Elite Gaming Tech LLC v. Wiwynn Corporation

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Elite Gaming Tech LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Wiwynn Corporation (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP; Rubino IP; Truelove Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00232, E.D. Tex., 05/26/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s servers, which incorporate hard disk drives from third-party manufacturers, infringe two patents related to methods and systems for configuring and managing internal communications within data storage devices.
• Technical Context: The patents address the internal architecture of electromechanical data storage devices, such as hard disk drives (HDDs), focusing on how a host system communicates with and controls the drive's various internal components.
• Key Procedural History: The two patents-in-suit share a specification and are part of the same patent family. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to these patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,973,535 - “Digital Device Configuration and Method” (Issued Dec. 6, 2005)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge of managing communication within complex electromechanical storage devices, such as hard disk drives. These devices contain multiple distinct electronic components (e.g., for servo control, read/write channel control, preamp control), each requiring a specific communication protocol, which complicates the overall system design and firmware management ('535 Patent, col. 4:26-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a unified and flexible communication architecture within the storage device. It introduces a "primary serial gateway" to handle external communication with a host device and an internal "serial router" to manage and direct control data to the various internal components over their respective serial interfaces ('535 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:3-12). This architecture allows a host device to use a consistent serial protocol to control a variety of different internal functions in a targeted manner.
• Technical Importance: This design sought to create a more scalable and manageable internal control system for storage devices, abstracting the complexity of the individual component interfaces from the host system ('535 Patent, col. 6:33-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claim 20, which is dependent on independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶16). The infringement allegations in the complaint track the language of independent method claim 14 (Compl. ¶17).
• Independent Claim 14 recites a method for operating a storage arrangement with the following key steps:
  • Configuring a "primary serial gateway" within the storage arrangement to handle bi-directional transfer of "serial control-related data."
  • Arranging a "host serial interface" on a host device to apply a serial protocol to the data passing between the host and the gateway.
  • Using a "serial router" within the storage arrangement to manage and direct the control data from the gateway to the individual device serial interfaces.

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Stemming from the same specification as the ’535 Patent, the ’411 Patent also addresses the complexity of internal hard drive operations, but with a particular focus on timing and synchronization ('411 Patent, col. 2:32-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system and method where a clock signal is used not only for clocking bi-directional control data but also as a "time base reference" for the physical process of writing data to the disk ('411 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:1-4). This synchronized timing is used in conjunction with a "serial router" to direct commands to selected internal digital devices.
• Technical Importance: By using a common clock signal as a reference for both high-level control data and low-level physical write operations, the invention aimed to ensure precise synchronization across the entire storage system ('411 Patent, col. 12:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
• Independent Claim 1 is a system claim for a storage arrangement comprising:
  • A disk for storing data.
  • Two or more digital devices, each with a dedicated serial interface.
  • "means for providing" bi-directional control data clocked by a clock signal, where the disk uses that same clock signal as a "time base reference" for writing data.
  • "means for setting" a serial router to route the control data to a selected digital device.
  • "means for routing" the control data to the selected device via its dedicated serial interface.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are server computer systems manufactured and sold by Wiwynn, such as the Wiwynn ST7000 G2 server (Compl. ¶11, ¶17). The complaint alleges these servers infringe because they incorporate and utilize hard disk drives (HDDs) from third-party suppliers Western Digital (WD) and Hitachi Global Storage Technologies (HGST), specifically naming drives such as the Ultrastar DC HC350 and Ultrastar DC HC530 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16, ¶25, ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused Wiwynn products as servers that utilize the allegedly infringing HDDs for data storage (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). The infringement allegations focus on the internal operation of the incorporated HDDs, asserting that they perform the patented methods of managing internal control data and communication (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). Wiwynn is positioned as a "leading manufacturer and seller of computers and server equipment," suggesting the accused products operate in the enterprise data storage market (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’535 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that the "ST7000 G2 server performs the step" of the claimed method (Compl. ¶17). However, the claim is directed to operating a storage arrangement. A central question may be whether Wiwynn (the server integrator) directly infringes by "performing" a method that arguably occurs entirely within the self-contained HDD, or whether the direct infringer is the HDD manufacturer.
  • Technical Questions: The allegations are conclusory. A key factual question will be whether the accused Ultrastar HDDs contain an architecture that can be accurately described as having a "primary serial gateway" and a "serial router" that function in the specific manner recited by the claim.

’411 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions (Means-Plus-Function): Claim 1 of the ’411 Patent uses "means for..." language, which may invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). If so, the scope of these claim elements is not unlimited but is confined to the specific structures disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the recited functions, plus their structural equivalents. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused HDDs contain structures that are the same as or equivalent to those disclosed in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence shows that the clock signal in the accused HDDs is used as a "time base reference" for the physical act of writing data to the disk? This is a specific functional requirement that goes beyond merely clocking a data bus and will be a key factual dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "serial router" (Appears in ’535 Claim 14 and ’411 Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed architecture in both patents. The definition will determine whether the internal logic of the accused HDDs, which manages data flow to different components, falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a neologism coined by the patentee.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the router's function as "manag[ing] said serial control-related data between the primary serial gateway and each of the device serial interfaces" ('535 Patent, col. 11:10-12). This functional description could support an interpretation covering any logical component that performs this multiplexing or routing task.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show the "serial router" as part of a system that uses a "control block" to decode a "device ID" from a host command to direct data to a specific destination ('535 Patent, col. 11:23-43). A party could argue the term is limited to this more specific implementation.

• The Term: "primary serial gateway" (Appears in ’535 Claim 14)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the interface between the host device and the internal storage arrangement. Its construction is critical to establishing the boundary of the claimed system and the starting point for the data flow managed by the "serial router".
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines its function broadly as being "for externally bi-directionally transferring a serial control-related data" ('535 Patent, col. 113:50-53). This may be argued to cover any physical or logical port on the HDD that serves this purpose.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 22 of the patent depicts "Serial Gateway 1350" as a specific block within a larger interface controller that is distinct from the host processing arrangement ('535 Patent, Fig. 22). An argument could be made that the term requires this specific structural arrangement relative to other components.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Wiwynn induces infringement by selling its servers, which contain the accused HDDs, to "Wiwynn customers and end-users" (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). The factual basis for inducement rests on the allegation that by selling these integrated systems, Wiwynn knowingly and intentionally causes its customers to use the technology in an infringing manner when the servers are operated (Compl. ¶19, ¶28).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on knowledge of infringement alleged to exist "at least as of the date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶19, ¶28). The complaint does not plead facts indicating pre-suit knowledge, which may limit the willfulness claim to post-filing conduct. The complaint also alleges willful blindness (Compl. ¶20, ¶29).

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

• A central issue will be one of infringement liability and apportionment: the complaint targets the server integrator (Wiwynn) for infringement allegedly occurring within component parts (HDDs) supplied by third parties. A key question for the court will be whether Wiwynn's acts of integrating and selling servers constitute direct infringement of the asserted claims, or if the plaintiff's theory must rely entirely on indirect infringement, which requires proving the direct infringement of a third party (e.g., Wiwynn's customers).
• The case will likely hinge on a question of technical implementation versus claim scope: do the accused HDDs, on a technical level, actually contain the specific "serial router" and "primary serial gateway" architecture required by the claims? For the '411 patent, this includes the additional question of whether the internal structures of the accused drives are structurally equivalent to the "means" disclosed in the patent for performing the claimed functions, a determination critical for infringement under a means-plus-function analysis.