ServStor Tech LLC v. Inspur Group Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ServStor Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Inspur Group Co. Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP; Rubino IP; Truelove Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00183, E.D. Tex., 04/21/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that 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 and rack products infringe five U.S. patents related to server hardware architecture, remote management, and network-based storage partitioning.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern methods for increasing the density, efficiency, and remote manageability of computer servers, which are critical functions in modern data centers and enterprise computing environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit prior to this lawsuit due to a series of infringement suits Plaintiff filed against Defendant's direct competitors beginning in 2022, asserting the same patents.

Case Timeline

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

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,191,274, "Method and System for Providing Independent Server Functionality in a Single Personal Computer," issued March 13, 2007 (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies that deploying multiple independent, single-function servers consumes significant physical space and generates excessive heat, largely because each server typically requires its own chassis and power supply (’274 Patent, col. 1:11-20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer system architecture where multiple "planar shaped circuit cards," each acting as an independent server, are housed in a single chassis sharing a common power supply. Crucially, these cards plug into standard expansion slots (e.g., PCI) for power only and are configured to be "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus," communicating instead through dedicated external connectors. (’274 Patent, col. 2:23-34, col. 2:55-61).
• Technical Importance: This modular design increases server density and power efficiency, representing an early approach to the concepts later commercialized as blade server technology (’274 Patent, col. 1:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
• The essential elements of claim 1 are:
  • A computer system with a chassis containing multiple slots for planar circuit cards.
  • A shroud that forms an enclosure around the circuit cards.
  • The circuit cards are each configured to provide an "independent dedicated server function."
  • The circuit cards are configured to be "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus" inside the enclosure.
• The complaint states that Defendant may infringe other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶24).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,870,271, "Disk Drive Partitioning Methods and Apparatus," issued January 11, 2011 (Compl. ¶8).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a trend toward disaggregating computer functions over networks, but notes that storage access has remained dependent on a local, and often complex, host operating system, limiting flexibility and direct network accessibility (’271 Patent, col. 1:15-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a storage apparatus that allows its partitions to be directly and separately addressed by distinct IP addresses. The apparatus includes a "storage element" that can, upon receiving a network request, create a partition, obtain a unique IP address for it from a DHCP server, and associate that IP address with the partition, effectively turning the partition into an independent, peer-to-peer accessible network resource (’271 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:18-38).
• Technical Importance: This technology is a foundational concept for modern Network Attached Storage (NAS) and other forms of network-centric storage, as it decouples storage management from a specific host computer's operating system (’271 Patent, col. 2:56-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
• The essential elements of claim 1 are:
  • An apparatus comprising a storage medium, a network interface, and a storage element.
  • The storage element is configured to receive a request for a partition allocation that includes a name.
  • The storage element creates and allocates a partition on the storage medium based on the request.
  • The storage element obtains an IP address for the partition from a DHCP server.
  • The storage element associates the name with the obtained IP address.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶34).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,000,010, "System and Method for Caching Web Pages on a Management Appliance for Personal Computers," issued February 14, 2006 (Compl. ¶7).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for post-crash diagnostics. A management appliance within a host computer is configured to continuously cache recent status web pages generated by the host. If the host system crashes, these cached pages remain accessible on the appliance via an independent, out-of-band network connection, allowing an administrator to analyze the host's state immediately preceding the failure (’010 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:11-30).
• Asserted Claims: At least method claim 6 is asserted (Compl. ¶41).
• Accused Features: The complaint targets Inspur servers equipped with Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) modules that provide remote monitoring and management capabilities (Compl. ¶40, ¶42).

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

• Patent Identification: 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 (Compl. ¶10).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses an "alarm card" for an industrial computer that includes its own microserver. This enables the alarm card to communicate with an agent on the host computer to monitor web-enabled content and environmental status. This architecture allows the monitoring functions to be reconfigured remotely through software, avoiding the need for physical hardware changes (’930 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:12-25).
• Asserted Claims: At least method claim 8 is asserted (Compl. ¶50).
• Accused Features: The allegations target Inspur servers with onboard BMCs that monitor and report status information such as temperature and power, and which can be managed remotely (Compl. ¶49, ¶51).

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,310,750, "Method and System for Extending the Functionality of an Environmental Monitor for an Industrial Personal Computer," issued December 18, 2007 (Compl. ¶11).
• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the '930 patent, this patent covers similar technology. It describes an alarm card with an onboard server for monitoring web-based status information from a host computer. The system facilitates remote diagnostics and configuration changes via an out-of-band network connection, enhancing the flexibility of environmental monitoring (’750 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:12-25).
• Asserted Claims: At least method claim 8 is asserted (Compl. ¶59).
• Accused Features: The infringement allegations are functionally identical to those against the '930 Patent, focusing on Inspur servers' remote monitoring and management functions provided by their BMCs (Compl. ¶58, ¶60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a wide array of Defendant’s products, primarily Inspur M5, M6, and G7 series servers, as well as the "OCP Cloud Optimized Rack Solution" and the "Inspur Physical Infrastructure Manager ('ISPIM')" software (Compl. ¶17-18).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are enterprise-grade servers and rack systems sold for use in data centers (Compl. ¶2). The complaint focuses on specific functionalities:

• The "OCP Cloud Optimized Rack Solution" is alleged to be a system comprising a chassis with slots that house multiple independent server cards (Compl. ¶23).
• The "NF5280M5 server," identified as a representative product for several patents, is alleged to provide remote management and status monitoring via an onboard Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) and a dedicated management interface (Compl. ¶42). A screenshot from the product's webpage lists features such as "Onboard BMC management module, supporting IPMI, SOL, KVM Over IP," which the complaint uses as evidence of the accused functionality (Compl. ¶42, fn. 2).
• The same servers are alleged to have storage elements capable of creating network-addressable partitions on request (Compl. ¶33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'274 Patent Infringement Allegations

'271 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: For the '274 patent, a primary question will be the scope of the term "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus." The court may need to determine if modern server backplanes, which often include management or control buses separate from the main data bus, meet this limitation.
• Technical Questions: For the '271 patent and the management patents ('010, '930, '750), the infringement allegations are made "upon information and belief." A key point of contention will be evidentiary: what proof will be offered to show that the accused servers' software and firmware perform the claimed functions (e.g., requesting a DHCP address for a partition, caching web pages for post-crash analysis) in the specific manner required by the claims, as opposed to similar functions being performed by the server's main operating system.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'274 Patent, Claim 1

• The Term: "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus"
• Context and Importance: This limitation is the central feature distinguishing the invention from a standard computer where multiple cards communicate over a common system bus. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the '274 patent likely hinges on the construction of this phrase, as the accused OCP rack system almost certainly has some form of bus-level connectivity between server blades for power and management.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term should be interpreted in the context of the problem solved—isolating primary server functions. Language such as "allows for insertion of a new server card without the need to make changes to the system software and without any interference in the communication of signals in and out of other independent dedicated server cards" could suggest the "connection" at issue is one that would cause such interference, not ancillary management links (’274 Patent, col. 2:58-62).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the plain language "any direct communication connection" is absolute and unambiguous. If any bus exists that allows any form of direct communication between the cards, this limitation is not met. The use of the word "any" may support a construction that prohibits all such bus connections, regardless of their purpose.

'271 Patent, Claim 1

• The Term: "storage element"
• Context and Importance: The claim requires a "storage element" to perform a series of specific, intelligent actions (receiving requests, creating partitions, obtaining IP addresses). Practitioners may focus on this term because in a modern server, these functions are often distributed across multiple logical and physical components, including the host OS, firmware, and controller hardware. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether this distributed functionality can be mapped to the singular "storage element" of the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define "storage element" as a single, physical hardware chip. The claim itself defines the element by its functions: it is "communicatively coupled to the storage medium and the network interface and configured to..." perform the recited steps (’271 Patent, col. 8:39-42). This functional language may support a construction where the "element" is the logical combination of hardware and software that achieves the claimed result.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim separately recites the "storage medium," the "network interface," and the "storage element." A party could argue this structure implies three distinct components. If the accused product performs the claimed functions using the server's general-purpose CPU and main operating system, a defendant might argue that no such distinct "storage element" exists as required by the claim's structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. The factual basis is that Defendant provides the accused products to customers and end-users with knowledge and intent that they will be used in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶24-26, ¶34-36).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on a series of lawsuits Plaintiff filed against Defendant’s competitors on the same patents, with the complaint asserting Defendant was "willfully blind." Post-suit knowledge is alleged to exist at least from the date the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶17, fn. 1; ¶25).

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

• A central issue for the '274 patent will be one of architectural scope: can the server cards in the accused "OCP Cloud Optimized Rack Solution," which likely share a backplane for power and management signals, be considered "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus" as required by the claim, or does any form of inter-card bus communication negate infringement?
• A key question for the '271, '010, '930, and '750 patents will be one of functional allocation: do the accused Inspur servers contain a discrete "storage element" or "management appliance" that performs the claimed functions, or are these functions so integrated into the general-purpose CPU and operating system that they cannot be mapped to the specific components recited in the patent claims?
• Underlying the entire case is an evidentiary question: as the infringement allegations rely on "information and belief," a critical focus will be on the technical evidence Plaintiff can develop during discovery to prove that the complex accused servers actually operate in the specific, nuanced manner claimed by each of the five asserted patents.