DCT

2:24-cv-00887

Edge Networking Systems LLC v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00887, E.D. Tex., 03/24/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Amazon has regular and established places of business in the District, including multiple Amazon Robotics Fulfillment Centers, and has committed acts of infringement within the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS) infringes seven patents related to distributed software-defined networking architectures.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to software-defined networking (SDN), a technology that decouples network control and management from the underlying physical hardware, which is fundamental to modern cloud computing and container orchestration services.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that patents from the same family as the ’095 and ’871 Patents-in-Suit were cited as relevant prior art during the prosecution of a U.S. patent application owned by Amazon Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc. This allegation may be central to Plaintiff's claims of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-06-13 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2018-09-12 Amazon Technologies, Inc. files U.S. Patent Application No. 16/129,632
2020-06-16 U.S. Patent No. 10,686,871 issues
2021-01-12 U.S. Patent No. 10,893,095 issues
2021-08-31 Amazon Technologies, Inc.'s application issues as U.S. Patent No. 11,108,687
2023-07-04 U.S. Patent No. 11,695,823 issues
2024-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 12,113,850 issues
2024-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 12,113,851 issues
2024-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 12,126,673 issues
2024-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 12,126,674 issues
2025-03-24 Amended Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,695,823 - Distributed Software Defined Networking

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inflexibility and high cost associated with traditional networking solutions, which are built on proprietary, vendor-specific hardware and software, making it difficult for network operators to add new or customized features (U.S. Patent No. 10,686,871, col. 1:22-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a “Distributed Software Defined Network” (dSDN) architecture that separates network functions from the underlying hardware. This is achieved through a combination of a “programmable network device” and a “programmable cloud device,” which securely run distributed applications managed by a central portal, thereby enabling flexible programmability and harmonizing application deployment regardless of the hardware vendor (U.S. Patent No. 10,686,871, Abstract; col. 2:36-44).
  • Technical Importance: This architectural approach aims to simplify the network deployment lifecycle and reduce dependency on proprietary hardware, a foundational concept for modern cloud and edge computing (U.S. Patent No. 10,686,871, col. 2:40-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A system for processing data packets in a network, comprising:
    • a programmable network device adapted to host a plurality of network device applications;
    • a programmable cloud device adapted to host a plurality of cloud applications;
    • wherein the applications on the network and cloud devices form unified capabilities enabling upper layer APIs to program the applications independent of the underlying network and cloud device hardware;
    • wherein the network and cloud applications are in secure communication to form a distributed application.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,893,095 - Distributed Software Defined Networking

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the rigidity of conventional network infrastructure where operators are locked into vendor-specific hardware, hindering innovation and customization (U.S. Patent No. 10,893,095, col. 1:22-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an architecture comprising a programmable network device hosting first network applications and a programmable cloud device hosting second network applications. The applications on these separate devices communicate securely through a “virtual fabric” to create a cohesive, distributed application, managed by a central portal that handles the application lifecycle (U.S. Patent No. 10,893,095, Abstract; col. 2:35-44).
  • Technical Importance: The use of a "virtual fabric" to abstract communication between edge and cloud components facilitates the deployment of unified, hardware-agnostic network services (U.S. Patent No. 10,893,095, col. 2:40-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A system for processing data packets in a network, comprising:
    • a programmable network device hosting a plurality of first network applications;
    • a programmable cloud device hosting a plurality of second network applications;
    • wherein at least one of the first network applications and at least one of the second network applications are in secure communication with each other through a virtual fabric to form a distributed application;
    • an application management portal coupled to the devices and an application repository.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,686,871

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,686,871, Distributed Software Defined Networking, issued June 16, 2020.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the lead patents, discloses a distributed software-defined network architecture. It focuses on the use of a programmable network device and a programmable cloud device that are each powered by a sandboxing operating system to facilitate the deployment and interruption-free upgrades of distributed network applications.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶69).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Amazon EKS, with its control plane and worker nodes distributed across AWS Availability Zones, implements the claimed system for processing data packets using distributed applications (Compl. ¶¶ 70-75).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,113,850

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,113,850, Method For Managing Updates To A Distributed Network With No Interruptions To Operations, issued October 8, 2024.
  • Technology Synopsis: This method patent claims a process for managing a distributed network. The claimed steps include hosting applications on network and cloud devices, storing them in a repository, and managing their upgrades via a management portal that verifies authenticity using unique security keys, all while ensuring substantially no interruption to operations.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶91).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the operation of Amazon EKS—including its use of a control plane (management portal), container image registries (repository), and processes for deploying and updating applications across nodes—performs the steps of the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶ 92-99).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,113,851

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,113,851, Method For Managing Updates To A Distributed Network With No Interruptions To Operations, issued October 8, 2024.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a cloud device with processors and memory storing applications. The system is configured to communicate with a programmable network device to form a distributed application and use upper-layer APIs to program both sets of applications independent of the underlying hardware.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶109).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Amazon EKS cloud device, including its virtual private cloud, subnets, and nodes running on servers with processors, of meeting the claim limitations (Compl. ¶¶ 110-114).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,126,673

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,126,673, Distributed Software Defined Networking, issued October 22, 2024.
  • Technology Synopsis: This method patent claims a process of providing a distributed network by hosting applications on programmable network and cloud devices. A key element is programming these applications through upper-layer APIs to form unified capabilities independent of the underlying hardware.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶124).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Amazon EKS performs the claimed method by using its control plane APIs to manage containerized workloads (applications) on its nodes (network devices) and cloud infrastructure (cloud device) in a hardware-agnostic manner (Compl. ¶¶ 125-127).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,126,674

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,126,674, Method For Managing Updates To A Distributed Network Through An Application Management Portal, issued October 22, 2024.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for processing data packets in a distributed network. The key steps include storing tested applications in a repository, powering network and cloud devices with a sandboxing OS, and using a management portal to manage upgrades and verify their authenticity via unique security keys.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶137).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the operation of Amazon EKS performs the claimed method, pointing to its use of container image registries, its operating system environment for running applications, and its control plane for managing and verifying updates (Compl. ¶¶ 138-144).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Product Identification: Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (“EKS”) Web Services (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes Amazon EKS as a managed service for deploying and scaling containerized applications using Kubernetes (Compl. ¶30). It is alleged to operate by providing a scalable Kubernetes control plane that runs across multiple AWS Availability Zones (AZs), which manages worker nodes where user applications are executed (Compl. ¶31). The complaint asserts that this architecture includes a control plane, nodes with components like kube-proxy and kubelet, and container runtimes that together form a system for hosting distributed applications (Compl. ¶¶ 33-34). The complaint provides an architectural diagram of an Amazon EKS cluster deployed across two AWS Availability Zones, showing the relationship between the control plane, nodes, and user access points (Compl. p. 10). The service is alleged to use features like Kubernetes Secrets and end-to-end encryption to facilitate secure communication between applications (Compl. ¶35).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’823 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a programmable network device adapted to host a plurality of network device applications Amazon EKS provides a first AWS Availability Zone, which includes nodes running network device applications such as kube-proxy and kubelet. ¶31, ¶33 col. 10:14-16
a programmable cloud device adapted to host a plurality of cloud applications Amazon EKS provides a second AWS Availability Zone, which itself or its nodes can serve as the cloud device, hosting cloud applications. ¶34 col. 10:14-16
wherein the plurality of network device applications and plurality of cloud applications device form unified capabilities enabling a plurality of upper layer application programming interfaces (APIs) to program the plurality of network device applications and plurality of cloud applications independent of network device hardware and cloud device hardware Kubernetes applications and control plane APIs are alleged to form unified capabilities that program applications independent of the underlying cloud and network hardware, for example through the use of virtual machines. ¶37 col. 2:36-44
wherein the plurality of network device applications...and the plurality of cloud applications...are in secure communication with each other to form a distributed application The system allegedly uses Kubernetes Secrets and end-to-end encryption, such as through AWS Key Management Service (KMS), to enable secure communication between applications, forming a distributed application. ¶35 col. 2:39-42

’095 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a programmable network device hosting a plurality of first network applications The accused system includes a first Availability Zone with nodes that host network applications like kube-proxy and kubelet. ¶50, ¶52 col. 10:14-16
a programmable cloud device hosting a plurality of second network applications The accused system includes a second Availability Zone, which itself or its nodes host second network applications like container runtimes. ¶53 col. 10:14-16
wherein at least one of the plurality of first network applications...and at least one of the plurality of second network applications...are in secure communication with each other through a virtual fabric to form a distributed application The network applications are alleged to be in secure communication using end-to-end encryption and Kubernetes Secrets. Kubernetes is alleged to implement a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) that forms a virtual fabric between server components. A process flow diagram illustrates how Amazon EKS uses AWS Key Management Service (KMS) for envelope encryption of Kubernetes secrets (Compl. p. 33). ¶54, ¶55 col. 13:42-49
an application repository...storing distributed applications which have been tested for installation Amazon EKS includes an application repository, such as a container image registry, which stores applications that have been tested for installation on the network and cloud devices. ¶59 col. 15:49-54
an application management portal coupled to the programmable network device, programmable cloud device and the application repository, wherein the application management portal manages usage of the distributed applications The EKS control plane, including its dashboard, is alleged to be the application management portal that is coupled to the devices and repository and manages the usage of the distributed applications. ¶60 col. 15:20-24

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory equates patent terms like “programmable network device” and “programmable cloud device” with components of a modern cloud architecture, such as an AWS “Availability Zone” or a Kubernetes “node” (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 34). A potential point of contention is whether the scope of these terms, as defined and exemplified in the patent specification (which includes references to physical hardware like cellular base stations), can be construed to read on these virtualized, software-defined constructs.
  • Technical Questions: The claims require programming applications “independent of network device hardware and cloud device hardware” (’823 Patent, cl. 1). The complaint alleges this is met through abstractions like virtual machines and Kubernetes APIs (Compl. ¶37). A central technical question may be whether the level of abstraction provided by the accused EKS service, which runs on underlying server hardware within AWS data centers, meets the specific technical requirements for hardware independence as described in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "programmable network device"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to all asserted patents. Its construction will likely determine whether the claims read on a cloud-based service like EKS. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff’s infringement theory equates it with virtualized cloud constructs (e.g., an AWS Availability Zone or a Kubernetes node), while the patent specification often uses physical hardware (e.g., a base station) as its primary example.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines the "fxDevice" as “any networking equipment embedded with a special flexible operating system (fxOS)” (U.S. Patent No. 10,686,871, col. 10:66-67), which may support an interpretation not strictly limited to physical hardware.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description frequently exemplifies the "fxDevice" as a cellular base station (eNB) or other physical edge hardware (U.S. Patent No. 10,686,871, Fig. 10; col. 24:7-9). This repeated contextual framing may suggest a narrower scope was intended.

The Term: "independent of network device hardware and cloud device hardware" (’823 Patent, cl. 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the degree of abstraction required by the invention. The dispute will likely focus on whether the hardware abstraction provided by Kubernetes and AWS meets this claimed level of independence.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s stated purpose is to “harmonize application deployment across the network independent of the hardware vendor,” suggesting that any system achieving vendor-agnostic deployment could meet the limitation (U.S. Patent No. 10,686,871, col. 2:40-44).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes achieving this independence via a specific “sandboxing operating system” called “fxOS” (U.S. Patent No. 10,686,871, col. 10:17-20). This may support an argument that the claims require a specialized OS designed for this purpose, rather than a general-purpose system like Kubernetes running on standard server operating systems.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by supplying customers with instructions on how to operate the accused EKS service in an infringing manner through its website, product literature, and other publications (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 63, 85).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge of the patent family based on a patent from the asserted family being cited as prior art during the prosecution of a patent application assigned to Amazon Technologies, Inc., an alleged subsidiary (Compl. ¶41, fn. 28; ¶62, fn. 55). The complaint further alleges that Defendant adopted a policy of not reviewing the patents of others, thereby remaining willfully blind to the infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 62).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "programmable network device," rooted in the patent’s context of physical network elements like cellular base stations, be construed to cover the virtualized, software-defined components of the accused Amazon EKS cloud service, such as an “Availability Zone” or a Kubernetes “node”?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the hardware abstraction layer provided by the accused EKS platform, which is based on the open-source Kubernetes system, achieve the claimed function of programming applications "independent of...hardware" in the specific manner required by the patents’ "dSDN" architecture, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
  • A central issue for willfulness and potential enhanced damages will be knowledge and intent: what is the legal effect of the allegation that patents from the asserted family were cited as prior art against a patent application owned by Defendant's subsidiary, and does this fact establish pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit?