VPN Technology Holdings LLC v. Red Hat Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:

  • Plaintiff: VPN Technology Holdings, LLC (Virginia)
  • Defendant: Red Hat, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Sinergia Technology Law Group, PLLC

• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-85, E.D. Tex., 01/29/2025

• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established physical business location within the district, specifically an office in Plano, Texas.

• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 product infringes a patent related to automatically generating an executable file to configure a remote computer for a Virtual Private Network (VPN) connection.

• Technical Context: The technology addresses the automation of VPN client setup, a common and often technically complex task for providing secure remote access to corporate networks.

• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was examined and allowed by the USPTO after consideration of multiple prior art references, and asserts the patent's nominal expiration date is no earlier than February 22, 2025.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-05-14	’718 Patent Priority Date
2010-11-30	’718 Patent Issue Date
2025-01-29	Complaint Filing Date
2025-02-22	’718 Patent Nominal Expiration Date (Alleged)

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,844,718 - "System and Method for Automatically Configuring Remote Computer" (Issued Nov. 30, 2010)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the process of manually configuring a remote computer for VPN access as inconvenient, time-consuming, and prone to error (Compl. ¶¶18-19; ’718 Patent, col. 2:9-24). Administrators might need to physically visit the remote computer or guide a non-technical user through complex steps, which could lead to incorrect data entry and require further intervention (’718 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system featuring a "configuration program generator" that collects necessary network and user information and uses it to create a standalone "executable file" (’718 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:10-15). When this executable file is run on the remote computer, it automatically updates the computer's settings, such as the Remote Access Service (RAS) phonebook or registry entries, to establish the VPN connection without further manual configuration by the user (’718 Patent, col. 3:36-45).
• Technical Importance: This automated approach was designed to simplify the deployment of VPN access, reducing the burden on network administrators and the potential for configuration errors by end-users (’718 Patent, col. 2:41-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶33). Independent Claim 13 is also noted as present in the patent (Compl. ¶14).
• The essential elements of asserted independent Claim 1 include:
  • Initiating, at a network administrator computer, an installer program with an empty binary file.
  • Accessing a network database to extract configuration data.
  • Applying binary settings to code a Remote Access Service (RAS) Application Programming Interface (API) to generate a configuration data binary file.
  • Embedding the configuration data binary file as instructions in the RAS API.
  • Replacing the empty binary file with the configuration data binary file to generate the executable file.
  • Deploying the executable file to the remote computer.
  • Executing the executable file on the remote computer to modify its configuration settings to establish a VPN connection.
  • Coding and transmitting WAN and LAN login credentials in a manner unknown to the user.
  • Automatically deleting the executable file after the VPN connection terminates.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims, including at least Claim 1" (Compl. ¶33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9" product (Compl. ¶28).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the product "supports remote access VPN functionality using protocols such as IPSec and IPE that allows remote users to access local network computers through internet" (Compl. ¶28, p. 8). The complaint includes a screenshot from Red Hat's website that lists its office locations, including one in Plano, Texas, to support its venue allegations. This screenshot, titled Figure 1 in the complaint, shows a list of Red Hat's North American office locations with the Plano, Texas office highlighted (Compl. p. 3).
• The complaint does not provide specific details on the product's market position or commercial importance beyond general statements that Defendant "sells, advertises, offers for sale, uses, or otherwise provides" it (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that a claim chart comparing Claim 1 of the ’718 Patent to the Accused Instrumentalities is attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶38). This exhibit was not provided with the complaint document. In its absence, the infringement theory is summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The plaintiff's infringement theory is that the Defendant's "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9" product practices the technology claimed in the ’718 Patent (Compl. ¶38). The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes by manufacturing, using, selling, and providing the accused product, as well as by having its employees internally test and use the product (Compl. ¶¶33-34). It further alleges acts of inducement by distributing product literature and website materials that instruct end-users on how to use the product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶36). The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory and do not specify which features of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 are alleged to perform the particular steps of Claim 1.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 product, an operating system, performs the specific method steps of Claim 1. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the product utilizes an "installer program having an empty binary file" to "generate an executable file" that is then "deployed" to a remote computer? The complaint does not provide factual allegations to support these specific claim requirements.
• Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the accused product's native VPN configuration tools fall within the scope of the claimed method. For instance, does the configuration of a VPN connection within the Red Hat operating system constitute the generation and execution of a standalone "executable file" as described in the patent, or does it operate through a different mechanism that may fall outside the claim's scope?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the technology and claim language, the following terms may be central to the case.

The Term: "executable file"

Context and Importance

The generation and deployment of an "executable file" is the core output of the claimed method. The definition of this term will be critical to determining infringement, as the parties may dispute whether the accused product's configuration mechanism (e.g., a settings profile, a script, or an integrated OS function) constitutes an "executable file" as contemplated by the patent.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent suggests the term could cover more than a traditional compiled program, stating it is possible "to use scripting to cause the remote computer to execute certain procedures" (’718 Patent, col. 6:43-45).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and summary describe a process of "generating an executable file to be run [on] the remote computer" that "automatically updates the remote computer's configuration settings" (’718 Patent, Abstract). This language may support a narrower construction limited to a self-contained program that a user actively runs to perform an automated configuration task.

The Term: "installer program having an empty binary file"

Context and Importance

This term describes the initial tool used by the network administrator in the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because its specific structure—an "installer program" that contains an "empty binary file" which is later populated—is a precise limitation that may not be present in the accused product.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define "installer program" broadly, but one could argue it refers to any software tool capable of initiating the generation of a configuration package.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example where the "Microsoft installer program is used as the executable file" and that this "installer is the first program built" with "the configuration data is initially empty" (’718 Patent, col. 9:25-34). This could be used to argue the term is limited to this type of installer module.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end-users to use the accused product in a manner that infringes at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶36). It also alleges inducement by selling the accused product to customers for infringing uses (Compl. ¶37).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶31, ¶37), which provides a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: Can the plaintiff produce evidence to demonstrate that the accused Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 product performs the specific, sequential method steps of Claim 1? The complaint's conclusory allegations will require substantial factual support to show, for example, that the product generates and deploys a discrete "executable file" from an "installer program," as opposed to using integrated operating system functions for VPN setup.
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim term "executable file", which the patent describes as a generated program that is deployed and run to automate configuration, be construed to cover the native VPN configuration utilities within the Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system? The outcome of the case may hinge on whether the accused product's functionality matches the patent's specific architectural requirements or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.