ServStor Tech LLC v. Atos Se

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ServStor Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Atos SE (France)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP; Rubino IP; Truelove Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00106, E.D. Tex., 03/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s server products infringe five U.S. patents related to server system architecture, remote management and monitoring, and network-based disk partitioning.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern methods for improving the management, reliability, and architectural efficiency of computer servers, particularly in large-scale data center environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit based on prior infringement lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff in 2022 against several of Defendant's direct competitors, including Wiwynn, Quanta, Acer, NEC, and Fujitsu.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,000,010 - "System and Method for Caching Web Pages on a Management Appliance for Personal Computers"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of remotely monitoring industrial personal computers (PCs), especially in determining the cause of a crash, because the monitoring function often depends on the same main microprocessor that failed ('010 Patent, col. 1:57-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a separate management appliance, such as an alarm card, that contains its own microprocessor and memory ('010 Patent, col. 3:1-8). This appliance can maintain a cache of recent status web pages generated by the host computer. In the event of a host CPU failure, a remote administrator can still access these cached pages through an "out-of-band" network connection to diagnose the state of the computer immediately before the crash ('010 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a more resilient method for "lights-out" server management, enabling administrators to retrieve critical diagnostic data even after a system failure, a significant capability for maintaining large, geographically dispersed server farms.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 6 (Compl. ¶42).
• Essential elements of claim 6 include:
  • providing a remote computer, having a host CPU;
  • providing an administrator computer;
  • providing a first network connection between the remote computer and the administrator computer; and,
  • providing, on the remote computer, a management appliance with a microserver thereon for monitoring host computer monitoring web pages generated via said host CPU.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,870,271 - "Disk Drive Partitioning Methods and Apparatuses"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that conventional data storage access is controlled by a central operating system (e.g., DOS, Windows), which creates a dependency and complicates direct network access to individual storage partitions, a growing liability for disaggregated and portable devices ('271 Patent, col. 1:38-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a storage device where individual partitions can be separately and directly addressed over a network using distinct Internet Protocol (IP) addresses ('271 Patent, Abstract). The device includes a "storage element" configured to receive a network request, dynamically create and allocate a partition, obtain a unique IP address for that new partition from a DHCP server, and associate the address with a given name, all without relying on a host computer's central operating system ('271 Patent, col. 4:18-34; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This technology facilitates the creation of network-attached storage (NAS) and other peer-to-peer storage architectures where storage volumes are treated as independent, first-class citizens on a network.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent apparatus claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • a storage medium;
  • a network interface;
  • a storage element coupled to the medium and interface, configured to:
    • receive a request for a partition allocation including a name;
    • create and allocate a partition based on the request;
    • obtain an IP address for the partition from a DHCP server; and
    • associate the name with the IP address.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,191,274 - "Method and System for Providing Independent Server Functionality in a Single Personal Computer"

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the problem of space consumption and heat generation from multiple independent servers in a rack ('274 Patent, col. 1:12-20). The solution is a computer system within a single chassis that houses multiple "planar shaped circuit cards," each providing a dedicated and independent server function. These cards share a common power supply but are configured to be "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus," communicating instead through dedicated external connectors ('274 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-60).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).

Accused Features

The Atos BullSequana X1000 is alleged to be a computer system with a chassis containing a plurality of planar circuit cards, each providing an independent server function and configured to be free from direct communication with an inter-card bus (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 6,738,930 - "Method and System for Extending the Functionality of an Environmental Monitor for an Industrial Personal Computer"

Technology Synopsis

This patent, the parent of the '010 and '750 patents, addresses the inflexibility of prior art environmental monitors for industrial PCs ('930 Patent, col. 2:27-45). The invention describes an "alarm card" with a microserver that communicates with an "agent" on the host computer. This architecture allows the alarm card to monitor web-enabled content from the host, making the monitoring parameters remotely configurable and enabling access to status information via an out-of-band connection, even if the host has crashed ('930 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:12-26).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶51).

Accused Features

The Atos BullSequana S800 is alleged to perform the claimed method by providing a remote industrial computer with a host CPU, an administrator computer, a network connection, and an "alarm card with a micro-server" (the iBMC) for monitoring web pages on the host CPU (Compl. ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 7,310,750 - "Method and System for Extending the Functionality of an Environmental Monitor for an Industrial Personal Computer"

Technology Synopsis

As a continuation of the '930 patent application, this patent describes a similar technology for enhancing an alarm card in an industrial PC. It features an alarm card with a server capable of handling web-based content and having both an internal connection to the host CPU and an out-of-band network connection to report information externally ('750 Patent, Claim 1).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶60).

Accused Features

The Atos BullSequana S800 is alleged to perform the claimed method by providing a remote industrial computer, an administrator computer, a network connection, and an "alarm card with a server thereon" (the iBMC) for monitoring web pages on the host CPU (Compl. ¶61).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are various server systems sold by Atos, including the BullSequana S, M, X, and Edge series servers, the Escala series servers, and the Atos Edge Data Container (Compl. ¶17, ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these server products incorporate technology for remote management and monitoring, modular server architectures, and advanced storage partitioning (Compl. ¶13-18). A key accused component is the Baseboard Management Controller (BMC), which the complaint refers to as an on-board iBMC (Compl. ¶43). This controller provides remote management capabilities, such as monitoring system status (temperature, power) and performing administrative tasks independently of the host computer's main operating system, often using industry standards like IPMI (Intelligent Platform Management Interface) (Compl. ¶43). The complaint alleges these servers are a significant part of Atos's business in the United States (Compl. ¶2, ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,000,010 Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,870,271 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: For the '274 Patent, a key question will be the scope of the term "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus." The infringement analysis will depend on a detailed factual investigation of the Atos BullSequana X1000's backplane architecture to determine if any communication between the server cards occurs over a shared bus, versus exclusively through external connectors as claimed.
• Technical Questions: For the '010, '930, and '750 patents, the infringement theory hinges on whether the accused Atos iBMC performs the specific function of "monitoring ... web pages generated via said host CPU." A central technical question is what evidence exists that the iBMC monitors host-generated web pages, as opposed to monitoring hardware-level sensors directly, which is a common function of BMCs using protocols like IPMI. The complaint does not specify how the accused BMC performs this step.
• Technical Questions: For the '271 Patent, the allegations regarding the dynamic creation of partitions and acquisition of IP addresses are made "upon information and belief" (Compl. ¶33). A primary point of contention will be the factual question of whether the accused Atos storage products actually operate according to this claimed on-demand, network-driven sequence, or if partitions are configured through a more static, administrator-controlled process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 7,000,010:

• The Term: "monitoring host computer monitoring web pages generated via said host CPU" (Claim 6)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the specific source and format of the monitored information. The infringement case for the monitoring patents may depend on whether the accused iBMC technology monitors system status by accessing web pages that are generated by the host CPU, or if it monitors hardware status through a different data path (e.g., direct sensor access via a low-level bus) that does not involve host-generated web pages.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the parent '930 patent, incorporated by reference, discusses monitoring "web-enabled content" and "IP-based-content" in formats like SNMP and HTTP, which could be argued as broader than just a traditional HTML web page ('930 Patent, col. 3:5-11).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description in the parent '930 patent describes a specific embodiment where an "agent" on the host computer generates an HTML file that it keeps updated, and the management appliance monitors this file ('930 Patent, col. 3:12-26, col. 4:24-26). This may suggest the invention is specific to monitoring software-generated status files on the host, not just any status data.

For U.S. Patent No. 7,870,271:

• The Term: "a storage element ... configured to receive ... a request for a partition allocation ... create and allocate a partition ... obtain, from a ... DHCP server, an ... IP address ... and to associate the name with the IP address." (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This sequence of limitations defines a highly dynamic and automated process for creating network-addressable storage on demand. Practitioners may focus on this term because the viability of the infringement claim depends on showing that the accused products follow this specific, network-initiated workflow, rather than a more conventional, administrator-driven storage provisioning process.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "based at least in part on the request" provides some flexibility, suggesting other factors could be involved in the partition creation. The overall goal is to enable storage partitions to act as independent network peers ('271 Patent, col. 3:60-66).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes a "masterless" network environment where peer elements discover and use each other's resources ('271 Patent, col. 4:5-13). This could be used to argue that systems requiring a privileged administrator to configure partitions fall outside the claim's scope. The explicit requirement of using a DHCP server points to a specific, standardized protocol for automated IP address assignment.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for all five patents. The theory is that Atos provides its server products to customers and end-users with the knowledge and intent that the end-users will operate the products in a manner that directly infringes the asserted claims (e.g., Compl. ¶25-26, ¶35-36, ¶45-46).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Atos's infringement has been willful. The basis for this allegation is that Atos allegedly had knowledge of the patents-in-suit "at least as of the filing of suits against their direct competitors" by ServStor in 2022. The complaint further alleges that "Atos remained willfully blind to its infringement" (Compl. ¶45 & fn. 2, ¶54, ¶63).

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

• A core issue will be one of functional operation: For the server monitoring patents ('010, '930, '750), does the accused Atos iBMC technology, which relies on industry standards like IPMI, perform the specifically claimed function of "monitoring web pages generated via the host CPU," or does it monitor hardware status through a fundamentally different technical mechanism that does not involve host-generated web pages?
• A second key question will be one of architectural scope: For the independent server patent ('274), can the claim limitation "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus" be read to cover the backplane design of the accused Atos BullSequana X1000, a determination that will require a detailed factual analysis of its internal data pathways.
• Finally, a central evidentiary question for the disk partitioning patent ('271) will be whether the accused Atos storage products actually perform the claimed dynamic, on-demand sequence of receiving a network request, creating a partition, and obtaining a DHCP-assigned IP address, or if their functionality relies on a more conventional, static, administrator-driven provisioning model.