DCT

2:24-cv-00205

ServStor Tech LLC v. ZTE Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00205, E.D. Tex., 03/21/2024
  • 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 infringe five U.S. patents related to computer server architecture, remote management, and network-addressable storage partitioning.
  • Technical Context: The patents address technologies for increasing server density, enabling remote diagnostics even after a system crash, and disaggregating storage from a host operating system, all of which are relevant to enterprise and data center computing.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patents-in-suit due to a series of prior lawsuits filed by Plaintiff against numerous direct competitors of the Defendant, asserting the same patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-12-22 '010, '930, and '750 Patents Earliest Priority Date
2001-08-20 '274 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2002-11-12 '271 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2004-05-18 '930 Patent Issue Date
2006-02-14 '010 Patent Issue Date
2007-03-13 '274 Patent Issue Date
2007-12-18 '750 Patent Issue Date
2011-01-11 '271 Patent Issue Date
2024-03-21 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,191,274 - Method and System for Providing Independent Server Functionality in a Single Personal Computer (Issued Mar. 13, 2007)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that deploying multiple independent dedicated servers (e.g., for email or web hosting) consumes significant physical space and generates substantial heat, in part because each server typically requires its own power supply (’274 Patent, col. 1:11-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where multiple, functionally independent server circuit cards are housed within a single computer chassis. These server cards share a common power supply but are designed to be electrically isolated from one another, lacking any communication over a common internal system bus. Instead, each card communicates with the external network via its own dedicated connectors, allowing for a dense and modular server architecture that saves space and reduces heat generation (’274 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:55-61).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture enables the deployment of multiple, isolated server functions in a high-density format without the risk of software conflicts or resource contention that could arise from communication over a shared internal bus (’274 Patent, col. 2:55-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A computer system comprising a chassis with a plurality of slots for planar circuit cards, and a shroud to form an enclosure.
    • A plurality of planar shaped circuit cards, each configured to provide an independent dedicated server function.
    • Each circuit card is configured to be free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus inside the enclosure.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 7,870,271 - Disk Drive Partitioning Methods and Apparatuses (Issued Jan. 11, 2011)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a trend toward disaggregating electronic functionality over networks, but notes that storage device access has remained dependent on a host computer's operating system (e.g., DOS, Windows), creating a bottleneck and limiting architectural flexibility (’271 Patent, col. 1:16-24, 1:39-50).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a storage apparatus where individual partitions on a storage medium can be assigned their own distinct IP addresses. This allows any IP-capable device on a network to access a specific partition directly on a peer-to-peer basis, without mediation by a host operating system. The system describes a "storage element" that can receive a request for a partition, create it, obtain an IP address from a DHCP server, and associate that IP address with the newly created partition (’271 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:18-39).
  • Technical Importance: This technology facilitates a more flexible, networked storage architecture, decoupling storage resources from a single host computer and enabling direct access from a wide array of lightweight, disparate devices (’271 Patent, col. 3:58-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • An apparatus with a storage medium and a network interface.
    • A storage element coupled to the medium and interface.
    • The storage element is configured to receive a request for a partition allocation that includes a name.
    • The storage element is further configured to create the partition, obtain an IP address for it from a DHCP server, and associate the name with the IP address.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶31).

U.S. Patent No. 7,000,010 - "System and Method for Caching Web Pages on a Management Appliance for Personal Computers" (Issued February 14, 2006)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for diagnosing computer failures. It proposes a "management appliance" (e.g., a separate card within a computer) that periodically caches status web pages generated by the host computer. If the host computer crashes, these cached pages remain accessible via the management appliance's independent, "out-of-band" network connection, providing a snapshot of the system's state immediately prior to the failure (’010 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:11-41).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least method claim 6 (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that ZTE servers, which have the capability to report status information like temperature and power, perform the patented method of monitoring a remote computer via a management appliance (Compl. ¶¶41-42).

U.S. Patent No. 6,738,930 - "Method and System for Extending the Functionality of an Environmental Monitor for an Industrial Personal Computer" (Issued May 18, 2004)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the difficulty of reconfiguring environmental monitoring parameters on industrial computers. The invention is an "alarm card" containing its own microserver that communicates with software "agent" on the host computer. This allows an administrator to remotely access web-based information and change monitoring configurations without needing physical access to the machine (’930 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:50-65).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least method claim 8 (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that ZTE servers perform the patented method by providing remote monitoring of computer status through an "alarm card with a micro-server" (Compl. ¶51).

U.S. Patent No. 7,310,750 - "Method and System for Extending the Functionality of an Environmental Monitor for an Industrial Personal Computer" (Issued December 18, 2007)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, which shares a specification with the ’930 Patent, also describes an enhanced environmental monitor for an industrial computer. The core technology is an alarm card equipped with a microserver that allows remote access to web-enabled information on the host computer, facilitating remote monitoring and management (’750 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least method claim 8 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that ZTE servers perform the patented monitoring method by providing an "alarm card with a server thereon" to monitor web pages on the host CPU (Compl. ¶60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint broadly accuses "all ZTE servers," and specifically lists models including the ZTE ZXCLOUD R5300 G4, R8500 G4, E5430 G4, KS3200, KU5200, KS10000, R5500 G5, R5300 G5, R8500 G5, R5200 G5, and R6500 G5 (Compl. ¶¶5, 18).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products are server systems that utilize drive technology, server partitioning, and remote management functionalities (Compl. ¶¶17-18). Specifically, they are described as comprising a chassis with slots for circuit cards and including "management modules that provide remote management capabilities" (Compl. ¶¶6, 23). The complaint asserts ZTE is a "leading manufacturer and seller" of such equipment in the U.S. and worldwide (Compl. ¶2). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’274 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a computer system comprising: a chassis, having a plurality of slots thereon each configured for receiving one of a plurality of planar shaped circuit cards therein; The accused ZTE R5300 G4 is alleged to be a computer system comprising a chassis with a plurality of slots for receiving planar circuit cards. ¶23 col. 2:26-29
a shroud coupled to said chassis to form an enclosure about said plurality of planar shaped circuit cards; The accused ZTE R5300 G4 is alleged to have a shroud coupled to the chassis to form an enclosure. ¶23 col. 2:27-30
said plurality of planar shaped circuit cards each configured for providing an independent dedicated server function; The circuit cards in the accused server are alleged to be each configured for providing an independent dedicated server function. ¶23 col. 2:30-33
each of said plurality of planar shaped circuit cards being configured so as to be free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus inside said enclosure. The circuit cards in the accused server are alleged to be configured to be free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus inside the enclosure. ¶23 col. 2:55-61
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the term "inter-card bus". The question for the court will be whether a modern server backplane, which provides power and may carry low-level management signals, constitutes an "inter-card bus" as contemplated by the patent, or if the term is limited to higher-level data communication buses.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the circuit cards in the accused servers provide an "independent dedicated server function". A key technical question will be what evidence supports this characterization, versus the cards being integrated components of a single, unified server system.

’271 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An apparatus comprising: a storage medium; a network interface configured to communicatively couple the apparatus to a network; and The accused ZTE R5300 G4 is alleged to comprise a storage medium and a network interface. ¶33 col. 4:39-42
a storage element communicatively coupled to the storage medium and the network interface and configured The accused server is alleged to have a storage element coupled to the storage medium and network interface. ¶33 col. 4:18-20
to receive, via the network interface, a request for a partition allocation, the request including a name; The storage element is alleged to be configured to receive a request for a partition allocation that includes a name. ¶33 col. 4:20-24
to create and allocate a partition of the storage medium based at least in part on the request; The storage element is alleged to be configured to create and allocate a partition based on the request. ¶33 col. 4:24-26
to obtain, from a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP) server, an internet protocol (IP) address for the partition of the storage medium; The storage element is alleged to be configured to obtain an IP address for the partition from a DHCP server. ¶33 col. 4:30-34
to associate the name with the IP address. The storage element is alleged to be configured to associate the provided name with the obtained IP address. ¶33 col. 4:37-39
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement theory depends on identifying a "storage element" within the accused servers. A central question will be whether the distributed management architecture of a modern server (e.g., a Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) running firmware) can be considered a single "storage element" under the patent's functional definition.
    • Technical Questions: A technical dispute may focus on whether the accused servers' standard functionality for creating logical volumes or virtual disks performs the specific, sequential steps required by the claim—notably, obtaining a distinct IP address from a DHCP server specifically for that newly created "partition" upon request.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’274 Patent:

  • The Term: "inter-card bus"
  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central to infringement, as it defines the required level of isolation between the server cards. If the term is construed broadly to include any electrical backplane connection (including for power or basic signals), it may present a significant challenge to the infringement allegation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. A party could argue that any shared electrical pathway between cards qualifies. The specification refers to prohibiting "direct communication connections between the cards... via an internal system bus," which could be read to encompass any standard bus architecture found in a PC chassis (’274 Patent, col. 2:55-58).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be limited to buses that facilitate functional data exchange between server cards, not merely shared power or ground lines. The stated purpose is to "allow for insertion of a new server card without the need to make changes to the system software and without any interference in the communication of signals," suggesting the concern is with data-level interference, not shared infrastructure (’274 Patent, col. 2:58-61).

For the ’271 Patent:

  • The Term: "storage element"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the component responsible for executing the core steps of the claimed invention. The infringement case rests on mapping this term to a component or set of components within the accused servers.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines the "storage element" functionally as a component "communicatively coupled to the storage medium and the network interface" and configured to perform specific actions (’271 Patent, col. 8:43-45). This functional language may support an argument that any combination of hardware (e.g., a BMC) and software that collectively performs these steps meets the definition.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent depicts hardware components in block diagrams but does not precisely delineate the "storage element" as a distinct entity. A party could argue the term implies a discrete hardware or software module, and that the highly integrated and distributed nature of modern server management systems does not contain a single, identifiable "storage element" as claimed.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by its customers and end-users. This is based on allegations that Defendant supplies the accused products with "instructions on how to operate the infringing technology in an infringing manner" through its website, product literature, and packaging (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 36, 45, 54, 63).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. The asserted basis for this knowledge is a series of patent infringement lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff against Defendant's "direct competitors" involving the same patents-in-suit. The complaint also alleges that Defendant maintained a policy of "willfully blind" disregard for the patent rights of others (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 35; p. 4, fn. 1).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and definition: For the ’274 patent, can the limitation "free from any direct communication connection with any inter-card bus" be construed to read on modern server chassis that use backplanes for power and management signaling, or is the term limited to high-speed data buses?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: For the ’271 patent, do the standard network and storage management functions of the accused servers—likely performed by a combination of components like a BMC, firmware, and network controllers—constitute the singular "storage element" that performs the precise sequence of receiving a named request, creating a partition, and obtaining a unique IP address for that partition as required by the claim?
  • A central legal question regarding damages will be whether Plaintiff’s litigation campaign against Defendant's competitors is sufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge, thereby supporting the claim for willful infringement, or if Defendant can successfully argue it lacked the specific, direct notice required to elevate infringement to "willful."