Valtrus Innovations Ltd v. Dawn Acquisitions LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. (Republic of Ireland)
  • Defendant: Dawn Acquisitions LLC (d/b/a Evoque Data Center Solutions) (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP; Findlay Craft, P.C.
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00142, E.D. Tex., 06/07/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Evoque maintains a "regular and established place of business" at its Allen Data Center, located at 900 Guardians Way, Allen, Texas, within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s data center infrastructure and operational methods infringe seven patents, originally developed by Hewlett Packard Enterprise, related to data center cooling, environmental monitoring, flexible deployment, and power supply control.
• Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies for operating large-scale data centers, where efficient cooling, granular environmental control, and power redundancy are critical for managing energy costs and ensuring operational reliability.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the asserted patents originated from a portfolio created by Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and that Plaintiff Valtrus is the current successor-in-interest.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-04-17	’277 Patent Priority Date
2002-08-02	’287 Patent Priority Date
2002-11-26	’179 Patent Priority Date
2004-04-06	’277 Patent Issue Date
2004-05-28	’870 Patent Priority Date
2004-06-29	’490 Patent Priority Date
2005-02-15	’287 Patent Issue Date
2005-03-01	’179 Patent Issue Date
2006-04-18	’870 Patent Issue Date
2008-03-04	’490 Patent Issue Date
2009-06-25	’967 Patent Priority Date
2010-07-12	’855 Patent Priority Date
2011-05-10	’967 Patent Issue Date
2016-04-12	’855 Patent Issue Date
2024-06-07	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277 - Atmospheric control within a building, Issued April 6, 2004

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional data center cooling systems as inefficient because they typically operate at 100 percent capacity on a continuous basis and cool the entire room uniformly, regardless of the specific, distributed locations of heat-generating components, leading to "unnecessarily high operating expenses" (’277 Patent, col. 2:21-38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for controlling atmospheric conditions by using a plurality of sensors to gather data, which is then used to generate an "empirical atmospheric map" of the facility. This real-world map is compared to a "template atmospheric map," representing an optimal state. The system identifies "pattern differentials" between the two maps (e.g., hot spots) and determines a corrective action to vary the quantity, quality, or distribution of conditioned fluid in a targeted manner (’277 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:46-60). This creates a responsive, data-driven control loop as illustrated in Figure 2.
• Technical Importance: This approach represented a shift from static, room-level cooling to a more dynamic, location-specific methodology, which could substantially reduce the significant energy consumption associated with data center operations (’277 Patent, col. 7:37-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
• Essential Elements of Claim 1:
  • A method step of supplying a conditioned fluid inside a building.
  • A method step of sensing at least one atmospheric parameter in a plurality of locations.
  • A method step of generating an empirical atmospheric map from the sensing results.
  • A method step of comparing the empirical map to a template atmospheric map.
  • A method step of identifying pattern differentials between the maps.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but references "one or more claims, including without limitation at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 6,854,287 - Cooling system, Issued February 15, 2005

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency of conventional data center cooling systems that are designed for a "worst-case scenario" and operate at or near maximum compressor power even when the actual heat load is significantly lower, often only 30-50% of maximum capacity (’287 Patent, col. 2:10-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a cooling system comprising a plurality of heat exchanger units (HEUs) that are supplied with a cooling fluid. The system actively senses temperatures at one or more locations within the room and, in response, controls key variables. Specifically, it can control the temperature of the cooling fluid itself and/or the air delivery to the room by "individually manipulating a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid supplied to each of the plurality of heat exchanger units" (’287 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:48-53). This allows for granular control based on real-time thermal needs, as shown in the control logic of Figure 5.
• Technical Importance: The technology allows for the decoupling of cooling capacity from individual heat exchangers, enabling a more optimized distribution of cooling resources that directly corresponds to the heat dissipated by specific computer systems (’287 Patent, col. 4:40-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
• Essential Elements of Claim 1:
  • A method of providing a plurality of heat exchanger units.
  • Supplying the units with cooling fluid from an air conditioning unit.
  • Cooling room air via heat exchange with the fluid.
  • Sensing temperatures at one or more locations in the room.
  • Controlling at least one of the cooling fluid temperature and the air delivery in response to the sensed temperatures.
  • Wherein the controlling step includes "individually manipulating a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid supplied to each of the plurality of heat exchanger units."
• The complaint references "one or more claims, including without limitation at least claim 1" (Compl. ¶32).
• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,862,179, Partition for varying the supply of cooling fluid, Issued March 1, 2005.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inefficient data center cooling by disclosing a system that uses controllable partitions within a pressurized plenum (e.g., under a raised floor). These partitions create distinct zones, allowing the volume and velocity of cooling fluid supplied to vents in each zone to be modified according to the specific heat loads of the computer racks in that zone (’179 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:10-24).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
• Accused Features: Evoque’s operation of cooling systems in its data centers that allegedly include a "partition for varying the supply of cooling fluid" (Compl. ¶35).
• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,031,870, Data center evaluation using an air re-circulation index, Issued April 18, 2006.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for evaluating the thermal performance of a data center by calculating an "index of air re-circulation" (also termed a Supply Heat Index or SHI). The index is based on detected inlet and outlet temperatures of heat-dissipating devices (e.g., server racks) and the temperature of air supplied by cooling units. This metric allows for the quantitative assessment of airflow problems, such as hot air exhausting from one rack being drawn into the intake of another (’870 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:54-67).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).
• Accused Features: Evoque’s operation of cooling systems in its data centers, which allegedly infringe by practicing the patented evaluation method (Compl. ¶39).
• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,339,490, Modular sensor assembly, Issued March 4, 2008.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a modular sensor assembly designed for easy deployment on computer racks. The invention comprises an elongate, flexible body with multiple addressable sensors interconnected to a common connector wire. This design simplifies the installation of a distributed sensor network for monitoring environmental conditions like temperature at various points on a rack, which was previously a costly and cumbersome process (’490 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:26-40).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
• Accused Features: Evoque’s alleged use of "modular sensor assemblies for sensing conditions such as temperature at a computer rack in its data centers" (Compl. ¶44).
• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,310,855, Flexible data center and methods for deployment, Issued April 12, 2016.
• Technology Synopsis: The invention addresses the need for scalable data center construction. It describes a method for deploying a flexible data center by constructing it from a number of modular "blocks." Each block, in turn, is constructed from one or more "perimeter structures" that house rows of server racks, and a "connecting structure" that houses monitoring equipment. This modular approach allows for a phased, demand-based build-out that can bridge the gap between small, containerized solutions and large, monolithic "brick and mortar" facilities (’855 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-20).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶49).
• Accused Features: Evoque's "flexible data centers," with the Dallas DFW1 Data Center cited as an example (Compl. ¶49).
• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,939,967, Multiple Power Supply Control, Issued May 10, 2011.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a redundant power supply system for high-reliability applications. The system includes two or more power supplies connected to independent energy sources. When one power supply detects an "anomalous condition" (e.g., a failure) in its source, it issues an alert signal. In response, another power supply transitions from a standby mode to a normal output mode, while the failing supply uses stored energy to power the load during the transition, ensuring uninterrupted operation (’967 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-11).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
• Accused Features: Evoque's data centers that allegedly use "multiple power supply control" systems (Compl. ¶54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the data center facilities operated by Defendant Evoque, with the complaint specifically identifying its "Allen Data Center" and "Dallas DFW1 Data Center" as examples (Compl. ¶26, 29, 49).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Evoque operates data centers that incorporate various technologies covered by the asserted patents. These allegedly include systems for controlling atmospheric and cooling conditions, methods for evaluating data center components, the use of modular sensor assemblies, the deployment of flexible physical data center structures, and the implementation of multiple power supply control systems (Compl. ¶29, 32, 39, 44, 49, 54). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the design or operation of Evoque’s systems, instead alleging on "information and belief" that they practice the claimed inventions. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts attached as exhibits for each asserted patent; however, these exhibits were not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶29, 32, 35, 39, 44, 49, 54). The infringement theories are therefore summarized based on the narrative allegations.

• '277 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Evoque’s data centers practice the method of claim 1 by using systems that control atmospheric conditions. This allegedly involves supplying conditioned air, sensing parameters at various locations, and using that data to create and compare atmospheric maps to identify deviations and guide corrective actions, thereby infringing the patent (Compl. ¶29).

• '287 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint asserts that Evoque’s data centers infringe claim 1 by operating cooling systems that include multiple heat exchanger units. These systems allegedly sense temperatures and respond by controlling air delivery through the "individually manipulating [of] a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid supplied to each" unit, thus meeting the claim limitations (Compl. ¶32).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: For the ’855 patent, a potential dispute may arise over the scope of terms like "block" and "perimeter structure." The question for the court may be whether Evoque's data center construction, such as its DFW1 facility, can be characterized as being built from the specific modular components required by the claims.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’277 patent, a core technical question will be evidentiary: what proof exists that Evoque’s control systems perform the specific computational steps of "generating an empirical atmospheric map" and "comparing" it to a "template"? The dispute may center on whether Evoque’s control logic performs these exact functions or uses a different, non-infringing algorithm. Similarly, for the ’287 patent, a key question will be whether Evoque’s systems provide the granular, per-HEU control over cooling fluid flow required by the "individually manipulating" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "empirical atmospheric map" (from ’277 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the patented control method of the ’277 patent. The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the data structures and control logic used in Evoque's systems fall within the construed scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the core data processing step that distinguishes the invention from simpler, threshold-based control systems.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to software for generating maps of atmospheric conditions and notes that it can output "map-like information," which may suggest that the term is not limited to a specific graphical format (’277 Patent, col. 5:39-44).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description defines a thermal map as being "composed of temperature contours that define various isothermal regions, or isotherms," and states that the "most severe of these isotherms are commonly known as 'hot spots'" (’277 Patent, col. 5:44-48). This language could support an argument that the term requires a specific data representation capable of defining contours and identifying localized thermal anomalies.

• The Term: "individually manipulating a mass flow rate" (from ’287 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the required level of granularity for the cooling control system. Whether Evoque’s systems infringe the ’287 patent will depend on whether their control architecture allows for the distinct, per-unit manipulation required by this term.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the mechanism for manipulation, only the outcome of individual control. This could support a construction where any system, including one with centralized software control, that achieves distinct mass flow rates at different heat exchanger units meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses embodiments with "respective valves 40, which may comprise three-way valves" located upstream of the heat exchanger units, enabling control of flow through "respective fluid lines 28" (’287 Patent, col. 7:32-37). This could be argued to imply a requirement for distinct, per-unit hardware for controlling flow.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,031,870; 7,339,490; 9,310,855; and 7,939,967. The basis for these allegations is post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges that Evoque has been on notice of these patents and the basis for infringement "since at least the filing of this Complaint" and that its failure to "take any action to stop its infringement" constitutes willful conduct (Compl. ¶40, 45, 50, 55). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made. No willfulness is alleged for the ’277, ’287, and ’179 patents.

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

This case presents a broad challenge to a data center operator's core infrastructure. The resolution will likely depend on the answers to several central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of functional equivalence: Does discovery show that Evoque’s accused control systems for cooling and power management perform the specific, multi-step computational methods and control logic recited in claims of the ’277, ’870, and ’967 patents, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their technical operation?
2. A key question of claim scope will be the required granularity of the accused systems. Can terms like "individually manipulating" (’287 Patent) and "modular sensor assembly" (’490 Patent) be read to cover the zonal or integrated systems that may be used in modern data centers, or do they require the specific, discrete components disclosed in the patents’ embodiments?
3. A central dispute regarding the ’855 patent will be one of definitional scope: Can the terms "block" and "perimeter structure," rooted in the patent’s specific modular construction method, be construed to read on the architectural design of Evoque’s existing data center facilities?