DCT
2:24-cv-00361
Valtrus Innovations Ltd v. NTT Data Services LLC
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Vertiv Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: Valtrus Innovations Limited (Ireland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Nixon Peabody LLP; Davis Firm
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00361, E.D. Tex., 08/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Vertiv Corp alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Valtrus has filed numerous patent infringement lawsuits in the district, has sent infringement notice letters to Vertiv's customers located or operating in the district, and uses a Texas-based licensing agent.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its data center cooling products do not infringe, and that the asserted patents are invalid, in response to Defendant's patent enforcement campaign against Plaintiff's customers.
- Technical Context: The patents relate to methods for monitoring and controlling the thermal environment within data centers, a critical technology for managing energy consumption and ensuring the reliability of high-density computing equipment.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details an enforcement campaign by Valtrus, including sending notice letters to at least ten of Vertiv's customers and filing infringement lawsuits against several of them in the Eastern District of Texas, all based on the use of Vertiv's products. Vertiv notes it has indemnity agreements with its customers. The complaint also mentions that all four patents-in-suit have expired.
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 Issued |
| 2004-05-28 | ’870 Patent Priority Date |
| 2005-02-15 | ’287 Patent Issued |
| 2005-03-01 | ’179 Patent Issued |
| 2006-04-18 | ’870 Patent Issued |
| 2024-02-27 | Valtrus sues Digital Realty Trust and Dawn Acquisitions in E.D. Tex. |
| 2024-04-17 | Valtrus sues Cyrusone LLC in E.D. Tex. |
| 2024-05-14 | Valtrus sues NTT Data Services LLC in E.D. Tex. |
| 2025-08-22 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
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 addresses the inefficiency of conventional data center cooling systems, which typically cool an entire room to a uniform temperature without regard to the specific, distributed locations of heat-generating electronic components, leading to high operating expenses (Compl. ¶48; ’277 Patent, col. 2:5-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for more targeted control by sensing atmospheric parameters (like temperature) at multiple locations, using this data to generate an "empirical atmospheric map," comparing this map to a "template atmospheric map" representing desired conditions, and then adjusting the cooling system based on any identified "pattern differentials" or hot spots (’277 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:34-51).
- Technical Importance: This approach represented a shift from brute-force, room-level cooling toward a more intelligent, data-driven thermal management strategy designed to reduce energy consumption by directing cooling resources where they are most needed (’277 Patent, col. 3:11-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint appears to address the independent claims of the patent (Compl. ¶78).
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- supplying a conditioned fluid inside a building;
- sensing at least one atmospheric parameter in a plurality of locations inside the building;
- generating an empirical atmospheric map from the results of the sensing step;
- comparing the empirical atmospheric map to a template atmospheric map; and
- identifying pattern differentials between the empirical and template atmospheric maps.
U.S. Patent No. 6,854,287 - "Cooling System," issued February 15, 2005
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency of data center air conditioning units that operate continuously at or near maximum capacity, treating the entire facility as a single thermal zone, which fails to account for the varying heat loads of different server racks (Compl. ¶52; ’287 Patent, col. 2:10-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a cooling system comprising multiple heat exchanger units (HEUs) distributed throughout the data center. The system allows for the control of air delivery and/or cooling fluid temperature to individual HEUs or small groups of them, enabling fine-grained thermal management in response to locally sensed temperatures (’287 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:49-54). This includes "individually manipulating a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid supplied to each of the plurality of heat exchanger units" (’287 Patent, col. 13:32-35).
- Technical Importance: This invention provided a framework for modular, localized cooling that could adapt to the dynamic and non-uniform thermal landscape of a data center, moving beyond monolithic cooling architectures (’287 Patent, col. 4:1-5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint appears to address the independent claims of the patent (Compl. ¶86).
- Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1 (Method):
- providing a plurality of heat exchanger units;
- supplying the units with cooling fluid from an air conditioning unit;
- cooling received air through heat exchange in the units;
- sensing temperatures at one or more locations in the room;
- controlling at least one of the temperature of the cooling fluid and the air delivery in response to sensed temperatures; and
- individually manipulating a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid supplied to each of the plurality of heat exchanger units.
U.S. Patent No. 6,862,179 - "Partition for Varying the Supply of Cooling Fluid," issued March 1, 2005
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system for cooling racks in a data center by using a "controllable partition" within a cooling plenum (Compl. ¶56; ’179 Patent, Abstract). Manipulating this partition varies the supply of cooling fluid to different zones within the data center in response to sensed temperatures, allowing for targeted thermal control (Compl. ¶93; ’179 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint addresses the claims generally (Compl. ¶93).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Valtrus has accused Vertiv's Liebert cooling and iCOM control systems of infringement (Compl. ¶90).
U.S. Patent No. 7,031,870 - "Data Center Evaluation Using an Air Re-Circulation Index," issued April 18, 2006
- Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to a method and system for evaluating the performance of data center components by calculating an "index of air re-circulation" (Compl. ¶¶59-60; ’870 Patent, Abstract). This index is derived from detected inlet, outlet, and supplied air temperatures and is used to assess cooling efficiency at various airflow settings (Compl. ¶101; ’870 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint addresses the independent claims (Compl. ¶101).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Valtrus has accused Vertiv's Liebert cooling and iCOM control systems of infringement (Compl. ¶98).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Vertiv’s Liebert brand cooling units and Liebert iCOM and iCOM-S Intelligent Communication and Monitoring systems (Compl. ¶¶75, 83, 90, 98).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes these products as providing data center cooling, control, and sensor functionalities (Compl. ¶2). Valtrus has allegedly asserted that these products, when used by Vertiv's customers in their data centers, control atmospheric conditions (Compl. ¶20).
- The complaint positions these products as critical infrastructure for data centers operated by Vertiv's customers, which include major data center corporations such as Digital Realty, CyrusOne, and Equinix (Compl. ¶¶5, 17, 18). Valtrus's infringement allegations are based on the normal modes of operation of these Vertiv products, as described in Vertiv's own technical brochures, user manuals, and websites (Compl. ¶¶19, 20).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes Vertiv’s specific non-infringement arguments.
U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| generating an empirical atmospheric map from the results of said sensing step | Vertiv products do not control atmospheric conditions by generating an empirical atmospheric map from sensed parameters. | ¶78 | col. 8:12-16 |
| comparing said empirical atmospheric map to a template atmospheric map | Vertiv products do not compare an empirical atmospheric map to a template atmospheric map. | ¶78 | col. 8:17-19 |
| identifying pattern differentials between said empirical and template atmospheric maps | Vertiv products do not identify pattern differentials between empirical and template atmospheric maps. | ¶78 | col. 8:20-22 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the data collection and control logic within the accused Liebert iCOM systems performs the specific sequence of generating, comparing, and identifying map "differentials" as claimed. Vertiv’s position suggests its systems may use sensor data for control without creating or comparing formal "maps" in the manner required by the patent (’277 Patent, col. 5:35-50). The dispute may focus on whether the accused system's processing of sensor data is technically equivalent to the claimed "mapping" and "comparing" steps.
U.S. Patent No. 6,854,287 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| wherein the step of controlling said air delivery by said plurality of heat exchanger units comprises individually manipulating a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid supplied to each of the plurality of heat exchanger units. | Vertiv products do not individually control or manipulate the mass flow rate of cooling fluid supplied to each of a plurality of heat exchanger units. | ¶86 | col. 13:30-35 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definition of "individually manipulating." The complaint's denial suggests the accused systems may lack the granular, per-heat-exchanger-unit control over cooling fluid flow rates that is recited in the claim. The question for the court may be whether the control architecture of the Liebert systems operates at a system or zone level, rather than the individualized unit level required by the claim language (’287 Patent, col. 6:15-21).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’277 Patent:
- The Term: "empirical atmospheric map"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to Vertiv’s non-infringement argument. The definition will determine whether the data processing performed by the accused Liebert iCOM systems, which use sensor data to manage cooling, falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on whether a "map" requires a specific data structure or graphical representation, or if any structured collection of sensor data qualifies.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the map can be composed of "temperature contours that define various isothermal regions" and that it processes "thousands of input data points," which could be read to cover any system that processes a large set of sensor data to understand thermal conditions (’277 Patent, col. 4:40-47).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of using "triangulation" and "mathematical optimization techniques like steepest gradient" to locate hot spots from sensor data could suggest a more computationally intensive process than simple threshold-based control logic, potentially narrowing the term's scope (’277 Patent, col. 5:54-64).
For the ’287 Patent:
- The Term: "individually manipulating a mass flow rate"
- Context and Importance: This phrase is the core of Vertiv's stated non-infringement theory for the ’287 Patent. Its construction will determine whether the control scheme of the accused systems meets this limitation. The dispute will likely focus on the required level of granularity—whether control must be exerted on a one-to-one basis for each heat exchanger unit or if zonal or group control suffices.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discusses positioning HEUs to cool a "single rack," which could imply that "individual" manipulation might refer to control on a per-rack basis, not necessarily a per-component basis within a larger system (’287 Patent, col. 8:59-60).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites manipulating the flow rate "supplied to each of the plurality of heat exchanger units" (emphasis added), which suggests a requirement for distinct control over the flow to every single unit. The specification reinforces this by describing controlling flow through "respective fluid lines 28" for "respective valves 40" associated with different HEUs (’287 Patent, col. 10:45-49).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not allege indirect or willful infringement. Instead, as a declaratory judgment plaintiff, Vertiv makes allegations regarding Valtrus's patent enforcement activities to establish the existence of a justiciable controversy (Compl. ¶¶62-72). The complaint alleges that Valtrus has engaged in a "campaign to interfere with Vertiv's relationship with its valued customers" by sending notice letters and filing lawsuits against them based on their use of Vertiv's products (Compl. ¶2). These actions by Valtrus, which rely on Vertiv's product literature to build infringement theories, are alleged to create uncertainty and harm Vertiv's reputation and customer relationships, thus necessitating the declaratory judgment action (Compl. ¶¶19-20, 68, 71).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A Definitional and Technical Question: Does the internal data processing of Vertiv’s Liebert iCOM control systems constitute the "generating" and "comparing" of an "empirical atmospheric map" with a "template atmospheric map" as defined by the ’277 Patent? The case may depend on whether Vertiv's real-time, sensor-driven logic is functionally the same as the patent's more structured "mapping" and "pattern differential" analysis.
- A Question of Control Granularity: Do the accused Vertiv cooling systems "individually manipulate" the mass flow rate of coolant to "each" heat exchanger unit as required by the ’287 Patent? The outcome will likely turn on evidence of the accused systems' control architecture and whether it provides the per-unit granularity described in the patent's specification or operates at a less granular, zonal level.
- A Question of Expiration and Damages: Since the complaint states all patents-in-suit have expired (Compl. ¶¶50, 54, 58), and Valtrus has been suing Vertiv's customers, a central issue beyond non-infringement will be the temporal scope of any potential past damages. The dispute will focus on acts of alleged infringement by customers that occurred prior to the patents' expiration dates.