DCT

2:24-cv-00776

Valtrus Innovations Ltd v. TierPoint LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (Ireland)
- Defendant: TierPoint, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP; FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.
Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00776, E.D. Tex., 09/25/2024
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant TierPoint maintains a regular and established place of business, its DFW Data Center, within the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s data center cooling and environmental control systems infringe seven patents related to atmospheric control, cooling efficiency, and energy management in data centers.
Technical Context: The technology addresses the significant energy costs and technical challenges of maintaining optimal atmospheric conditions for high-density computer equipment in large-scale data centers.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant a "Notice Letter" on March 22, 2024, which was delivered on April 1, 2024. This letter allegedly provided a specific factual basis for infringement, placing Defendant on notice of at least the '870 Patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-04-17	’277 Patent Priority Date
2002-10-03	’284, ’683, and ’287 Patent Priority Date
2002-11-26	’179 Patent Priority Date
2003-01-16	’682 Patent Priority Date
2004-04-06	’277 Patent Issued
2004-05-28	’870 Patent Priority Date
2005-02-15	’284 Patent Issued
2005-02-15	’287 Patent Issued
2005-03-01	’179 Patent Issued
2005-03-22	’682 Patent Issued
2005-03-22	’683 Patent Issued
2006-04-18	’870 Patent Issued
2024-03-22	Plaintiff sent "Notice Letter" to Defendant
2024-04-01	"Notice Letter" delivered to Defendant
2024-09-25	Complaint Filed

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

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

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277, "Atmospheric control within a building," issued April 6, 2004.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional data center cooling systems as inefficient because they often operate at full capacity regardless of the actual, distributed cooling needs of electronic components, leading to unnecessarily high operating expenses (’277 Patent, col. 2:21-43).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for more precise atmospheric control by sensing atmospheric parameters at various locations to generate an "empirical atmospheric map." This real-world map is then compared to a "template atmospheric map," which represents an optimal state. By identifying "pattern differentials" between the two maps, the system can determine and execute corrective actions, such as varying the quantity, quality, and distribution of conditioned air to targeted areas (’277 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:46-59; Fig. 2).
Technical Importance: This approach represented a shift from brute-force, room-level cooling to a more intelligent, location-specific control methodology intended to reduce energy consumption in increasingly power-hungry data centers (’277 Patent, col. 7:37-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
Claim 1 of the ’277 Patent recites the following essential elements:
- supplying a conditioned fluid inside said building;
- sensing at least one atmospheric parameter in a plurality of locations inside said building;
- generating an empirical atmospheric map from the results of said sensing step;
- comparing said empirical atmospheric map to a template atmospheric map; and
- identifying pattern differentials between said empirical and template atmospheric maps.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,854,284 - Cooling of data centers

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,854,284, "Cooling of data centers," issued February 15, 2005.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent notes that conventional systems for returning air to cooling units in data centers are often indiscriminate, removing both hot and cool air, which reduces efficiency and may fail to remove heat from where it is most concentrated (’284 Patent, col. 2:5-14).
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system with a plenum (e.g., the space under a raised floor) containing a plurality of controllable returns that can vary the removal of heated air. The system can sense pressure within the plenum and vary the intake of the cooling system in response, allowing the system to adjust its overall operation based on airflow conditions and thereby improve efficiency (’284 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-17).
Technical Importance: This technology provides a mechanism for more granular control over return airflow, enabling cooling systems to more effectively capture and treat the warmest air while minimizing the inefficient removal of already-cool air (’284 Patent, col. 6:1-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶35).
Claim 10 of the ’284 Patent recites the following essential method steps:
- activating a cooling system and opening a plurality of returns, said plurality of returns being configured to remove cooling fluid from various locations of said data center...;
- sensing a pressure of said cooling fluid in the plenum;
- determining whether said sensed pressure is within a predetermined pressure range; and
- varying an intake of said cooling system through the plurality of returns in response to said sensed pressure falling outside of said predetermined pressure range.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,868,682 - Agent based control method and system for energy management

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,868,682, "Agent based control method and system for energy management," issued March 22, 2005.
Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a hierarchical, agent-based control system for managing data center energy. Software "agents" at the rack, row, and CRAC (Computer Room Air Conditioning) levels monitor local conditions and make autonomous adjustments or request resources from higher-level agents to optimize cooling efficiency (’682 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses TierPoint's "cooling systems in its data centers" of infringement (Compl. ¶38).

U.S. Patent No. 6,868,683 - Cooling of data centers

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,868,683, "Cooling of data centers," issued March 22, 2005.
Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the ’284 Patent and similarly discloses a system for improving data center cooling efficiency. It describes using dynamically controllable vents and returns to provide individualized and localized amounts of cooling fluid based on the heat loads of specific server racks (’683 Patent, col. 5:11-21).
Asserted Claims: At least claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶41).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses TierPoint's "cooling systems in its data centers" of infringement (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 6,854,287 - Cooling system

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,854,287, "Cooling system," issued February 15, 2005.
Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a cooling system where heat exchanger units are positioned near computer racks to deliver cooled air. The system controls both the temperature of a cooling fluid supplied to the exchangers and the airflow from the exchangers in response to temperatures sensed at various locations in the room, allowing for zonal control (’287 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses TierPoint's "cooling systems in its datacenters" of infringement (Compl. ¶44).

U.S. Patent No. 6,862,179 - Partition for varying the supply of cooling fluid

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,862,179, "Partition for varying the supply of cooling fluid," issued March 1, 2005.
Technology Synopsis: The invention discloses using controllable partitions within a data center's cooling plenum to create distinct zones. By manipulating these partitions, the system can vary the supply of cooling fluid to different zones based on the sensed temperature of the server racks within those zones, enabling more targeted cooling (’179 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses TierPoint's "cooling systems in its data centers, including a partition for varying the supply of cooling fluid" of infringement (Compl. ¶47).

U.S. Patent No. 7,031,870 - Data center evaluation using an air re-circulation index

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,031,870, "Data center evaluation using an air re-circulation index," issued April 18, 2006.
Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for evaluating data center cooling efficiency by calculating an "air re-circulation index." This index is based on detected inlet, outlet, and supplied air temperatures. By analyzing how this index changes with different airflow settings, the system can evaluate component performance and optimize the data center layout (’870 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses TierPoint's "cooling systems in its data centers" of infringement (Compl. ¶51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities generally as the "systems in its data centers for cooling, or otherwise controlling atmospheric conditions" and "cooling systems in its data centers" operated by Defendant TierPoint (Compl. ¶32, ¶35).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the specific functionality or components of TierPoint's cooling systems. It alleges that TierPoint operates data centers and that the cooling systems within these centers practice the methods and embody the systems claimed by the asserted patents (Compl. ¶32, ¶35, ¶38, ¶41, ¶44, ¶47, ¶51). No specific products, software, or operational details are provided.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts attached as exhibits but does not include them in the provided filing (Compl. ¶32, ¶35). The narrative infringement allegations are summarized below.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'277 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that TierPoint directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’277 Patent by "making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing systems in its data centers for cooling, or otherwise controlling atmospheric conditions" (Compl. ¶32). The complaint does not provide a specific narrative theory detailing how TierPoint's systems perform the claimed steps of generating, comparing, and acting upon empirical and template atmospheric maps.

'284 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that TierPoint directly infringes at least claim 1 and claim 10 of the ’284 Patent by "making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing systems in its datacenters for cooling the datacenters" (Compl. ¶35). The complaint does not provide a specific narrative theory explaining how TierPoint's systems perform the claimed steps of sensing pressure in a plenum and varying system intake in response to that pressure reading.

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: A central question for the ’277 Patent will be whether the control logic and sensor data processing in Defendant's systems can be characterized as generating an "empirical atmospheric map" and comparing it to a "template atmospheric map" as those terms are used in the patent. For the ’284 Patent, a key question is whether Defendant's systems contain a "plenum" and vary their intake based on "sensing a pressure" within it, as required by claim 10, or if they operate based on other control inputs, such as temperature.
Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific technical mismatches. A foundational evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can offer that Defendant's systems actually perform the specific mapping-and-comparison logic of the ’277 Patent or the pressure-based feedback loop of the ’284 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"empirical atmospheric map" and "template atmospheric map" (’277 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’277 Patent hinges on whether Defendant’s systems create and compare data structures that meet these definitions. Practitioners may focus on these terms because modern cooling systems use extensive sensor data and control algorithms, and the dispute will likely concern whether this functionality is equivalent to the patent’s specific "mapping" and "comparison" steps.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the "empirical atmospheric map" is generated from the results of the sensing step, suggesting it could encompass any data representation of real-time conditions derived from sensors (’277 Patent, col. 7:15-17). The "template" could be dynamic and generated in real-time from current operating conditions, potentially broadening its scope beyond a static, pre-programmed model (’277 Patent, col. 6:42-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the template map as a "master, or model thermal map" that "represents a thermal map of an optimally operating data center," and suggests it can be generated by "Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software tools" (’277 Patent, col. 6:39-54). This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, pre-defined model of an ideal state, rather than just a target temperature setpoint.

"sensing a pressure of said cooling fluid in the plenum" (’284 Patent, Claim 10)

Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the specific input that triggers the claimed control method. The infringement analysis for the ’284 Patent may turn on whether Defendant's systems use pressure sensing for intake control, as opposed to more common methods like temperature sensing.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of arguments for a broader interpretation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses using a "pressure sensor 56" configured to measure the pressure of returning cooling fluid in the space 22 (the return plenum) and relay those measurements to the cooling system to control the fan speed (’284 Patent, col. 7:23-31; Fig. 2B). This specific embodiment may be cited to argue that the claim requires direct measurement of fluid pressure for the purpose of controlling system intake, not merely monitoring pressure for other diagnostic purposes.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that TierPoint's infringement of the ’870 Patent has been willful since at least the date it received Valtrus's Notice Letter (Compl. ¶50). It is alleged that TierPoint was put on notice with a "specific factual basis for its infringement" but "did not take any action to stop its infringement" (Compl. ¶50, ¶52). The prayer for relief requests a finding that infringement of "one or more" of the Asserted Patents has been willful (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶B).

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

A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of infringement without providing specific factual support. A central question for the court will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that Defendant’s cooling systems perform the particular functions recited in the claims, such as the specific mapping-and-comparison process of the ’277 Patent or the pressure-based control loop of the ’284 Patent.
A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Can terms like "empirical atmospheric map" and "template atmospheric map," which are described in the ’277 Patent with reference to distinct data models, be construed broadly enough to read on the algorithmic processing of sensor data in a modern, automated data center control system?
The allegation of willfulness will depend on the content of the pre-suit notice letter. A key question will be whether the letter provided a sufficiently detailed and plausible infringement theory to create a duty for Defendant to investigate and, if necessary, cease infringing activity or seek a license.