ServStor Tech LLC v. MiTAC Computing Technology Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ServStor Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: MiTAC Computing Technology Corporation (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP; Rubino IP; Truelove Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: ServStor Technologies LLC v. MiTAC Computing Technology Corporation, 2:23-cv-00185, E.D. Tex., 04/21/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper 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 products infringe five U.S. patents related to server architecture, remote management, and disk drive partitioning.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns technologies for high-density computing and remote server administration, which are fundamental to modern data centers and cloud infrastructure.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit based on prior patent infringement lawsuits Plaintiff filed against several of Defendant's direct competitors, which are cited as the basis for willful infringement allegations.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency of deploying multiple independent, single-function servers, which it states consume extensive space and generate significant heat, largely due to each server having its own power supply (ʼ274 Patent, col. 1:11-20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer system architecture where a single chassis with a shared power supply houses a plurality of independent server cards. Crucially, these server cards are designed to be functionally isolated, receiving power from the chassis but not communicating with each other over a shared internal bus. Instead, each card has its own dedicated external communication connection, enabling high-density deployment without the risk of a single card's failure impacting others (ʼ274 Patent, col. 2:55-61; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This architecture describes a foundational concept for "blade server" systems, which allow data centers to increase computing density and improve power efficiency by consolidating non-computing components like power and cooling (ʼ274 Patent, col. 2:49-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A computer system comprising a chassis with a plurality of slots for circuit cards.
  • A shroud to form an enclosure around the circuit cards.
  • A plurality of planar shaped circuit cards, each configured to provide an independent dedicated server function.
  • Each circuit card is configured to be "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus inside said enclosure."
• 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 a trend toward disaggregating computing resources over networks but notes that storage access has remained dependent on a host operating system, creating a liability and requiring "much less overhead" for portable and networked devices (ʼ271 Patent, col. 1:38-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a storage device whose partitions can be treated as independent, peer-to-peer network resources. The system allows a storage element to receive a request over a network, create a partition, obtain a unique Internet Protocol (IP) address for that specific partition (e.g., from a DHCP server), and associate a name with it. This allows other devices to access the storage partition directly via its IP address without going through a host computer's operating system (ʼ271 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:18-47).
• Technical Importance: This technology facilitates the decoupling of storage from a specific computer, a core principle behind network-attached storage (NAS) and modern cloud storage, where storage resources can be provisioned and accessed flexibly across a network ('271 Patent, col. 1:53-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

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

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

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a system for enhancing remote server management. A management appliance within a host computer caches status web pages generated by the host. If the host computer crashes, these cached pages remain accessible to a remote administrator via an "out-of-band" network connection, preserving critical diagnostic data about the host's state immediately before the failure (’010 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:12-23).

Asserted Claims

At least claim 6 (a method claim) is asserted (Compl. ¶41).

Accused Features

The accused features are the remote server management capabilities of MiTAC servers, which allegedly use a management appliance with a microserver (such as a Baseboard Management Controller) to monitor the host computer and provide access to status information via a dedicated network connection (Compl. ¶42).

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 discloses an "alarm card" for an industrial computer that includes its own microserver and an "out-of-band" network connection. This allows the alarm card to monitor environmental and system parameters of the host computer and report that information to a remote administrator, even if the host's main CPU has failed. The system also allows a software agent on the host to provide web-based content to the alarm card for monitoring (’930 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:45-61).

Asserted Claims

At least claim 8 (a method claim) is asserted (Compl. ¶50).

Accused Features

The accused features are the remote monitoring functions in MiTAC servers, allegedly performed by an alarm card or Baseboard Management Controller that monitors and reports status (e.g., temperature, voltage) independently of the host CPU (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

Technology Synopsis

As a continuation of the ’930 Patent, this patent covers a similar technology. It describes an alarm card in an industrial computer with a microserver and an out-of-band connection, enabling robust, independent monitoring of the host computer's status and web-based content (’750 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

At least claim 8 (a method claim) is asserted (Compl. ¶59).

Accused Features

The accused features are the same remote monitoring and management functions in MiTAC servers as those accused of infringing the ’930 Patent (Compl. ¶60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names several series of MiTAC servers, including the SX, HX, CX, RX, EX, Transport, Tomcat, Thunder, and Trinity server lines, and their associated hardware and software (Compl. ¶17). The allegations specify the "Transport CX TD76-B8058" as an exemplary product for the ’274 and ’271 Patents, and the "Transport CX GC79A-B8252" for the ’010, ’930, and ’750 Patents (Compl. ¶¶23, 33, 42).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused instrumentalities are server computers, which form the backbone of data centers and enterprise IT infrastructure. The complaint focuses on two categories of functionality.
• First, for the ’274 and ’271 Patents, the allegations center on the physical and logical architecture of the servers. The complaint alleges the servers use a high-density chassis design with independent server cards and possess storage systems that can allocate network-addressable partitions on demand (Compl. ¶¶23, 33).
• Second, for the ’010, ’930, and ’750 Patents, the allegations focus on remote management capabilities. The complaint alleges the servers include management modules, such as an IPMI 2.0 compliant Baseboard Management Controller (BMC), that operate independently of the main server CPU to monitor system health (e.g., temperature, voltage) and provide out-of-band access for administrators (Compl. ¶¶17, 42, 51, 60). To support this, the complaint includes a table from an accused product's datasheet showing a dedicated management chipset and network interface. This table, provided as a visual in the complaint, identifies an "Onboard Aspeed AST2500" chipset and an "IPMI 2.0 compliant baseboard management controller (BMC) / 10/100/1000 Mb/s MAC interface" (Compl. p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’274 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary point of contention may be the scope of the negative limitation "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus." The defense could argue that while the main data pathways for the server cards are separate, some low-level management or presence-detection signals might be shared on a common bus, which could be construed as a "direct communication connection." The case may turn on whether this term permits such minimal, non-data interconnections.

’271 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: The infringement allegations for this patent are made "upon information and belief." A key question will be evidentiary: what proof will Plaintiff offer that the accused product's "storage element" obtains a distinct IP address specifically for the partition, as the claim requires, rather than for a storage controller that manages multiple non-IP-addressable partitions? The distinction between a network-addressable partition and a network-addressable controller is a critical technical point.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus" (’274 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the central feature defining the patent's novel architecture. The entire infringement case for the ’274 Patent hinges on whether the accused servers, which likely have some form of shared backplane, meet this negative limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine whether modern blade server architectures, which often have shared low-level management buses, fall within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's objective is to solve problems of heat and space by eliminating duplicative components and to prevent interference between servers (ʼ274 Patent, col. 2:55-61). This context may support an interpretation where "inter-card bus" refers to substantive data or processing buses, not minimal utility connections like a shared I2C management bus.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the word "any" in "any direct communication connection" and "any inter-card bus" suggests an absolute prohibition. The plain language could support an interpretation that if any electrical line directly connects two cards (other than for power distribution), the claim limitation is not met.

Term: "obtain ... an internet protocol (IP) address for the partition" (’271 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the invention from conventional network storage where a device has an IP address but its internal volumes or partitions do not. Infringement depends on whether the accused product assigns IP addresses at the partition level, making each partition an independent network endpoint.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's goal is to enable direct, peer-to-peer access to partitions "without the need to go through an operating system" (ʼ271 Patent, col. 1:53-57). This purpose suggests that the partition itself must be the network-addressable entity, supporting a reading that the IP address belongs to and identifies the partition directly.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that a "storage element" (e.g., a controller) that obtains an IP address and uses it to manage access for the partition meets the claim's language. The specification states the "storage device" can be connected to a bus via an "IP adapter" (ʼ271 Patent, col. 3:33-35), which could be argued as evidence that the device/controller, not the partition, is the component that holds the IP address.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

For all five patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. It asserts that Defendant knowingly and intentionally induces its customers and end-users to directly infringe by providing them with the accused servers and associated software for use in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶24-26, 34-36).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents-in-suit "at least as of the filing of suits against their direct competitors." The complaint explicitly lists six prior lawsuits filed by ServStor against other major server manufacturers in 2022 and 2023, asserting this put Defendant on notice (Compl. ¶17, fn. 1). The complaint further claims that "At the very least, MiTAC remained willfully blind to its infringement" (Compl. p. 5, fn. 1).

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural scope: For the ’274 patent, can the negative limitation "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus" be interpreted to read on modern blade server architectures that isolate primary data paths but may share low-level management or control buses?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: For the ’271 patent, can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused servers' storage system obtains and assigns a unique, network-routable IP address directly to a partition, as claimed, or does it merely assign an IP address to a storage controller that manages access to multiple partitions?
• A central question for damages will be pre-suit knowledge: Does Plaintiff’s citation of its prior lawsuits against Defendant’s competitors constitute legally sufficient notice to support a claim of willful infringement, or will Defendant be able to establish a good-faith belief of non-infringement or invalidity that negates the requisite intent?