Elite Gaming Tech LLC v. Wistron Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Elite Gaming Tech LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Wistron Corporation (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP; Rubino IP; Truelove Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00191, E.D. Tex., 04/24/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that because Defendant is not a resident of the United States, venue is proper in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s servers, which incorporate third-party hard disk drives, infringe patents related to methods for configuring and controlling digital data storage arrangements.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the internal architecture and control protocols for electromechanical data storage devices, such as hard disk drives, which are fundamental components in servers and computers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant cited the families of both patents-in-suit during the prosecution of its own foreign patent, which was published in 2014. This allegation may be used to support claims of pre-suit knowledge for willfulness and induced 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 (’535 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the architectural complexity of controlling the various internal components of a data storage device, such as the servo electronics, read/write electronics, and preamp electronics, each of which may require its own control interface and firmware (ʼ535 Patent, col. 4:22-68). Managing these different interfaces and firmware sets from a host device is inefficient and complex (ʼ535 Patent, col. 5:1-17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a streamlined control architecture within the storage device. It introduces a "primary serial gateway" to handle external communication and a "serial router" to manage the "serial control-related data" between this gateway and the dedicated serial interfaces of the various internal components (e.g., servo, read/write, preamp) (ʼ535 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:1-13). This allows a host device to use a single, consistent protocol to control multiple, distinct internal functions (ʼ535 Patent, col. 11:46-53).
• Technical Importance: This architecture provides a flexible and scalable method for a host system to manage the complex internal operations of a storage device without needing to address each sub-component's unique protocol directly (ʼ535 Patent, col. 6:33-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 20 (Compl. ¶16).
• Essential elements of claim 20 include:
  • Configuring a primary serial gateway, part of the storage arrangement, for bi-directionally transferring serial control-related data.
  • Arranging a host serial interface, part of the host device, in data communication with the primary serial gateway for applying a serial protocol.
  • Using a serial router, part of the storage arrangement, to manage the serial control-related data between the primary serial gateway and each of the device serial interfaces.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,546,411 - “Digital Device Configuration and Method,” issued June 9, 2009 (’411 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for precise timing and routing of control signals within a digital storage device that contains multiple sub-components, each with a dedicated interface (’411 Patent, col. 2:20-31). Synchronizing data writing operations with control commands is critical for reliable performance.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where bi-directional control data is "clocked using a clock signal." This same clock signal is then used as a "time base reference" for the physical act of writing data to the disk. The system also uses a "serial router" to direct this clocked control data to a selected digital device within the storage arrangement to execute a command set (’411 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:59-66; col. 13:1-13).
• Technical Importance: By using a common clock signal for both serial communication timing and as a reference for the write operation, the invention aims to ensure tight synchronization between control commands and their physical execution on the storage media (’411 Patent, col. 12:62-66).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • In a digital data storage arrangement with a disk and at least two digital devices each with a dedicated serial interface, a method comprising:
  • Providing bi-directional control related serial data that is clocked using a clock signal.
  • Writing first data to the disk using the 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.
  • Routing the bi-directional control related serial data to the selected digital device via the dedicated serial interface of the selected device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Wistron servers, with the "ST7000 G2 server" identified as an exemplary product (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). The complaint alleges these servers incorporate hard disk drives ("HDDs") supplied by third parties Western Digital and Hitachi Global Storage Technologies ("HGST"), specifically identifying the "Ultrastar DC HC350" and "Ultrastar DC HC530" drives (Compl. ¶¶11, 16, 17, 25, 26).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused ST7000 G2 server as a system that includes an "electromechanical digital data storage arrangement" (the HDD) containing a rotatable disk, an actuator arm, and various electronics with dedicated serial interfaces (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). The server is alleged to perform the patented methods of configuring gateways, routing serial data, and using clock signals for timing and writing data (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). The complaint alleges Wistron is a "leading manufacturer and seller of computers and storage equipment" (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:

• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused servers perform the claimed method steps by tracking the claim language, but provides limited detail on how the specific components of the accused servers (e.g., the Ultrastar HDDs) map to the claimed architectural elements like a "serial router" and "primary serial gateway". A central question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products implement this specific architecture and perform these specific steps, as opposed to employing a different, functionally distinct control scheme.
• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may raise the question of whether the functionality of modern, integrated HDD controllers falls within the scope of the claimed "serial router" and "gateway" elements. The court may need to determine if these terms, described in a patent from 2003, read on the architecture of the accused products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’535 Patent

• The Term: "serial router"
• Context and Importance: This term is a cornerstone of the claimed architecture, described as the component that manages control data internally. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused HDD's internal controller is found to be a "serial router" as contemplated by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine if the accused products' potentially more integrated or generic data management logic meets this specific claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the router's function as being "to manage the serial control-related data between the primary serial gateway and each of the device serial interfaces" (’535 Patent, col. 12:10-13). This functional language could support an interpretation covering any component that directs control signals to different internal modules.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract states the "serial router" is located "within the storage arrangement" and is used "for the device identification to direct a host-asserted command to a targeted device" (’535 Patent, Abstract). A specific embodiment in Figure 22 depicts a distinct "SERIAL GATEWAY" block (1350) which, in context, might be argued to be the claimed router, potentially narrowing the term to a specific hardware configuration rather than a general function.

For the ’411 Patent

• The Term: "using the clock signal as a time base reference"
• Context and Importance: This limitation requires a direct link between the clock used for serial data and the clock used for the physical writing of data. Infringement will depend on the technical relationship between the control and write-timing mechanisms in the accused HDDs.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language broadly requires "writing the first data to the disk using the clock signal as a time base reference" (’411 Patent, col. 12:62-63). Plaintiff may argue this is met so long as the write operation is ultimately synchronized to or derived from the same system clock that times the control data, even if not a direct 1:1 use.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent distinguishes this from prior art by emphasizing this specific use of the clock signal (’411 Patent, col. 12:59-66). A defendant could argue this requires the clock signal itself to directly time the write-head's magnetic field modulation, rather than merely serving as an input to a separate, more complex write-timing circuit.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Wistron knowingly and intentionally encourages its customers and end-users to infringe by providing them with products that operate in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 18-20, 27-29).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge by pointing to Wistron’s citation of the ’535 and ’411 patent families during the prosecution of its own foreign patent, published on August 21, 2014 (Compl. p. 5, fn. 1; p. 7, fn. 2). Post-suit knowledge is alleged based on the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 28).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused Wistron servers and their incorporated third-party HDDs contain the specific "serial router" and "primary serial gateway" architecture required by the ’535 Patent, and further, that they use a single "clock signal" as both a timing source for control data and a direct "time base reference" for writing to the disk, as required by the ’411 Patent? The case may depend on whether the accused devices' modern, integrated controllers perform these precise, claimed functions.
• A second key question will relate to knowledge and intent: Will the court find that Wistron's citation to the asserted patent families during its own foreign patent prosecution nearly a decade prior to the lawsuit is sufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of infringement? The answer will be critical for Plaintiff’s claims of induced and willful infringement, the latter of which could expose Defendant to enhanced damages.