the elongation direction".
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Patent No. 6,549,400 - "Method and System for Quickly Connecting a 1U Personal Computer"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a solution to the difficulty of connecting compact 1U rack-mounted servers, which traditionally required cumbersome manual cabling (’400 Patent, col. 1:7-28). The invention is a "blind-mateable" connector system where a protuberant printed circuit board extending from the server slides directly into a receiving connector on the rack backplane, allowing for rapid, tool-less installation and removal (’400 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: Huawei's Fusion Server E900 enclosure and nodes, which are alleged to be "blade" servers that utilize a "blind mateable PC connector" to connect to the server rack (Compl. ¶¶49-50).

U.S. Patent No. 6,711,012 - "Method and System for Quickly Connecting a 1U Personal Computer"

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the '400 Patent, this patent covers the same core technology: a system for efficiently connecting 1U industrial computers into a rack using a blind-mateable connector comprising a protuberant circuit board from the computer and a receiving assembly on the rack (’012 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Accused Features: Huawei's Fusion Server E900 enclosure and nodes are accused of infringing by using "blind mateable blade servers and enclosures" (Compl. ¶¶58, 60).

U.S. Patent No. 6,938,104 - "Removable Hard Drive Assembly, Computer with a Removable Hard Disk Drive, Method of Initializing and Operating a Removable Hard Drive"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem that operating systems typically treat standard hard drives as fixed, non-removable devices, preventing "hot-swapping" (’104 Patent, col. 5:1-7). The invention is a drive assembly with a programmable processor that intercepts and modifies the hard drive's standard identification data to report it to the host system as a "removable device," thereby enabling hot-swap functionality (’104 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 9 (Compl. ¶68).
  • Accused Features: Huawei servers, such as the CH121 V5 nodes, are accused of including "hot-swappable hard drive assemblies" with circuitry that allegedly modifies drive identification to enable hot-swapping (Compl. ¶¶67-68).

U.S. Patent No. 7,318,170 - "Protection of Non-Volatile Memory Component Against Data Corruption Due to Physical Shock"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method to prevent data corruption in non-volatile memory when a portable device is dropped during a write operation, which can cause an abrupt power loss (’170 Patent, col. 1:11-24). The solution involves using a sensor (e.g., an accelerometer) to detect a fall, and if a fall is detected during a write operation, the system terminates the write and executes a safe shutdown procedure to protect data integrity (’170 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 6 (Compl. ¶77).
  • Accused Features: Huawei laptops (e.g., MateBook X Pro, MateBook 14) are accused of having "fall sensors that detect falling conditions and cease write operations" (Compl. ¶¶26, 78).

U.S. Patent No. 8,015,444 - "Protection of Non-Volatile Memory Component Against Data Corruption Due to Physical Shock"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a continuation of the '170 patent, details a similar system for protecting solid-state memory from data corruption due to physical shock. It uses a processor and a fall sensor to monitor for acceleration during a data write operation and, if detected, interrupts the operation and executes a shutdown procedure (’444 Patent, Abstract). It adds further detail about selecting the sensor's sampling rate based on system characteristics.
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 14 (Compl. ¶87).
  • Accused Features: Huawei laptops with SSDs are accused of including software and fall sensors that perform the claimed method of monitoring for acceleration during a write operation and interrupting it if necessary (Compl. ¶¶86, 88).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are a broad range of Huawei's computer products, including the MateBook line of laptops (Matebook D, X Pro, 14, 13), and various server lines such as the Tecal RH1288, XH310, XH311, and Fusion Server E900, along with their associated nodes and components (Compl. ¶¶24, 26-27, 30).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint alleges that these products incorporate certain key technologies. For servers and computers with traditional hard disk drives (HDDs), the relevant functionalities are the use of Self-Monitoring, Analysis, and Reporting Technology (SMART) for drive health prediction and the use of dual-stage microactuators for precise read/write head positioning (Compl. ¶¶21, 22, 32, 41).
    • For Huawei's server products, specifically the Fusion Server E900, the complaint focuses on the use of "blind mateable" connectors that allow server "blades" or nodes to be quickly inserted into and removed from a chassis (Compl. ¶¶24, 50, 59). Other servers are accused of providing "hot-swappable" drive bays, which allow for the replacement of storage drives while the system is running (Compl. ¶¶25, 68).
    • For Huawei's laptop products, the complaint identifies the inclusion of "fall sensors" designed to detect when the device is dropped and initiate protective measures to prevent data loss or damage to storage components, particularly during write operations (Compl. ¶¶26, 78, 88).
    • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

6,237,112 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a temperature and motor driving sensor, which monitors an inside temperature of said SCSI device and monitors a driving status of a motor of said SCSI device The accused WD10SPZX hard drive allegedly includes a sensor that monitors the internal temperature and motor driving status. ¶32 col. 6:35-37
a power sensor, which monitors SCSI device power and receives a command from a master I2C processor through a I2C processor and monitors a power on/off switch to switch on/off the SCSI device power The accused drive allegedly includes a power sensor that monitors power and receives commands via an I2C processor to control the power switch. ¶32 col. 6:37-40
a self-monitoring analysis and report technology (SMART) sensor, which monitors a SCSI device status The accused drive allegedly includes a SMART sensor to monitor device status. ¶32 col. 6:40-41
a device control logic, which reports all previous status reports, error reports and SMART functions to a master I2C processor through a SCSI controller The accused drive allegedly includes device control logic that reports status and SMART functions to a master I2C processor. ¶32 col. 6:41-45
an I2C processor, which reports a fault to said master I2C processor...when it is determined, by analyzing all information detected...that said I2C processor cannot correct said fault The accused drive's I2C processor allegedly analyzes sensor data and reports a fault to the master processor only when it determines the fault is uncorrectable. ¶32 col. 6:45-51
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Does the accused hard drive's architecture map to the distinct "I2C processor", "device control logic", and "SCSI controller" required by the claim? The complaint's allegation that the "I2C processor" is "a microcontroller or processor within the WD10SPZX or associated I2C interface" (Compl. ¶32) raises the question of whether a single, integrated drive controller performs these functions, which may not align with the separate components shown in the patent's figures.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the accused device's processor executes the specific logic of first determining it "cannot correct said fault" before reporting it. The complaint alleges this function (Compl. ¶32), but proving this specific internal decision-making process, as opposed to a more general error-reporting mechanism, will be an evidentiary focus.

6,734,597 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a base member The accused "Dual-Stage Actuator" allegedly includes a "base member" attached to one end of the expansion member. ¶41 col. 8:38-40
a shuttle The accused actuator is allegedly connected to a "shuttle that includes the read/write head." ¶41 col. 10:4-6
a substantially straight expansion member attached to the base member and the shuttle, such that the base member, the shuttle, and the expansion member substantially form an "I" shape The accused actuator allegedly includes a "substantially straight expansion member" connected between the base and the shuttle. ¶41 col. 11:63-65
wherein the expansion member is configured to elongate in an elongation direction to drive a shuttle in a direction substantially different from the elongation direction The expansion member allegedly elongates to "bias the shuttle in an output direction substantially different from the elongation direction." ¶41 col. 10:1-7
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The construction of ""substantially straight"" will be critical. The case may turn on whether the geometry of the actuator beam in the accused hard drives is straight enough to fall within the claim scope, especially as the patent distinguishes itself from prior art "U" shaped actuators.
    • Technical Questions: Does the accused "Dual-Stage Actuator" operate on the same principle of mechanical amplification as the patented invention? The analysis will likely focus on the precise angle between the expansion member and the shuttle's direction of travel and whether it is "substantially different," as this relationship is the source of the claimed functional advantage.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from ’112 Patent: "an I2C processor, which reports a fault... when it is determined... that said I2C processor cannot correct said fault"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core autonomous function of the invention, distinguishing it from simple data polling. Infringement of the '112 Patent hinges on proving that the accused drives perform this specific, conditional reporting logic. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires evidence of a specific internal software or firmware process that may not be present in a standard error-reporting system.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term covers any process where the on-board processor analyzes data and reports "only in needful cases" (’112 Patent, col. 2:21-23), without requiring a literal self-correction attempt.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit claim language "cannot correct said fault" may support a narrower construction requiring proof of a multi-step process: analysis, an attempt to correct or handle the fault internally, and reporting only upon failure of that attempt. The specification describes a process which "checks if the I2C processor has a fault that it is beyond its limits to process by itself" (’112 Patent, col. 2:59-62).

  • Term from ’597 Patent: "substantially straight expansion member"

    • Context and Importance: The straightness of the actuator beam is a key point of distinction from the "U" shaped prior art discussed in the patent's background. The definition of "substantially straight" will be central to determining whether the accused microactuators, which may have complex real-world geometries, fall within the scope of the claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that "substantially straight" should be defined functionally, as not being intentionally curved or arced like the prior art "U" shape (’597 Patent, col. 2:1-10). The key is the linear expansion mechanism, not perfect geometric straightness.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's drawings consistently depict perfectly straight members (e.g., ’597 Patent, Fig. 1). An argument for a narrower reading could hold that the term requires a high degree of geometric linearity in the member's resting state, even if it is designed to flex or buckle into an "S" shape during operation (’597 Patent, col. 8:51-56).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants knowingly and intentionally induce customers and end-users to infringe by making, using, and selling the accused products (e.g., Compl. ¶¶33-35, 42-44). The factual support for these allegations rests on the act of providing the products with their inherent functionalities.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for six of the seven patents based on knowledge "at least as of the date of Plaintiff's Complaint for Patent Infringement (Dkt. 1)" (e.g., Compl. ¶43, ¶52, ¶61). This allegation pegs the start of willful conduct to the filing of the original lawsuit, potentially exposing Defendants to enhanced damages for any infringement occurring after that date. For the '112 patent, willfulness is alleged on the basis that Defendants were "willfully blind to the infringement" (Compl. ¶35).

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

  • A primary evidentiary challenge for the Plaintiff will be one of component-level proof: For patents covering technologies within third-party components (e.g., the SMART monitoring of the '112 patent and the microactuator of the '597 patent, both allegedly in third-party HDDs), can the Plaintiff demonstrate through reverse engineering or discovery that the specific components used in Huawei's final products practice the detailed claim limitations?
  • The case will likely involve significant disputes over functional specificity: Do the accused products' general capabilities (e.g., error reporting, hot-swapping, fall protection) operate using the specific, multi-step methods required by the patent claims (e.g., the '112 patent's "cannot correct said fault" logic, the '104 patent's "modify an identification" step), or do they achieve a similar outcome through a technically distinct, non-infringing process?
  • A central strategic question will be one of case scope and focus: With seven patents covering diverse technologies asserted against numerous products, the case's complexity is substantial. A key issue will be whether the Plaintiff can maintain and prove infringement for this broad array of claims or if the case will be narrowed to a few core patent-product combinations as litigation proceeds.