Storage Vectors LLC v. Transcend Information Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Storage Vectors LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Transcend Information, Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00272, E.D. Tex., 03/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's data storage products infringe a patent related to using different physical storage methods for error-tolerant data versus general-purpose data to optimize storage density.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the efficient use of storage media, such as hard disk drives and flash memory, by recognizing that streaming media can tolerate higher error rates than system data, allowing it to be stored more densely.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a series of prior applications, with the earliest priority date stemming from a 2007 provisional application. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or licensing history.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,095,426 - "Error tolerant or streaming storage device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,095,426, "Error tolerant or streaming storage device", issued October 9, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional data storage devices, like hard drives and flash memory, are "over designed" for storing audio/visual (AV) data streams (Compl. ¶9; ’426 Patent, col. 2:7-10). Such devices use a single, high-integrity storage method to achieve a very low bit-error-rate (BER) suitable for general purpose (GP) data (e.g., system files), but this level of integrity is unnecessary for error-tolerant AV data, resulting in inefficient use of the storage medium's capacity (’426 Patent, col. 1:46-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for storing data where the storage device differentiates between "general purpose data" and "streaming data" (also called Error Tolerant or Streaming, "ETS" data) (’426 Patent, col. 3:20-38). It stores GP data using a first, high-integrity physical storage format, and stores the more error-tolerant streaming data using a second, different physical storage format that allows for greater storage density at the cost of a higher error rate (’426 Patent, Claim 1). The patent’s Figure 1 illustrates this concept, showing separate formatting paths for GP data (targeting a 10⁻¹⁵ BER) and ETS data (targeting a 10⁻⁹ BER) on the same device (’426 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This dual-format approach allows a storage device to increase its effective storage capacity for media-heavy applications, such as in consumer electronics, by tailoring the storage parameters to the specific error-tolerance requirements of the data being stored (’426 Patent, col. 4:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’426 Patent without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • providing a storage medium as part of the storage system;
  • storing general purpose data on the storage medium using a first physical storage format attribute; and
  • storing streaming data on the storage medium using a second physical storage format attribute different than said first physical storage format attribute;
  • said first and second physical storage attributes being associated with differing storage qualities selected from the group consisting of: resilience to errors, data integrity, storage density, and storage capacity.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify specific accused products by name. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within Exhibit 2, which was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused products. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the ’426 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). It does not contain substantive factual allegations within the body of the complaint that map accused product features to claim elements. The narrative infringement theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "physical storage format attribute"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis, as the claims require storing two types of data using different physical storage format attributes. The case will likely depend on what technical differences in data storage qualify as a different "attribute." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the scope of infringing activity.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a list of potential attributes, including "block size, storage of error correction codes, utilization of error correction codes, storage area density, physical format pattern, storage verification, and reaction to failed storage verification" (’426 Patent, col. 2:40-44). For hard disk drives, this includes "spacing between tracks," "overlap between tracks," "spiral track formatting," and "concentric track formatting" (’426 Patent, col. 2:44-47). This extensive list may support a broad construction covering a wide range of physical differences.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be limited by the specific, detailed embodiments described, such as the explicit contrast between concentric circle formatting for GP data and continuous spiral formatting for AV data (’426 Patent, col. 4:46-54), or specific changes to "bits per inch" and "tracks per inch" (’426 Patent, col. 4:31-33).

• The Term: "streaming data"

• Context and Importance: Plaintiff must prove that the accused devices store what the patent defines as "streaming data" using the second, denser format. The definition of this term will be critical to establishing whether the accused devices handle the specific type of data contemplated by the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent frequently equates "streaming data" with "error tolerant" (ETS) data and provides "streaming Audio/Visual (AV) data" as a primary example (’426 Patent, col. 1:36-39). This could support a construction that covers any data stream that is inherently tolerant to some errors, such as compressed video.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides a more specific context, noting that ETS data can be delineated through the "'AV Stream' channel of the ATA/ATAPI-7 protocol" (’426 Patent, col. 3:33-36). A party could argue that "streaming data" is limited to data handled through such a specific, recognized command set, rather than any file that happens to contain video.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's continued infringement after gaining "actual knowledge" of the ’426 patent upon service of the complaint (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). The allegations are based entirely on post-suit conduct.

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations, the case will depend on what technical evidence Plaintiff can produce through discovery or reverse engineering to demonstrate that Defendant's products actually employ two distinct "physical storage format attributes" for different data types, as required by the claims.

• The case will also turn on a question of claim construction: how will the court define "physical storage format attribute"? The dispute will likely focus on whether the term covers any detectable difference in how data is physically stored, or if it requires one of the specific, deliberately implemented formatting schemes detailed in the patent’s embodiments, such as spiral versus concentric tracks on a hard disk.

• A third question concerns the scope of "streaming data": does the term apply broadly to any error-tolerant media file, or is it limited to data identified and handled via a specific protocol or command set, such as the ATA/ATAPI-7 "AV Stream" channel mentioned in the specification? The answer will determine which of the defendant's product operations are relevant to the infringement analysis.