Elite Gaming Tech LLC v. Inventec Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Elite Gaming Tech LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Inventec Corporation (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP; Rubino IP; Truelove Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00186, E.D. Tex., 04/24/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that 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, which incorporate third-party hard disk drives and hybrid drives, infringe six patents related to methods for configuring and operating digital data storage arrangements.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to low-level control and data management protocols within electromechanical storage devices, a technology foundational to the server and enterprise storage markets.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit or their direct family members, asserting that Defendant or its subsidiaries cited them during the prosecution of their own foreign patent applications. These allegations may form the basis for claims of induced and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,973,535 - “Digital Device Configuration and Method”

• Issued: December 6, 2005

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the technical challenge of managing increasingly complex peripheral devices, such as hard disk drives, which contain multiple internal components (e.g., servo controllers, read/write channels, preamplifiers) that require coordinated control. (’535 Patent, col. 4:32-52). Traditional approaches often involved inflexible, hard-coded firmware, making it difficult to customize or update device operations. (’535 Patent, col. 5:1-6).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more flexible method for operating a storage device by using a system of serial interfaces. A central "primary serial gateway" on the host device communicates with individual serial interfaces for each internal component of the storage arrangement. A "serial router" directs control data to the correct component, allowing for customized command sets and more dynamic control over the device's internal functions. (’535 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:5-15). This architecture is intended to decouple the host controller from the specific hardware implementation of the storage device.
• Technical Importance: This approach suggests a shift toward a more modular and programmable architecture for storage device control, potentially reducing complexity and increasing adaptability for different hardware configurations. (’535 Patent, col. 6:33-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 20. (Compl. ¶20).
• Claim 20 of the ’535 Patent contains the following essential elements:
  • Configuring a primary serial gateway, forming part of the storage arrangement, for externally bi-directionally transferring serial control-related data used in operating said devices.
  • Arranging a host serial interface, as part of the host device, in data communication with the primary serial gateway for applying a serial protocol to the serial control-related data.
  • Using a serial router, as part of said storage arrangement and in data communication with said primary serial gateway, to manage the serial control-related data between the primary serial gateway and each of the device serial interfaces.

U.S. Patent No. 7,546,411 - “Digital Device Configuration and Method”

• Issued: June 9, 2009

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for precise timing and coordination in data storage operations, where control signals and data writing operations must be synchronized. (’411 Patent, col. 11:52-66).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a clock signal is used for two purposes: first, to clock the transfer of bi-directional control data via a serial gateway, and second, to serve as a time base reference for the physical act of writing data to the disk. (’411 Patent, Abstract). A serial router is set to direct this clocked control data to a selected digital device within the storage arrangement to implement a specific command.
• Technical Importance: Using a common clock for both control signaling and data writing provides a unified timing reference, which can improve the reliability and precision of storage operations. (’411 Patent, col. 11:61-66).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 1. (Compl. ¶29).
• Claim 1 of the ’411 Patent contains the following essential elements:
  • Providing bi-directional control related serial data that is clocked using a clock signal.
  • Writing first data to the disk using said clock signal as a time base reference.
  • Setting a serial router to route the bi-directional control related serial data to a selected one of the digital devices so as to implement a particular command set for the selected one of the digital devices.
  • Routing the bi-directional control related serial data to the selected one of the digital devices via the dedicated serial interface of the selected one of the digital devices.

U.S. Patent No. 8,001,321 - “Digital Device Configuration and Method”

• Issued: August 16, 2011
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for a host device to directly control a storage arrangement using "native code" instructions. These low-level instructions are transmitted from the host processor to the storage device without being interpreted by intervening high-level protocol layers, allowing for more direct and immediate control, potentially in response to a user interaction that is only partially complete. (Compl. ¶39).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 16. (Compl. ¶38).
• Accused Features: The Inventec U30G4 server is accused of performing the method steps, such as transmitting native code instructions from its host processor to an electromechanical data storage arrangement. (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Patent No. 8,312,209 - “Digital Device Configuration and Method”

• Issued: November 13, 2012
• Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a method of predictive data handling where a data storage arrangement begins performing a portion of a data transfer operation before the user has fully completed the command. A user command is described as comprising multiple user actions (e.g., identifying files and specifying an action), and the transfer can start after one action but before another. (Compl. ¶48).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 6. (Compl. ¶47).
• Accused Features: The Inventec U30G4 server is accused of performing these predictive data transfer steps, such as initiating a data transfer before a user command is complete. (Compl. ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 8,631,196 - “Digital Device Configuration and Method”

• Issued: January 14, 2014
• Technology Synopsis: This patent is similar to the ’209 Patent, describing a method of controlling a storage arrangement by receiving a command composed of distinct "identity actions" (identifying data) and "directive actions" (specifying a job). The method involves causing the storage arrangement to perform a first portion of a data transfer after at least one identity action has occurred but before the command is fully completed. (Compl. ¶57).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 10. (Compl. ¶56).
• Accused Features: The Inventec U30G4 server is accused of performing this method of breaking down user commands and preemptively starting data transfer operations. (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 9,940,025 - “Digital Device Configuration and Method”

• Issued: April 10, 2018
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for managing data in a hybrid storage system. It involves monitoring user interaction to identify selected data on a primary digital data storage arrangement (e.g., an HDD susceptible to shock) and transferring that data to a solid-state memory. This makes the data available from the more durable solid-state memory without needing to access the shock-sensitive primary storage. (Compl. ¶66).
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 12. (Compl. ¶65).
• Accused Features: The Inventec U30G4 server is accused of performing this method when utilizing SSHDs or Dual Drive Hybrid Systems. (Compl. ¶¶65-66).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses Inventec computer systems, such as servers, that utilize certain Hard Disk Drives (HDDs), Solid-State Hybrid Drives (SSHDs), and Dual-Drive Hybrid Systems supplied by third parties including Western Digital and Hitachi Global Storage Technologies (HGST). (Compl. ¶15). The "Inventec U30G4 server" is identified as a specific exemplary product. (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are servers that incorporate these storage devices. The complaint alleges that the servers themselves perform the patented methods of configuring and controlling the incorporated drives. (Compl. ¶¶21, 30, 39, 48, 57, 66). The complaint characterizes Inventec as a "leading manufacturer and seller of computers and storage equipment in the world and in the United States." (Compl. ¶2).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'535 Patent Infringement Allegations

'411 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The asserted claims are drawn to methods of operating a data storage arrangement. The complaint alleges that the server performs these steps. A central question may be whether the server, as a system incorporating a third-party component (the HDD), can be liable for directly infringing method claims that appear to describe the internal operations of that component's controller. This raises the possibility of a dispute over divided infringement or whether the proper party has been accused of direct infringement.
• Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations closely track the language of the claims. A potential point of contention will be the evidentiary basis for these allegations. For example, what evidence does the complaint provide that the Inventec server actively performs the step of "configuring a primary serial gateway" or "setting a serial router" within the incorporated hard drive, as opposed to simply passing high-level commands (e.g., standard ATA/SATA commands) to a self-contained hard drive that manages its own internal operations?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"primary serial gateway" (’535 Patent, claim 20)

• Context and Importance: This term appears to define the primary interface between the host device and the internal components of the storage arrangement. The infringement theory hinges on the allegation that the Inventec server "configures" this gateway. The construction of this term—whether it refers to a specific, configurable hardware component, a logical data path, or a standardized interface—will be critical to determining if the server's actions meet this claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the gateway in functional terms, stating it is for "externally bi-directionally transferring a serial control-related data." (’535 Patent, col. 11:7-8). This functional language could support a construction that is not limited to a specific physical structure.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 22 of the ’535 Patent depicts "SERIAL GATEWAY 1350" as a distinct block within a larger circuit diagram, connected to a "SERIAL ROM" and a "CONTROL BLOCK." (’535 Patent, Fig. 22). This embodiment may support a narrower construction requiring a specific, identifiable hardware or firmware module.

"serial router" (’535 Patent, claim 20; ’411 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The "serial router" is the component allegedly used by the server to manage or route control data. Determining what constitutes a "serial router" in the context of a modern server and HDD interface is central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because standard storage interfaces may not be described as containing a "router" that is "set" by the host system in the manner claimed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims describe the router's function as "manag[ing]" or "rout[ing]" serial data. (’535 Patent, col. 11:15-16). This functional description could be argued to cover any logical process or multiplexer that directs data, not just a device formally labeled a "router."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the serial router is used for "selectively asserting each read and write command set to each of said devices" and uses a "device identification" to direct the command. (’535 Patent, col. 11:34-39). This suggests a specific address-based routing mechanism, which could support a narrower construction than a simple data bus.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant knowingly and intentionally induces its customers and end-users to directly infringe by making, using, and selling the accused servers. (Compl. ¶¶22, 31, 40, 49, 58, 67). The basis for knowledge is alleged to stem from Defendant's citations to the patents-in-suit or their families during prosecution of its own patents. (Compl. ¶23 fn.1; ¶32 fn.2; ¶41 fn.3).

Willful Infringement

While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint alleges that Defendant's induced infringement was done "knowingly and intentionally" and, in the alternative, with "willful blindness." (Compl. ¶¶23-24). The factual predicate for willfulness appears to be the same pre-suit knowledge allegations cited for inducement.

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

• A core issue will be one of infringement attribution: can the accused Inventec servers be found to directly perform the claimed method steps, which appear to describe the low-level internal operations of a hard drive controller, or does this theory improperly attribute the actions of a third-party component (the HDD) to the system that merely incorporates and uses it via standard protocols?
• A second key question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: beyond the complaint's conclusory allegations that recite claim language, what technical evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused servers actually perform the specific, granular acts of "configuring a primary serial gateway" or "setting a serial router" within the storage devices, as required by the claims?