DataCloud Tech LLC v. McAfee LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DataCloud Technologies, LLC (Georgia)
  • Defendant: McAfee, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00431, E.D. Tex., 09/19/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has an established place of business in the District (a regional headquarters) and has committed the alleged acts of infringement in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s software products and network infrastructure, including its Android application, website, Web Gateway, and Network Security Platform, infringe six patents related to data organization, anonymous network communication, remote file access, and file access rate regulation.
• Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address technologies in data management, network routing, and system security, which are foundational to the cybersecurity and cloud services industries.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was informed of Plaintiff's patent portfolio, including the patents-in-suit, by a letter dated March 21, 2023, which may serve as a basis for pre-suit knowledge.

I.A. Case Timeline

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

II.A. U.S. Patent No. 6,651,063, "Data Organization And Management System And Method," Issued November 18, 2003

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty for consumers and businesses to collect, organize, and manage an overwhelming amount of information, such as product manuals, service updates, and warranties, which are often stored in cumbersome or decentralized ways. (’063 Patent, col. 1:16-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where "providers" (e.g., retailers, manufacturers) send information in pre-categorized "information packs" to a recipient's centralized "User Data Repository." (’063 Patent, Abstract). The system uses identifiers to automatically file the information, and the recipient can then further re-categorize it into "custom" folders. The system also contemplates a reverse communication link allowing the provider to send updates. (’063 Patent, col. 1:11-15, col. 2:40-51).
• Technical Importance: The claimed system aimed to shift the primary burden of information categorization from the end-user to the information provider, thereby streamlining data management for the recipient. (’063 Patent, col. 2:5-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least Claim 4, which depends on independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶26).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A system for providing information to users comprising means for users to provide a "user destination address" to information providers.
  • "Categorizing means" for providers to associate an information "category" with the information.
  • Means for the provider to send the information in an "information pack" to a user's data repository using the destination address.
  • "Identification means" for associating a "provider identifier" with the information pack.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other dependent claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶25).

II.B. U.S. Patent No. 7,209,959, "Apparatus, System, And Method For Communicating To A Network Through A Virtual Domain Providing Anonymity To A Client Communicating On The Network," Issued April 24, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies privacy risks associated with standard internet protocols, where a user's activity and identity can be tracked by servers, leading to unwanted solicitations and data collection. It notes that conventional proxy servers merely substitute one static identity for another, which itself can become a target. (’959 Patent, col. 2:7-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a "DNS Misdirection" architecture comprising three functional components: a "deceiver," a "controller," and a "forwarder." (’959 Patent, Abstract). A client's request to a website is intercepted by the deceiver, which passes it to the controller. The controller determines the true destination IP address but provides the client with the forwarder's IP address instead. The client then unknowingly communicates through the forwarder, which relays the traffic, ensuring that neither the client nor the destination server are aware of each other's true IP address for the duration of the session. (’959 Patent, col. 2:35-50; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This system was designed to provide session-specific anonymity and enable the creation of "virtual namespaces" where groups of users could communicate securely without their activities being readily accessible to outside parties. (’959 Patent, col. 2:50-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶37).

• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:

  • A method that, in response to a client's request to communicate with a destination website, sets up a "forwarding session."
  • The session employs a "forwarder" disposed between the client and a destination server to transfer packets.
  • The session is set up so that "neither the client or the destination server is aware of the employment of the forwarder."
  • It employs a "controller" that communicates with the forwarder and a domain name server (DNS) to resolve the website name.
  • It employs a "deceiver" that receives the client's initial request and initiates the controller to query the DNS.
  • The forwarding session is initiated in response to the controller receiving the answer from the DNS.

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’959 Patent. (Compl. ¶36).

• Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,398,298, "Remote Access And Retrieval Of Electronic Files," Issued July 8, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for remotely controlling data directory structures over a communications network. It features a server-side application that processes user requests for data management and uses a "profile data store" to manage access permissions and available directory structures for participating users. (Compl. ¶¶43, 49).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 13. (Compl. ¶48).
  • Accused Features: The McAfee Network Security Platform is accused of infringing, with its dashboard allegedly functioning as the remote management application and its SQL database as the profile data store. (Compl. ¶49).

• Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,370,457, "Network Communication Through A Virtual Domain," Issued February 5, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: Related to the ’959 Patent, this patent claims a method for network communication where a "forwarding internet protocol (IP) address" is established for a "pre-defined combination of a client IP address and a destination IP address." When a data request from that client IP address matching the combination is identified, the request is forwarded via the forwarding IP address. (Compl. ¶60).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 9. (Compl. ¶59).
  • Accused Features: The "advanced firewall settings" in the McAfee Web Gateway are accused of establishing and using such forwarding IP addresses. (Compl. ¶60).

• Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,762,498, "Apparatus, System, And Method For Communicating To A Network Through A Virtual Domain," Issued June 24, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: Also related to the ’959 Patent, this patent claims a method where a "controller device" determines a destination IP address from a plurality of categories for "virtual names" based on a request. The controller establishes a correlation between the destination IP and a "forwarder IP address" and instructs the forwarder to send the request data to the destination. (Compl. ¶71).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶70).
  • Accused Features: McAfee's website infrastructure employing Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Server Name Indication (SNI) Routing is accused of performing this method. (Compl. ¶71).

• Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. RE44,723, "Regulating File Access Rates According To File Type," Issued January 21, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for regulating process access to files based on file type. The method involves intercepting a system call that attempts to access a file, determining if the process that made the call is associated with a specific access rate for that file's type, and regulating the process to access the file at that determined rate. (Compl. ¶82).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶81).
  • Accused Features: The McAfee Network Security Platform is accused of performing this method to limit resource access. (Compl. ¶82).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

III.A. Product Identification

• The complaint identifies four accused instrumentalities: McAfee Android App, McAfee website infrastructure (and its use of TLS 1.2/1.3), McAfee Web Gateway, and McAfee's Network Security Platform. (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

III.B. Functionality and Market Context

• The McAfee Android App is alleged to provide a method for users to store and access data in a repository, where information is organized with category and provider identifiers, and stored in custom locations like file folders. (Compl. ¶27).
• The McAfee website infrastructure is alleged to use a system of front-end switches, firewalls, and routers to establish forwarding sessions that anonymize communications between a user's device and McAfee's web servers. (Compl. ¶38). It is also alleged to use TLS and SNI routing to determine and direct traffic to a destination IP address via a forwarder. (Compl. ¶71).
• The McAfee Web Gateway is alleged to use its firewall settings to establish and use a "translated IP address" to forward data requests based on a pre-defined combination of a client and destination IP address. (Compl. ¶60).
• The McAfee Network Security Platform is alleged to provide a dashboard for remotely managing data directory structures (e.g., user permissions for webpages) using a backend database. (Compl. ¶49). It is also accused of regulating file access rates by intercepting system calls and applying predetermined rates based on file type. (Compl. ¶82).
• The complaint alleges Defendant advertises, sells, and provides these products and services throughout the United States, including in the state of Texas. (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

IV.A. ’063 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory raises the question of whether standard mobile application functions, such as creating a file folder or using an application's digital signature, fall within the scope of the patent's more specific terms like "creating a custom location," "custom category identifier," and sending a "custom category signal."
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the alleged "digital signature" is used as a "custom category identifier" to actively signal a "processing station" for the purpose of identifying and co-locating other information packs, as required by Claim 4?

IV.B. ’959 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Can the patent's specific functional terms—"deceiver," "controller," and "forwarder"—be construed to read on generic, multi-purpose network components like a router, a firewall, and a server switch?
  • Technical Questions: Does the complaint provide facts to suggest that McAfee's standard network components actually perform the specific, coordinated "DNS misdirection" sequence required by the claim? For example, what evidence suggests the router ("deceiver") "initiates the controller to query the domain name server," or that the firewall ("controller") initiates communication with the switch ("forwarder") in the specific manner claimed?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

V.A. For the ’063 Patent

• The Term: "custom category"
• Context and Importance: This term, introduced in asserted dependent Claim 4, appears central to the infringement allegation against the McAfee Android App. The complaint maps this term to a standard "file folder." The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this construction is accepted or if the term requires a more specialized function beyond generic file storage.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the invention "allows the User to modify the categorization of information in the Private Area, and create custom categories," suggesting a user-defined organizational structure. (’063 Patent, col. 9:53-56).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments describe the creation of a custom category (e.g., "My Medicine") and communicating that custom categorization back to a provider or a central processing station via a "Feedback means," which suggests a more interactive and specific system than merely creating a local folder. (’063 Patent, col. 9:30-43; Fig. 2).

V.B. For the ’959 Patent

• The Term: "deceiver"
• Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that a "router" is a "deceiver." The core of the infringement dispute will likely involve determining whether a standard router performs the specific functions claimed for the "deceiver."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is defined functionally in Claim 1 as a component "configured to communicate with the controller and the client," which "receives the request by the client... and initiates the controller to query the domain name server." This language does not inherently limit the structure.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that upon receiving a packet, the deceiver "will recognize the source of the packet" and, by "parsing the data field through the controller," determines the intended domain name. (’959 Patent, col. 7:54-62). This suggests a specific role in initiating the name resolution and misdirection process beyond simply passing traffic.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain separate counts for indirect infringement. However, its allegations that Defendant "provides... a method" to users could potentially support a theory of induced infringement. (Compl. ¶¶27, 49). The complaint does not allege specific facts supporting the element of intent, such as referencing user manuals or instructions that encourage infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant was notified of the patents-in-suit via a letter dated March 21, 2023, establishing a basis for pre-suit knowledge. (Compl. ¶18). While the complaint does not use the word "willful," the prayer for relief requests damages "justified under 35 U.S.C. § 284," which is the statutory basis for enhanced damages. (Compl. ¶86.B).

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

• A central issue across several asserted patents will be one of functional mapping: does McAfee’s alleged use of standard, off-the-shelf network and software components (e.g., routers, firewalls, file folders, application signatures) actually perform the specific, and often coordinated, multi-step functions required by the patent claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
• The case will also present a key question of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the patents' specific architectures, such as "custom category signal" (’063 Patent) and "deceiver" (’959 Patent), be construed broadly enough to encompass the general-purpose functionality of the accused McAfee products, or does the intrinsic evidence limit these terms to the more specialized embodiments described in the patents?