DCT

2:23-cv-00182

ServStor Tech LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprises Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: ServStor Technologies LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, 2:23-cv-00182, E.D. Tex., 08/10/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, conducts business in the district, and committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s server hardware, storage systems, and associated management software infringe five patents related to server architecture, remote system monitoring, and network-based storage partitioning.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern foundational aspects of modern enterprise computing, including high-density server design, out-of-band management for system diagnostics, and network-addressable storage.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit due to prior infringement lawsuits Plaintiff filed against Defendant's direct competitors beginning in 2022. For two of the patents, the complaint further alleges Defendant had knowledge because it cited the patent family during the prosecution of its own patent application.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-12-22 Earliest Priority Date (’930, ’750, ’010 Patents)
2001-08-20 Priority Date (’274 Patent)
2002-11-12 Priority Date (’271 Patent)
2004-05-18 Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 6,738,930)
2006-02-14 Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 7,000,010)
2007-03-13 Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 7,191,274)
2007-12-18 Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 7,310,750)
2011-01-11 Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 7,870,271)
2012-11-13 Publication of HPE patent application citing '930/'750 family
2022-XX-XX Plaintiff files suits against Defendant's competitors
2023-08-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 7,000,010 - "System and Method for Caching Web Pages on a Management Appliance for Personal Computers," issued Feb. 14, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of remotely diagnosing an industrial computer that has crashed, as information about the cause of the failure becomes inaccessible once the main processor is no longer operating ('010 Patent, col. 2:59-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "management appliance," such as a separate card installed in the computer, that contains its own "microserver" and memory ('010 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-8). This appliance monitors and caches status-reporting web pages generated by the host computer. If the host crashes, the most recent cached web pages remain available for retrieval by a remote administrator via an independent, "out-of-band" network connection, providing a "black box" record of the system's state immediately before the failure ('010 Patent, col. 4:35-41).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a mechanism for robust, post-mortem remote diagnostics that did not depend on the availability of the primary system's CPU or network stack ('010 Patent, col. 4:35-41).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 6 (Compl. ¶41).
  • The essential elements of claim 6 are:
    • providing a remote computer with a host CPU;
    • providing an administrator computer;
    • providing a first network connection between them; and
    • providing, on the remote computer, a management appliance with a microserver for monitoring host computer monitoring web pages generated by the host CPU.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶40, Prayer ¶a).

U.S. Patent No. 7,870,271 - "Disk Drive Partitioning Methods and Apparatus," issued Jan. 11, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that conventional data storage access is mediated by a host operating system, creating dependencies that are a "liability" for the growing number of disparate, networked devices that need to access storage directly ('271 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a storage device where individual partitions are treated as independent network peers, each separately addressable by a distinct Internet Protocol (IP) address ('271 Patent, Abstract). The system describes a method where a network element can request a partition by name, and the storage device creates the partition and obtains a unique IP address for it from a network service like DHCP, associating the name with the new IP address ('271 Patent, col. 4:20-34).
  • Technical Importance: This technology disaggregates storage from a specific host OS, enabling a flexible, network-centric storage architecture where any IP-capable device can directly access storage resources ('271 Patent, col. 3:41-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 11 (Compl. ¶32).
  • The essential elements of claim 11 are:
    • receiving a request for a partition allocation that includes a name;
    • creating and allocating a partition on a storage medium based on the request;
    • obtaining an IP address for the partition from a DHCP server; and
    • associating the name with the IP address.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶31, Prayer ¶a).

U.S. Patent No. 7,191,274 - "Method and System for Providing Independent Server Functionality in a Single Personal Computer," issued Mar. 13, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the space and heat inefficiencies of deploying multiple, separate physical servers by proposing a single chassis that houses a plurality of independent server cards ('274 Patent, col. 1:12-19). These cards share a common power supply but crucially do not communicate over a shared internal system bus, instead using dedicated external network connections for communication, effectively creating multiple servers in one box ('274 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-61).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent system claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Accused Features: The HPE Apollo 2000 Gen10 Plus System is accused of infringement. It is alleged to be a chassis with slots for multiple server cards (e.g., ProLiant XL225n servers), where each card provides an independent server function and is free from any direct inter-card bus connection (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," issued May 18, 2004

  • Technology Synopsis: As a parent to the '010 Patent, this patent targets the same problem of diagnosing remote system failures ('930 Patent, col. 1:43-49). It discloses a method and apparatus where an "alarm card" with an embedded "micro-server" is placed in a host computer to monitor web pages generated by the host CPU. This allows the alarm card to report system status information over an out-of-band network, independent of the host system's operational state ('930 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent method claim 8 (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: The HPE ProLiant DL320 Gen11 server is accused, with its embedded HPE iLO 5 management processor allegedly functioning as the claimed "alarm card with a micro-server" to monitor web pages from the host for health status reporting (Compl. ¶51).

U.S. Patent No. 7,310,750 - "Method and System for Extending the Functionality of an Environmental Monitor for an Industrial Personal Computer," issued Dec. 18, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the same family as the '930 and '010 patents and shares a common specification. It describes a system for extending remote monitoring capabilities through an alarm card with an onboard server ('750 Patent, Abstract). This server monitors web-based content generated by the host computer and provides access to that information via an out-of-band network connection, allowing for remote administration and diagnostics ('750 Patent, col. 3:9-15).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent method claim 8 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Accused Features: The infringement allegation again targets the HPE ProLiant DL320 Gen11 server and its iLO 5 management system, which is alleged to be an "alarm card with a server thereon for monitoring web pages contained on said host CPU" (Compl. ¶61).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names a broad portfolio of "Accused Products," including various HPE server lines (ProLiant, Synergy, Apollo) and storage systems (Nimble Storage Array) (Compl. ¶17). The specific counts focus on the HPE ProLiant DL320 Gen11 server with Integrated Lights-Out (iLO) 5, the HPE Apollo 2000 Gen10 Plus System, and the HPE Nimble Storage Array (Compl. ¶23, ¶33, ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are enterprise-grade server and storage solutions. The complaint alleges HPE is a "leading manufacturer and seller" of such equipment globally (Compl. ¶2).
  • The HPE ProLiant servers with iLO 5 provide remote "lights-out" management. The complaint alleges iLO 5 is an embedded processor on the server system board that enables monitoring and control of the server over a dedicated or shared network connection, including providing server health monitoring (Compl. ¶42, ¶51).
  • The HPE Nimble Storage Array is accused of providing network-addressable storage. The complaint alleges it receives requests to create storage "volumes," allocates them, and obtains a "target IP" address for them via DHCP, allowing network access through protocols like iSCSI (Compl. ¶33).
  • The HPE Apollo 2000 Gen10 Plus System is described as a high-density computer system comprising a chassis that houses multiple server nodes (e.g., "ProLiant XL225n Gen10+ servers"), each allegedly operating as an independent server (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

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

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a remote computer, having a host CPU The HPE ProLiant DL320 Gen11 server is a remote computer with a host CPU. ¶42 col. 6:29-32
providing an administrator computer A management workstation used to remotely access the server. ¶42 col. 6:33-34
providing a first network connection between said remote computer and said administrator computer The iLO is connected to the network through a dedicated management network or shared connection. ¶42 col. 6:35-38
providing, on said remote computer, a management appliance with a microserver thereon for monitoring host computer monitoring web pages generated via said host CPU The server provides server health monitoring via the iLO, which is alleged to be the management appliance with a microserver. ¶42 col. 6:39-44
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement theory may depend on the construction of "management appliance." A key question is whether an integrated management processor (like HPE's iLO), which is part of the server's main system board, can be considered a "management appliance," a term the patent specification consistently illustrates as a separate plug-in "card" ('010 Patent, FIG. 2).
    • Technical Questions: A significant technical question arises from the limitation "monitoring host computer monitoring web pages generated via said host CPU." It is a point for discovery whether the accused iLO system actually monitors web pages generated by the host's main CPU, or if it monitors system health through direct, low-level hardware interfaces (e.g., sensors on a system management bus) and then generates its own web interface to display that data.

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

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving, from a network element via a network interface, a request for a partition allocation, the request including a name The HPE Nimble Storage Array receives a request for a "partition (e.g., volumes) allocation" via a network interface (iSCSI or fiber channel), which includes a name. ¶33 col. 12:12-14
creating and allocating a partition of a storage medium based at least in part on the received request The accused system creates and allocates a partition (volume) on its storage medium. ¶33 col. 12:15-17
obtaining, from a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) server, an internet protocol (IP) address for the partition of the storage medium The accused system obtains an IP address ("e.g., target IP") for the partition of the storage medium from a DHCP server. ¶33 col. 12:18-21
associating the name with the IP address The accused system associates the provided name with the IP address. ¶33 col. 12:22-23
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The core of the dispute may be whether the accused functionality maps to the claim language. The complaint alleges obtaining a "target IP" for the partition. In iSCSI architecture, a single target IP address can be an endpoint for accessing multiple logical units (LUNs or volumes). This raises the question of whether an IP address for a target that serves multiple volumes satisfies the claim limitation of obtaining an IP address "for the partition," which the patent suggests is a one-to-one relationship ('271 Patent, Abstract).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '010 Patent

  • The Term: "management appliance"
  • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim against HPE's servers hinges on whether the integrated iLO processor qualifies as a "management appliance." Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused technology is integrated onto the motherboard, whereas the patent's embodiments depict a separate card.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined with structural limitations in the claims. A party might argue that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any apparatus, integrated or separate, that performs the recited management functions.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to the invention in the context of an "alarm card 208" or "management appliance 208" that is a distinct component installable in an expansion bus slot ('010 Patent, FIG. 2; col. 4:50-51). The abstract also describes a "microserver disposed on a management appliance," suggesting two distinct components. This consistent depiction may support a narrower construction limited to a physically separate device.

For the '271 Patent

  • The Term: "an internet protocol (IP) address for the partition"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused HPE Nimble Storage Array allegedly assigns an IP address to an iSCSI "target," which may host multiple "volumes" (partitions). The dispute will likely center on whether this architecture meets the claim's requirement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that an IP address that provides the sole network access point to a partition is functionally an IP address for that partition, even if the same address also provides access to other partitions.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract states its invention provides "partitions that are separately addressed by distinct IP addresses." The specification emphasizes that this allows direct peer-to-peer access, stating, "Utilizing IP addresses to route packets directly to and from partitions facilitates the use of very light communication protocols" ('271 Patent, col. 3:24-27). This repeated emphasis on distinct, partition-level addressing could support a construction requiring a unique IP address for each partition, not a shared target IP.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges induced infringement for all patents-in-suit, asserting that Defendant supplies the accused products with instructions, user manuals, and other publications that encourage and facilitate infringing use by customers and end-users (Compl. ¶26, ¶36, ¶45, ¶54, ¶64).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint advances willfulness on two grounds. First, it alleges a general theory of willful blindness, claiming Defendant "adopted a policy of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶25, ¶35). Second, it alleges actual pre-suit knowledge based on prior infringement lawsuits Plaintiff filed against Defendant's competitors (Compl. ¶17, fn. 1) and, for the '930 and '750 patents, on Defendant having cited the patent family in its own patent prosecution (Compl. ¶53, fn. 2; ¶63, fn. 3).

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

The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following central questions:

  1. Technical Operation vs. Claim Language: A primary battleground will be the factual question of how the accused products actually work. For the remote monitoring patents ('010, '930, '750), the key question is whether HPE's iLO system monitors web pages generated by the host CPU as claimed, or if it uses a fundamentally different method of monitoring hardware and generates its own web interface, creating a potential mismatch with the claim language.

  2. Definitional Scope: The case will involve significant claim construction disputes. For the remote monitoring patents, a core issue is one of structural scope: can the term "management appliance," consistently depicted in the patent as a separate card, be construed to read on an integrated management processor like iLO? For the storage patent ('271), the issue is one of architectural scope: does an IP address for an iSCSI "target" that serves multiple volumes satisfy the claim requirement for an IP address "for the partition"?

  3. Negative Limitation in Blade Architecture: For the '274 patent concerning multi-server chassis, a key evidentiary question will be whether the accused HPE Apollo system, a modern blade server architecture, truly meets the negative limitation of being "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus," given the probable existence of high-speed backplanes for data or management functions in such systems.