DCT

2:24-cv-00533

Valtrus Innovations Ltd v. SAP America Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00533, E.D. Tex., 07/12/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant SAP America maintains a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas, and because Defendant SAP, Se is a foreign corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SAP HANA products and related enterprise services infringe seven U.S. patents related to multi-processor cache coherency, fault-tolerant messaging, data redundancy, and dynamic resource partitioning.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern foundational aspects of high-performance enterprise computing systems, focusing on data integrity, system reliability, and processing efficiency in complex, multi-processor environments.
  • Key Procedural History: This complaint is marked as related to a prior action, Valtrus v. SAP, Case No. 2:24-cv-00021, in which SAP moved to dismiss for lack of standing. This new action adds Key Patent Innovations Ltd. as a plaintiff, seemingly to address the standing issue. The complaint alleges Defendant had pre-suit notice of five of the seven asserted patents, with notice dates as early as March 2022.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-31 U.S. Patent No. 6,889,244 Priority Date
2001-01-31 U.S. Patent No. 6,691,139 Priority Date
2001-09-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,823,409 Priority Date
2002-03-06 U.S. Patent No. 6,871,264 Priority Date
2003-06-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,152,182 Priority Date
2003-07-25 U.S. Patent No. 7,936,738 Priority Date
2004-02-10 U.S. Patent No. 6,691,139 Issued
2004-06-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,313,575 Priority Date
2004-11-23 U.S. Patent No. 6,823,409 Issued
2005-03-22 U.S. Patent No. 6,871,264 Issued
2005-05-03 U.S. Patent No. 6,889,244 Issued
2006-12-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,152,182 Issued
2007-12-25 U.S. Patent No. 7,313,575 Issued
2011-05-03 U.S. Patent No. 7,936,738 Issued
2022-03-04 Alleged Notice of ’409 and ’264 Patents
2023-11-14 Alleged Notice of ’182, ’575, and ’738 Patents
2024-07-12 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,823,409 - "Coherency Control Module for Maintaining Cache Coherency in a Multi-Processor-Bus System," issued November 23, 2004 (’409 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In computer systems with multiple processors and multiple buses, ensuring that all processor caches have a consistent (coherent) view of memory requires extensive "snooping" across buses, which consumes clock cycles and reduces system efficiency (’409 Patent, col. 3:24-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a specialized hardware module—a "coherency control module"—that functions as a snoop filter. This module uses an "active snoop queue" and interfaces with a dedicated "tag RAM" to intelligently manage and track memory access requests. By maintaining a list of active memory cycles, it can determine the proper snoop response with minimal overhead, thereby reducing the number of snoop cycles that must be run on buses not originating the memory request (’409 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:10-24; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This filtering approach was designed to improve performance in high-end, multi-processor server architectures by mitigating a key bottleneck: excessive bus traffic and memory access latency associated with maintaining cache coherence (’409 Patent, col. 3:30-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶34).
  • Essential elements of claim 10 include:
    • a request module configured to receive requests from a plurality of buses... and to maintain proper ordering;
    • an active snoop queue (ASQ) module... configured to maintain a list of requests... and to prevent multiple accesses to a single address in the cache memory simultaneously; and
    • a static RAM interface module configured to access an address look-up table corresponding to data stored in the cache memory.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶34).

U.S. Patent No. 6,889,244 - "Method and Apparatus for Passing Messages Using a Fault Tolerant Storage System," issued May 3, 2005 (’244 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Enterprise systems for distributed applications typically require two separate, expensive, high-reliability systems: one network fabric for transient inter-process messaging and another fault-tolerant storage system (FTSS) for persistent data storage. This dual infrastructure is costly, and the transient nature of the messaging network means a lost message cannot be retransmitted by the fabric itself (’244 Patent, col. 5:1-5).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a unified architecture where the interconnection fabric of the FTSS is also used to carry messages. The FTSS is enhanced with "message agents" that handle different communication paradigms. Because messages are routed through and stored within the persistent media of the FTSS, the system can guarantee delivery and support message retrieval, eliminating the need for a separate messaging fabric (’244 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This innovation aimed to reduce the cost and complexity of enterprise IT by converging storage and messaging networks onto a single, highly reliable platform, thereby improving fault tolerance for distributed applications (’244 Patent, col. 5:35-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • transmitting a message from the first node to a communication agent in the FTSS;
    • storing the message in a data structure in highly reliable fault-tolerant storage media of the FTSS;
    • processing the message at the FTSS in accordance with a messaging paradigm; and
    • transmitting the message from the FTSS to the second node.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 7,152,182 - "Data Redundancy System and Method," issued December 19, 2006 (’182 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses multi-layered data redundancy for disaster recovery. It describes a primary storage site with two local "redundancy appliances," where one "shadows" the other to protect against a single appliance failure. This dual-appliance architecture is then replicated at a secondary, remote storage site, providing redundancy against both local failures and catastrophic site-level disasters (’182 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: Systems that enable data storage with "first and second redundancy appliances (where the second shadows the first)" at a primary site and "third and fourth redundancy appliances (where the fourth shadows the third)" at a secondary site (Compl. ¶45).

U.S. Patent No. 7,313,575 - "Data Services Handler," issued December 25, 2007 (’575 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a "data services handler" that acts as an intelligent interface between applications and a data store. The core of the invention is a "real time information director" (RTID) that transforms data according to rules defined in "polymorphic meta data," which allows for the flexible application of security models and data integrity rules in real time without hard-coding them into the applications themselves (’575 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
  • Accused Features: Software that "enables integration of data from multiple sources through real-time data transforms" (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 6,691,139 - "Recreation of Archives at a Disaster Recovery Site," issued February 10, 2004 (’139 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical problem of high network bandwidth consumption when replicating archive logs to a remote disaster recovery site (’139 Patent, col. 2:1-10). The proposed solution is to compute a "delta image"—representing only the changes between an active data file and an archive file—at the primary site. This much smaller delta image is transmitted over the network and then combined with the active data file at the standby site to reconstruct the full archive file, thereby saving bandwidth (’139 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: System replication functionalities that use "delta data shipping that produces a delta image at a primary site and combines it with an active transaction redo lag at a standby site" (Compl. ¶60).

U.S. Patent No. 7,936,738 - "Fault Tolerant Systems," issued May 3, 2011 (’738 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the challenge of maintaining the state, or "context," of a communication session during a failover from an active server to a standby server in a high-availability system (’738 Patent, col. 1:47-58). The invention proposes storing the context information directly within an outgoing message. A response to that message will then contain the same context, allowing a newly activated standby system to seamlessly rebuild the protocol state and continue the session without relying on a separate, shared storage element (’738 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: Systems enabling "information exchange between nodes using Kafka messages for data streaming" (Compl. ¶64).

U.S. Patent No. 6,871,264 - "System and Method for Dynamic Processor Core and Cache Partitioning on Large-Scale Multithreaded, Multiprocessor Integrated Circuits," issued March 22, 2005 (’264 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses performance bottlenecks in multi-processor chips caused by static allocation of cache memory to processor cores, where some processing threads are more cache-intensive than others (’264 Patent, col. 2:44-50). The solution is a method for dynamically repartitioning cache blocks among different processor cores based on real-time needs, such as a thread's cache hit rate, to ensure critical-path threads receive necessary resources and optimize overall system performance (’264 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶72).
  • Accused Features: Hardware and software components for "a multi-processor integrated circuit capable of executing more than one instruction stream" (Compl. ¶72).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "SAP HANA products" and associated services as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶34).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that SAP HANA products are high-performance, in-memory database and data processing solutions marketed for their "scalability, availability, reliability, performance, and capacity" (Compl. ¶36). These products are offered in cloud and hybrid models and are alleged to integrate data from multiple sources, provide data redundancy for high availability and failover, and utilize modern multi-core processors, such as those with AMD "Zen 2" and "Zen 3" architectures (e.g., AMD EPYC processors), to achieve high performance (Compl. ¶36, ¶37, ¶47, ¶74). The complaint also identifies the use of Kafka for data streaming as part of the accused functionality (Compl. ¶64).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts attached as Exhibits 8 through 14, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

'409 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that SAP's HANA products directly infringe at least claim 10 by providing a "coherency control module" to manage access to cache memory in the multi-core processors on which the products run (Compl. ¶34). This accused module allegedly maintains the ordering of memory requests from multiple processor cores to a shared cache and prevents simultaneous access to a single cache address (Compl. ¶37). This functionality is alleged to meet the claim limitations of a "request module," an "active snoop queue (ASQ) module," and a "static RAM interface module." The complaint specifically identifies hardware utilizing AMD processors with "Zen 2" and "Zen 3" architectures as forming a material part of the infringing system (Compl. ¶37).

'244 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that SAP's products infringe at least claim 1 by providing a messaging architecture that uses a fault-tolerant storage system (FTSS) (Compl. ¶41). The theory is that SAP's platform transmits, stores, and processes messages using this FTSS, which integrates various systems and data sources (Compl. ¶41). This allegedly satisfies the claim elements of transmitting a message to a "communication agent in the FTSS," "storing the message" in its fault-tolerant media, processing it, and transmitting it to a second node (Compl. ¶40, ¶41).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the '409 Patent will be whether the cache coherency protocols implemented in modern commodity processors (e.g., AMD EPYC) constitute the specific "active snoop queue (ASQ) module" recited in the claim, or if they represent a different, non-infringing technology. For the ’244 Patent, a key dispute may be whether the accused messaging services are "in the FTSS" as required by the claim, or if they are separate applications that merely use the FTSS as a back-end, potentially falling outside the claim's architectural scope.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused SAP HANA systems, which utilize AMD processors, perform the specific function of the claimed ASQ to "prevent multiple accesses to a single address in the cache memory simultaneously" in the manner described in the '409 Patent? (Compl. ¶37). Regarding the '244 Patent, the analysis will question if the accused messaging services inherently "stor[e] the message" in fault-tolerant media as an integral step of transmission, as claimed, or if persistence is an optional feature separate from the core message processing paradigm.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "active snoop queue (ASQ) module" ('409 Patent, Claim 10)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the '409 patent's snoop filter. The outcome of the infringement analysis for this patent will likely depend on whether the general cache coherency mechanisms in the accused modern processors can be found to be an "ASQ module." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes a specific queuing structure, and the defendant will likely argue that its processors use standard, architecturally distinct coherency protocols.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines the module functionally as being "configured to maintain a list of requests... and to prevent multiple accesses to a single address... simultaneously" ('409 Patent, col. 14:36-40). A plaintiff may argue that any structure performing this function, regardless of its specific implementation, meets the limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the ASQ as having a "fixed number of locations" and containing "indices of all requests which are currently active" ('409 Patent, col. 6:4-7). The patent also illustrates a "two dimensional doubly linked list structure" for managing requests, which a defendant may cite to argue for a more limited, structural definition of the module ('409 Patent, Fig. 4).

Term: "communication agent in the FTSS" ('244 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for establishing the required level of integration between the messaging and storage systems. The dispute will likely center on whether a software component that uses an FTSS for storage is necessarily "in" the FTSS. Practitioners may focus on this term as it goes to the heart of the patent's asserted architectural convergence, which may differ from the service-oriented architectures of the accused products.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that transactional applications "can include databases, web servers, e-commerce services, and similar transactional based services," suggesting a broad definition of the types of software that could be integrated with the FTSS (’244 Patent, col. 3:20-23).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s Figure 5 depicts the "MESSAGING AGENTS" block (102) physically located inside the boundary of the "FAULT TOLERANT STORAGE SYSTEM (FTSS)" block (44). A defendant may use this figure to argue that the claim requires a monolithic integration where the agent is a native component of the storage system itself.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for multiple patents. For example, it claims SAP encourages customers to use HANA products for their performance and reliability, which allegedly depends on the infringing technologies, thereby inducing customers to infringe (Compl. ¶36, ¶74). It also alleges SAP advertises system replication for "high availability and rapid failover," which allegedly instructs on infringing use of the '182 patent's technology (Compl. ¶47).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all seven patents. The claims are based on alleged pre-suit notice, with the complaint providing specific dates of notice for the ’409, ’182, ’575, ’139, ’738, and ’264 Patents. The complaint alleges that Defendants knew of their infringement as of these dates but "did not take any action to stop their infringement" (Compl. ¶33, ¶38, ¶44, ¶49, ¶52, ¶57, ¶63, ¶68, ¶71, ¶76).

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

  • A central issue will be one of architectural mapping: do the general-purpose cache coherency protocols and loosely coupled messaging services used in SAP's modern HANA systems embody the specific, integrated "modules" and "agents" (such as the '409 patent's "active snoop queue module" and the '244 patent's "communication agent in the FTSS") described in patents that originate from an earlier era of more monolithic system design?
  • A key question of claim scope versus evolving standards will be whether the asserted claims, which target specific technical solutions, can be construed broadly enough to read on modern, widely adopted industry technologies like AMD's Zen processor architecture and Apache Kafka, or if these technologies will be found to be non-infringing alternative solutions to similar enterprise computing challenges.
  • Given the explicit allegations of pre-suit notice with specific dates for five of the seven asserted patents, a significant question for damages will be one of willfulness: does the evidence support a finding that SAP's alleged infringement continued despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of valid patents, potentially justifying enhanced damages?