DCT

2:24-cv-00637

Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00637, E.D. Tex., 08/05/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Dell maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including offices in Plano, authorized sellers, and an "aggregate network" of locations established through a work-from-home policy.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s server, networking, and storage products infringe seven patents related to RAID rebuilding, thermal management, network packet switching, physical component layout, and virtual machine scaling.
  • Technical Context: The patents-in-suit address various foundational technologies for enterprise-level data centers and server infrastructure, aiming to improve performance, reliability, and efficiency.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history for the patents-in-suit, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-03-10 ’544 Patent Priority Date
2009-09-14 ’249 Patent Priority Date
2010-06-15 ’544 Patent Issue Date
2011-02-17 ’177 Patent Priority Date
2012-03-02 ’320 Patent Priority Date
2012-03-05 ’265 Patent Priority Date
2012-09-05 ’632 Patent Priority Date
2015-01-30 ’273 Patent Priority Date
2016-11-01 ’632 Patent Issue Date
2017-01-31 ’177 Patent Issue Date
2017-04-18 ’265 Patent Issue Date
2017-05-16 ’320 Patent Issue Date
2018-02-20 ’249 Patent Issue Date
2020-04-21 ’273 Patent Issue Date
2024-08-05 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,739,544 - “Disk Array System and Rebuild Method Thereof,” Issued June 15, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that in conventional redundant disk array (RAID) systems, the process of rebuilding data onto a replacement drive after a failure degrades access performance for the entire array, as the rebuild operation competes for resources with normal read/write requests (Compl. ¶29; ’544 Patent, col. 1:35-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method that uses a separate backup storage device to mitigate this performance degradation. After a disk fails, the data is restored to the replacement disk primarily from the backup device, rather than by reading parity and data from the other active disks in the array. This allows the remaining disks to continue servicing user requests without the added load of the rebuild process (’544 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-63).
  • Technical Importance: This method aims to maintain high performance and availability in storage systems during a critical failure and recovery period, which is a significant objective in enterprise computing environments (’544 Patent, col. 2:26-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶32).
  • Essential elements of Claim 13 include:
    • backing up data in a disk array including a plurality of disk drives onto a backup storage device; and
    • when a failed disk drive is replaced, rebuilding data in the replacement disk drive from the backed-up data in the backup storage device;
    • while simultaneously providing other devices with access to the disk drives that have not failed.

U.S. Patent No. 9,482,632 - “Abnormality Detection Device,” Issued November 1, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of accurately detecting a cooling system abnormality, such as a clogged air filter, in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) equipment when the equipment's operational status (e.g., CPU load) is variable. A simple high-temperature alert is insufficient because the expected temperature changes with the workload (’632 Patent, col. 1:52-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a device that dynamically estimates an "upper limit" for what the temperature should be at a specific internal location, based on the current operational status and the intake air temperature. An abnormality is determined to be occurring only if the actual measured temperature at that location exceeds this calculated, context-specific upper limit (’632 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-27).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed approach provides a more sophisticated method for thermal fault detection in servers, potentially reducing false alarms and enabling more accurate identification of cooling failures under the variable load conditions typical of data centers (’632 Patent, col. 2:6-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • a hardware processor comprising:
    • an estimating unit configured to estimate an upper limit of possible temperatures in a predetermined position based on the operational status of the ICT equipment and the intake air temperature, which in turn determines cooling fan speed; and
    • a determining unit configured to determine that an abnormality is occurring when a detected equipment temperature is beyond the upper limit estimated by the estimating unit.

U.S. Patent No. 9,560,177 - “Network System and Network Flow Tracing Method,” Issued January 31, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inflexibility in prior art network switches (Compl. ¶55). The described solution is a switch apparatus that can receive rules and actions from a central controller and can modify packet headers, such as by encapsulating a packet with an additional header, to enable more flexible and distributed control over network traffic flows (’177 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶58).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell Networking Products, including ethernet switches and SmartFabric services, of infringing the ’177 Patent (Compl. ¶¶3, 24).

U.S. Patent No. 9,629,265 - “Cooling Structure of Electronic Device,” Issued April 18, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses disadvantages in prior art cooling structures for electronic devices, such as increased weight or reduced effectiveness due to component placement (Compl. ¶68). The invention claims a specific physical layout of internal components—including fans, a CPU, memory devices, and power source units—arranged to optimize airflow and prevent heat from high-power components like the CPU from directly flowing into and reducing the cooling efficiency of other components like the power sources (’265 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶71).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell Server Products, which contain the types of components described in the patent, of infringing by virtue of their internal cooling structure and component layout (Compl. ¶¶3, 24).

U.S. Patent No. 9,651,320 - “ICT Equipment,” Issued May 16, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the risk of condensation and component damage in ICT equipment when the intake air temperature drops sharply (Compl. ¶¶81-82). The invention is a temperature control system that calculates a "declination index value"—an indicator of the rate of temperature change—and uses this index to control cooling fan speed, thereby preventing rapid internal temperature drops that could lead to condensation (’320 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶83).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶86).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell Server Products that feature advanced temperature control of infringing the ’320 Patent (Compl. ¶¶3, 24).

U.S. Patent No. 9,900,249 - “Communication System, Forwarding Node, Path Management Server, Communication Method, and Program,” Issued February 20, 2018

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem that packet forwarding paths in traditional IP networks are not completely controllable, as they depend on the local routing tables of each node (Compl. ¶96). The invention describes a packet forwarding node that uses a forwarding table based on identifiers that identify a specific interface or link, allowing for more granular control over the path a packet takes without requiring every node to know the entire network topology (’249 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 6 (Compl. ¶99).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell Networking Products of infringing the ’249 Patent through their methods for forwarding data packets within a network (Compl. ¶¶3, 24).

U.S. Patent No. 10,628,273 - “Node System, Server Apparatus, Scaling Control Method, and Program,” Issued April 21, 2020

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses drawbacks in prior art redundant systems, such as downtime during resource scaling in virtual environments (Compl. ¶109). The invention is a node system with an active computer and a standby computer. To scale resources (e.g., add or remove virtual CPUs), the operation is first performed on the standby system. Once the scaling is complete on the standby system, a switchover is executed, making the newly scaled system the active one. This process is designed to minimize or eliminate service interruption during scaling (’273 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶112).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Dell Server Products that support high availability and fault tolerance features for virtual CPUs of infringing the ’273 Patent (Compl. ¶¶3, 24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies three broad categories of accused products: "Dell Networking Products," "Dell RAID Products," and "Dell Server Products" (Compl. ¶3). It provides a non-exhaustive list of exemplary product series and models, including Dell S-series switches, PowerEdge RAID Controllers, PowerEdge rack and tower servers, and management controllers like iDRAC and OpenManage Enterprise (Compl. ¶24).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are alleged to provide core data center and enterprise IT functionalities. These include network switching and software-defined networking ("Dell Networking Products"), data redundancy and storage management ("Dell RAID Products"), and server operations supporting high availability, fault tolerance, and advanced thermal management ("Dell Server Products") (Compl. ¶3). The complaint alleges these products are sold to U.S. businesses and for incorporation into OEM solutions (Compl. ¶25).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach exemplary claim charts for its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶32, 45). The analysis below is therefore based on the narrative infringement theories presented in the body of the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint was available for this report.

  • ’544 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Dell's RAID Products infringe at least claim 13 by practicing a method of rebuilding a disk array (Compl. ¶¶32-33). The alleged infringing method involves backing up data to a backup storage device and, upon a disk failure, rebuilding the data onto a replacement disk from that backup device, while simultaneously allowing access to the remaining, non-failed disks (Compl. ¶33).
  • ’632 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Dell's Server Products infringe at least claim 1 by incorporating an infringing abnormality detection device (Compl. ¶¶45-46). The narrative theory is that these servers use a hardware processor to estimate an upper limit for internal temperatures based on the server's operational status and intake air temperature. An abnormality is then determined to have occurred if a measured temperature exceeds this dynamically estimated limit (Compl. ¶46).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’544 Patent, a central question may be whether Dell’s accused rebuild process relies on a "backup storage device" as the source of data, as the claim requires, or if it uses a conventional RAID method of recalculating lost data from parity information stored on other disks within the same array. For the ’632 Patent, a key issue may be whether the term "estimating an upper limit of possible temperatures" can be construed to read on Dell's thermal management logic, or if that logic relies on selecting from pre-set thresholds rather than performing a dynamic estimation as described in the patent.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Accused Products’ thermal control systems perform the specific two-part function of first estimating a dynamic temperature ceiling based on multiple inputs and then comparing a sensor reading to that ceiling, as required by Claim 1 of the ’632 Patent? Similarly, for the ’544 Patent, what is the technical nature of the alleged "backup storage device," and is its role in the rebuild process consistent with the claim language?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’544 Patent, Claim 13

  • The Term: "rebuilding data... from the backed-up data in the backup storage device"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase is central to distinguishing the claimed method from conventional RAID rebuilds that calculate data from parity information on surviving drives. The interpretation of "from" will be critical to defining the scope of infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language does not explicitly forbid the use of other data sources in addition to the backup device, suggesting any process that uses the backup data as a source could be covered.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s stated objective is to avoid the performance degradation caused by reading from the other active disks during a rebuild (’544 Patent, col. 1:35-46). This purpose may support a narrower construction where "from the backed-up data" means using the backup as the primary or sole source, in place of the other array disks.

’632 Patent, Claim 1

  • The Term: "estimating unit configured to estimate an upper limit of possible temperatures"
  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claim covers only predictive or model-based thermal monitoring systems, or if it also reads on more common reactive systems that use lookup tables with pre-set thresholds.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "estimate" is not explicitly defined and could be argued to cover any form of calculation, including selecting a value from a table based on current operating parameters (’632 Patent, col. 2:15-20).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's solution is framed as an improvement over static temperature comparisons, suggesting the "estimate" is a dynamic calculation that produces a specific thermal ceiling for a given set of conditions, not merely the selection of a pre-defined value (’632 Patent, col. 1:52-67).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Dell provides user manuals, online instructions, and customer support that instruct customers on how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶35, 48).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents, based on knowledge of the patents and infringement acquired "at least due to the filing of this Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶39, 52).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of functional specificity: Across multiple patents, do Dell's general-purpose server functionalities (e.g., thermal management, RAID recovery, VM scaling) perform the exact, and often multi-step, technical methods required by the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed invention and the actual operation of the accused systems?
  2. A second key issue will be one of architectural scope: For patents directed at specific physical or logical structures (such as the component layout of the ’265 Patent or the active/standby architecture of the ’273 Patent), can the claim language be construed to cover the diverse and potentially distinct designs implemented across Dell’s wide range of accused server and networking products?
  3. Given the assertion of seven technologically distinct patents, a central procedural question will be one of case manageability: How will the parties and the court handle the complexity of litigating a broad portfolio covering disparate areas of server technology, and will the case narrow to focus on a smaller, representative set of claims and products?