DCT
2:24-cv-00907
Vertiv Corp v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Vertiv Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: Valtrus Innovations Limited (Republic of Ireland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Davis Firm PC; Nixon Peabody LLP
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01152, N.D. Tex., 05/14/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred in the district, including Defendant sending infringement notice letters to Plaintiff's Dallas-based customers. Venue is also asserted on the basis that Defendant, a foreign company, is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district and has previously filed patent litigation there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its data center cooling, control, and sensor products do not infringe five U.S. patents owned by Defendant, which Defendant has asserted in lawsuits and notice letters against Plaintiff's customers.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to systems for managing the atmospheric and thermal conditions within data centers, a critical function for ensuring the reliability of high-density computing equipment.
- Key Procedural History: Defendant, a patent holding company, acquired the patents-in-suit, which originated with Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Defendant has initiated an enforcement campaign, including filing lawsuits against several of Plaintiff's major data center customers and sending notice letters to others alleging infringement based on their use of Plaintiff's products. The complaint notes that three of the five patents-in-suit have expired, limiting any potential recovery to past damages.
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 Issue Date |
| 2004-05-28 | ’870 Patent Priority Date |
| 2004-06-29 | ’490 Patent Priority Date |
| 2005-02-15 | ’287 Patent Issue Date |
| 2005-03-01 | ’179 Patent Issue Date |
| 2006-04-18 | ’870 Patent Issue Date |
| 2008-03-04 | ’490 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-02-27 | Valtrus sues Vertiv customers Digital Realty and Evoque in E.D. Tex. |
| 2024-03-29 | Valtrus sends infringement notice letter to Vertiv customer CyrusOne |
| 2024-04-17 | Valtrus sues Vertiv customer CyrusOne in E.D. Tex. |
| 2024-05-14 | Valtrus sues Vertiv customer NTT Data Services in E.D. Tex. |
| 2024-05-14 | 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”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,718,277, “Atmospheric Control Within a Building,” issued April 6, 2004 (the “’277 Patent”). (Compl. ¶46).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional data center cooling systems as inefficient because they typically operate at full capacity on a room-level basis, without accounting for the varied, location-specific thermal needs of electronic equipment, resulting in unnecessarily high operating expenses (’277 Patent, col. 2:20-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a data-driven control system that uses a plurality of sensors to gather atmospheric data from various locations within a building (’277 Patent, col. 4:50-55). This data is used to generate an "empirical atmospheric map," which is then compared to a "template atmospheric map" representing a desired state. The system identifies "pattern differentials" (e.g., hot spots) between the two maps and determines corrective actions, such as varying the quantity or distribution of conditioned air, to reduce those differentials (’277 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The technology enabled a shift from indiscriminate, brute-force environmental control to an intelligent, responsive system capable of targeting cooling resources where they were most needed, improving energy efficiency in data centers (Compl. ¶47; ’277 Patent, col. 3:40-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1, 12, and 22 (Compl. ¶¶78-80). Claim 1, a method claim, includes 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 using software for processing input from said sensing step and for producing output in the form of said empirical atmospheric map;
- 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 but seeks a declaration of non-infringement for "any claim of the '277 Patent" (Compl. ¶82).
U.S. Patent No. 6,854,287 - “Cooling System”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,854,287, “Cooling System,” issued February 15, 2005 (the “’287 Patent”). (Compl. ¶50).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency of conventional data center air conditioning units that operate continuously near maximum power, failing to adjust their output based on the distributed and fluctuating heat loads of computer systems (’287 Patent, col. 2:10-29).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a cooling system comprising multiple heat exchanger units (HEUs) positioned to cool air for computer racks. The system senses temperatures at various locations and, in response, controls both the temperature of the cooling fluid delivered to the HEUs and the rate of air delivery from them. A key feature is the ability to "individually manipulat[e] a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid supplied to each of the plurality of heat exchanger units," which allows for granular, rack-specific cooling adjustments (’287 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:35-50).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides for zoned or even rack-level thermal management, allowing cooling resources to be dynamically allocated based on the real-time, localized heat dissipation of computer equipment, thereby optimizing energy consumption (’287 Patent, col. 5:1-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1, 10, 14, 16, and 20 (Compl. ¶¶88-92). Claim 1, a method claim, includes the following essential elements:
- providing a plurality of heat exchanger units configured to receive air from said room and to deliver air to said room;
- supplying said plurality of heat exchanger units with cooling fluid from an air conditioning unit;
- cooling said received air through heat exchange with the cooling fluid in the plurality of heat exchanger units;
- sensing temperatures at one or more locations in said room;
- controlling at least one of the temperature of said cooling fluid and said air delivery by said plurality of heat exchanger units to said room in response to said sensed temperatures; and
- wherein the step of controlling said air delivery comprises individually manipulating a mass flow rate of the cooling fluid supplied to each of the plurality of heat exchanger units.
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for "any claim of the '287 Patent" (Compl. ¶94).
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 (the “’179 Patent”). (Compl. ¶54).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a data center cooling system that uses a "controllable partition" located within a plenum to manage airflow (’179 Patent, Abstract). By manipulating this partition in response to sensed temperatures near computer racks, the system can vary the supply of cooling fluid to different zones within the data center, directing cooling resources to areas with higher thermal loads (Compl. ¶¶55, 100).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 16, and 27 as subjects of the controversy (Compl. ¶¶100-102).
- Accused Features: Plaintiff's Liebert cooling units and Liebert iCOM control systems are accused of infringing the ’179 Patent (Compl. ¶97).
U.S. Patent No. 7,031,870 - “Data Center Evaluation Using Air Re-Circulation Index”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,031,870, “Data Center Evaluation Using Air Re-Circulation Index,” issued April 18, 2006 (the “’870 Patent”). (Compl. ¶58).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method and system for evaluating the thermal performance of data center components by calculating an "index of air re-circulation" (’870 Patent, Abstract). This index is derived from inlet, outlet, and supplied air temperatures, and by observing how the index changes in response to varied airflow settings, the system can assess the effectiveness of the cooling configuration (Compl. ¶¶59, 110).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 13, 22, 32, and 37 as subjects of the controversy (Compl. ¶¶110-114).
- Accused Features: Plaintiff's Liebert cooling units and Liebert iCOM control systems are accused of infringing the ’870 Patent (Compl. ¶107).
U.S. Patent No. 7,339,490 - “Modular Sensor Assembly”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,339,490, “Modular Sensor Assembly,” issued March 4, 2008 (the “’490 Patent”). (Compl. ¶61).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of deploying numerous sensors in a data center by teaching a "modular sensor assembly" comprising an "elongate flexible body" with multiple "addressable sensors" interconnected by a "common connector wire" (’490 Patent, Abstract). This design simplifies the installation of a distributed sensor network on a computer rack for monitoring environmental conditions (Compl. ¶¶62, 122).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 11, and 28 as subjects of the controversy (Compl. ¶¶122-124).
- Accused Features: Plaintiff's Liebert cooling units and Liebert modular sensors are accused of infringing the ’490 Patent (Compl. ¶119).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Plaintiff’s Liebert brand data center cooling products, specifically including its cooling units, its iCOM and iCOM-S Intelligent Communication and Monitoring systems, and its modular sensors (Compl. ¶¶19, 75, 85, 97, 107, 119).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies these products as providing "critical infrastructure and services for data centers" (Compl. ¶5). The iCOM and iCOM-S systems are alleged to be control systems for the Liebert cooling units (Compl. ¶19). Defendant's infringement assertions against Plaintiff's customers are reportedly based on technical information from product brochures, user manuals, and websites for these products (Compl. ¶18). Defendant has initiated litigation against multiple major data center operators for their use of these products, suggesting the products have significant market adoption (Compl. ¶17).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The analysis below summarizes Plaintiff's stated bases for non-infringement for the lead patents.
’277 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| generating an empirical atmospheric map from the results of said sensing step using software for processing input from said sensing step and for producing output in the form of said empirical atmospheric map | The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's Liebert cooling units and iCOM control systems do not perform this step. The central dispute will involve whether the data processing performed by the accused systems constitutes the generation of an "empirical atmospheric map" as claimed (Compl. ¶78). | ¶78 | col. 6:43-48 |
| comparing said empirical atmospheric map to a template atmospheric map | Plaintiff alleges its products do not compare an empirical map to a template map. The dispute may turn on whether any comparison of sensor data to a setpoint or target range meets this limitation (Compl. ¶78). | ¶78 | col. 6:49-51 |
| identifying pattern differentials between said empirical and template atmospheric maps | Plaintiff alleges its products do not identify pattern differentials between maps as required by the claim (Compl. ¶78). | ¶78 | col. 6:52-55 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A principal question will be whether the data processing performed by the accused iCOM systems—which presumably use sensor inputs to adjust cooling—falls within the scope of the claim terms "generating an empirical atmospheric map," "comparing" it to a "template," and "identifying pattern differentials." Plaintiff's position suggests these terms require a specific software modeling function that its products lack (Compl. ¶78).
- Technical Questions: What specific data processing and control logic do the accused systems employ? The case may require a detailed technical comparison between the accused system's real-world operation and the more specific methods of map generation and comparison described in the ’277 Patent's specification, such as the use of "thermal mapping software" and "triangulation" to locate hot spots (’277 Patent, col. 5:40-59).
’287 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged 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 | Plaintiff alleges its products do not perform this step. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused iCOM control systems provide the specific, granular, and independent control over the cooling fluid flow to each individual heat exchanger unit as required by the claim (Compl. ¶88). | ¶88 | col. 13:30-35 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The analysis will likely focus on the construction of "individually manipulating a mass flow rate." Does this require a one-to-one control architecture where the system can independently set the fluid flow for every single heat exchanger unit, or could it cover systems that control units in small, independent groups?
- Technical Questions: How do the accused Liebert cooling units and iCOM systems actually control the flow of cooling fluid? A key factual question will be whether the system architecture includes the necessary components (e.g., individual pumps or valves) and control logic to achieve the "individual" manipulation required, or if it uses a fundamentally different, non-infringing control scheme (Compl. ¶88).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "empirical atmospheric map" (from ’277 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is central to the patented method of the ’277 Patent. Plaintiff’s non-infringement defense is founded on the assertion that its products do not "generat[e]" such a map (Compl. ¶78). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether any system using distributed sensor data to inform control decisions infringes, or only those creating a specific type of data model.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a map can be "composed of temperature contours that define various isothermal regions," which could be argued to encompass any set of data that correlates temperature readings with physical locations (’277 Patent, col. 5:44-46).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes using "thermal mapping software" that processes "thousands of input data points" and can "triangulate the location of the actual hot spot from the known locations of the temperature sensors" (’277 Patent, col. 5:40-53). This language may support a narrower construction requiring a specific computational or graphical modeling function beyond simple feedback control.
The Term: "individually manipulating a mass flow rate" (from ’287 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This phrase defines the required level of control granularity. Plaintiff's non-infringement argument for the ’287 Patent hinges on its products allegedly not performing this specific function (Compl. ¶88). The case may turn on whether the accused system's control is sufficiently "individual" to fall within the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes positioning and operating heat exchanger units to supply cooling based on the specific demands of computer systems, stating that "the amount of energy required to operate the HEU's ... may be substantially optimized according to the demands of the computer systems" (’287 Patent, col. 5:9-14). This could support an interpretation where any control scheme that differentiates cooling between units meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An embodiment in the patent describes a system where "valves 40 generally enable control of cooling fluid flow through respective fluid lines 28," suggesting a hardware architecture with distinct control points for each unit (’287 Patent, col. 7:44-47; Fig. 3). This may support a narrower construction requiring a one-to-one hardware control mechanism for each heat exchanger.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint states that Defendant's assertions against its customers "implicitly contain allegations of direct and indirect infringement" against Plaintiff (Compl. ¶65). Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed under any theory, including contributory infringement or inducement (Compl. ¶128).
Willful Infringement
- As a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer, the complaint does not contain an allegation of willfulness. However, it establishes a factual predicate for potential future willfulness contentions by Defendant, noting that Defendant has filed multiple lawsuits and sent at least ten notice letters to Plaintiff's customers, thereby establishing knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶¶17, 21).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms from the ’277 Patent like "empirical atmospheric map" and "template atmospheric map," which are described in the specification with reference to specific software modeling techniques, be construed broadly enough to read on the real-time, sensor-driven control logic of Plaintiff's modern data center management systems?
- A key technical question will be one of functional operation: does Plaintiff's control system for its Liebert cooling units perform the "individually manipulating a mass flow rate" for each heat exchanger as required by the ’287 Patent, or does it employ a different control architecture (e.g., regional, grouped, or system-level) that creates a fundamental mismatch with the claim language?
- Across all asserted patents, the central conflict will likely involve comparing the specific methods and structures disclosed in patents from the early-to-mid 2000s with the functionality of current-generation data center infrastructure. The court will need to determine whether Plaintiff's products represent a distinct, non-infringing technological evolution or are merely a more advanced embodiment of the patented inventions.